So do I like (RED)(TM)?
Yes. It's a cool idea that benefits Global Fund to finance AIDS programs in Africa, while also benefitting select brands. And boy do I mean select--you won't see any subpar brands here with the exclusive group of American Express, Apple, Converse, Gap, Emporio Armani, Hallmark, Dell, Windows and Starbucks.
Is Starbucks greedy for giving only 5¢ from a select three beverages through Jan. 2?
No. They don't even have to partner with (RED). That's the beauty of capitalism. Starbucks is motivated to partner to sell more drinks, and the more drinks they sell the better this "Global Fund" will be financed. The outward facing intentions are to bring attention and money to AIDS, which is also great.
So Daniel Collier writes, "If you want to help Africa, sponsor a child, or send donations directly to united nations world food program or to Plan Canada, buying a $5 dollar mocha late and sending $0.05 is just a marketing campaign by starbucks. Also, that Ethos water that costs $2.50 a bottle, and sends $0.10 to ethiopia or where-ever, if they're going to charge an extra $1.50 premium they should give $1.50 to their charity. If you want to help a cause help it, don't buy over priced goods. That said, I love startbucks coffee, and buy it because it's delicious, not so I can get a warm & fuzzy, from 5 cents going to Africa."
And you know, Daniel makes a good point; however, the beauty of "brands that do good" is that there are no losers really. Consumers buy brands they love and a portion of the purchase goes to support a cause. I'm not certain that people are being deceived to make a Starbucks purchase because 5¢ will go towards AIDS, but rather by Starbucks supporting AIDS they are just further defining their brand that many view as an extension of themselves. By holding my cup I say, "I too support efforts to eliminate AIDS in Africa."
View press release.
No comments:
Post a Comment