Talk:Product Red/Archives/2013

History and development of the (RED) brand
Is it worth discussing the development of the brand and the backstory significance of the name (RED)? The first section jumps right into "The Global Fund," entirely skipping coverage of the initial development of this project. As stated in the Wolff Olins case study, the brand was built "with a unique architecture that unites participating businesses by literally embracing their logos to the power (RED)." [explanation as to why its written Product ^ (RED)] Thought that might be an interesting and valuable addition. http://www.wolffolins.com/work/red Sbl19 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Campaign
Can we discuss the media campaign as well? I'm trying to track down the commercial/PSA that plays on MTV Hits.

What about the comments of Richey and Ponte? It is an academic review on the workings of RED, critical but very inspiring. Besides their book 'Brand Aid' there is also the paper http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/320_06%20richey.pdf. 80.202.132.34 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Their critique can be summarized in three points:


 * 1) the impact of aid celebrities on policymaking,
 * 2) the legitimacy of consumers as citizens, and
 * 3) the construction of Africans with AIDS as worthy recipients of profits generated from heroic shopping.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.132.34 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Price Differences
Why does the PRODUCT (RED) version of a DELL laptop (that includes a $50 donation to AIDS charities) cost $150 more than an identical, non-RED laptop? Where does the remaining $100 go? Jewpiterjones (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard Dell XPS laptops come with Vista Home Premium as standard, whereas the Product Red versions come with Vista Ultimate. Vista Ultimate is a $150 upgrade, so actually, the Red and non-Red versions end up the same price. 87.194.30.174 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Although is it worth mentioning that some of these products aren't even new, they already existed and were already coloured red before Product Red even began. I've has a Red XPS for ages, and it's identical to the Product Red one except for the default desktop wallpaper. 87.194.30.174 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline & Images
I added a couple dates. But think it can be edited to look a lot nicer.

info was also taken from: http://www.joinred.com/products.asp Knowsitallnot 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a timeline using information from here in my sandbox. I'm definitely new at this, but i think one can get the gyst of it.. if anybody would like to help, (perhaps the categorizing is a little off..., dates need to be added, code not good) i'd be welcome to any positive changes. Knowsitallnot 03:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that ed g2s has removed the images from the timeline... i can understand that as some of them are not allowed. But, I think it would be more thorough if they were included, so I have left the column in my sandbox, but i'll be looking for legal images, and encourage anyone to help and contribute them perhaps [User:Knowsitallnot/Sandbox_II|here]] and when we have enough they can be posted to the article page. Knowsitallnot 06:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you add an image, can you pls make sure its fair use or allowed by Wikipedia's guidelines & Image use policy (see also Fair image resources and fair use). Again, I hope to gather all the images in the timeline... so if any one has any they'd like to contribute pls hit me up with a little msg heretalk. Thanks! Knowsitallnot 07:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Was the iPod first?
Was the iPod the first Product Red product, or were there other things before it? (There are everything from Product Red wrist bands to Product Red pencils now.)

A: No, the iPod was not first. See the timeline section for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtastic (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: (Brackets)? or no brackets? Caps on/off?
According to the websites and media releases: (PRODUCT) RED or (RED) is always in CAPITAL LETTERS.
 * Also, if you are using the word "red" alone, to signify the brand, it should be writted: (RED)
 * If you are saying "Product Red", it should be written: (PRODUCT) RED or (PRODUCT) RED.

When talking about the brand - according to the what official releases i have seen & read - these are incorrect:
 * Product Red
 * PRODUCT (RED)
 * RED
 * Product RED

Knowsitallnot 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These are correct:
 * (RED)
 * (PRODUCT) RED
 * (PRODUCT) RED


 * This is all well and good, but we use our own style guide which with regards to trademarks states:
 * "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment".
 * ed g2s &bull; talk 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * okay. gotchya. Knowsitallnot 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style in timeline
Actually, as a clarification on style, for the Product Name heading in the timeline... can that be kept to the original style or name format that the products are called i.e. Gap (RED) or American Express RED ... just for Product Name and then, regular formatting thereafter? i.e. Gap Red, American Express Red... just so the actual product intended name is known? is this in keeping with the Manual of Style? Knowsitallnot 05:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd personally prefer that any oddly styled product names be presented here as directed by WP:MOS-TM, and the style issues can be mentioned in those products' respective articles (much as has been done with Product Red in the intro here).--chris.lawson 11:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did it come from?
UK, USA? Idunno who started it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.241.200 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Hmmm Specifically, I'd say Ireland, with Bono and his mates... but Product Red wants to be a worldwide affiar. I think thats covered now... But will check.. should be added in perhaps. Also, pls sign your name with ~ Knowsitallnot 23:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This info can be read on the website: http://www.joinred.com/red/factsheet.asp
 * PRODUCT (RED) launced in March 2006 in the UK, and on October 13th in the US. Inspiredstuff 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The brand was actually built by Wolff Olins, a key partner in this initiative. According to Bobby Schriver, "Wolff Olins took (RED) from an idea on a napkin to a tangible visceral vision that was game changing for our partners." Don't you think the agency, who worked pro-bono, deserves some recognition for the work? They were the active developers of the brand's idea, architecture, and visual identity. Sbl19 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Improper page move
Why the F was this page just moved here? The Manual of Style is very clear on this point, and the page should not have been moved.--chris.lawson 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * totally agree... i made that mistake before in editing the article... should keep in mind previous discussion in Talk:Product Red! So how do we get the page moved back? Knowsitallnot 05:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
There has been criticism of Product Red (including it being patronising and degrading) I think this should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.67.254 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 November 2006

There is a good video of Stephen Lewis and Avi Lewis (son of Stephen Lewis and the husband of Naomi Klein) criticizing the Product Red campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfrTpiXdMTA


 * You're quite welcome to add citations of reliable sources for this criticism.--chris.lawson 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The video has been removed from you tube.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.28.118 (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody mentioned the irony of companies well known for human rights abuses (gap,nike) making one product ethical to improve their brand image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.4.8 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 November 2006


 * Well, most stores or celebrities do that with charities. it's more of an image thing sometimes. I also feel it should be noted. 172.216.252.226 17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There should without a doubt be a criticism section. See unsigned 2 comments. If I can, I'll create a new one and find more reliable sources - as chris suggested.--Danielfolsom 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can offer a couple of reliable sources for criticism (I don't want to edit myself as I've written a fairly strident critique myself and so am probably not a good source of NPOV on this topic):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/17/opinion/main2098633.shtml

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20061023.html

SeanLegassick 11:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a citicism section. Some of the points made appear to be; 1. The reputation of some of the companies involved has suggested to some they are simply after some good PR. 2. The actual money going to a good cause appears to be undisclosed and rumour has it that it is in fact a tiny percentage or a voluntary donation with no actual obligation to give anything at all. This suggests that the corporations involved are making big profits under the guise of charity or a good cause and is therefore misleading people and possibly diverting money from actually charities (This would obviously require citations) 3. There is little information about where the money actually with the suggestion that it is actually used to buy drugs form major pharmacutical corporations.

It might be worth mentioning the reinspired alternative (http://reinspired.blogspot.com/) which was founded as an alternative and criticises product red thus 'Product (Red) implies that corporations, branding and consumption are a necessary part of involvement in a cause.' --Neon white 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone should mention that Gap, Apple, and Motorola have spent a total of 100 million dollars to promote product red, and so far product red has raised about 18 million dollars. They would have been better off just donating that 100 million to an aids charity. Read it in Time magazine.


 * As can be read on the FAQ page (http://www.joinred.com/red/factsheet.asp) of PRODUCT (RED), US$36 million has been contributed to the Global Fund so far. Examples of where/how the money is being used on the same FAQ page: Swaziland and Rwanda, antiretroviral treatment for HIV positive individuals, HIV prevention programs, feeding and education of children orphaned by AIDS, and low-cost treatment to reduce risk of transmission of HIV from mother to child. The following page has a good review of the criticism: http://www.beyondphilanthropy.org/nc/red_gets_a_beating/. It deals with the criticism that too much has been invested in marketing with not enough money being raised. As stated from the early beginning when it was launched, PRODUCT (RED) is not charity, it is a business model, and like any business it needs to make large upfront investments. Not enough time has passed to determine the result. Inspiredstuff 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some more flesh the the main body of the article that should include both sides of the argument. The criticism section is massive on its own and I think it would flow better in a main body as opposed to down at the bottom. Also, the "Critiques" section of links at the bottom should be written into the the notes and into the body of the article to help keep a NPOV. Drivec (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

iTunes gift cards
their are now iTunes gift cards for (RED). I would add it but I am pretty bad at writing.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=5CC18469&nclm=iTMSPhysicalCards (Scroll Down a bit) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.186.236.96 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Reference request - weasel words
I always find it to be a good practice to use inline citations in "criticism" sections. I didn't see any applicable references for this section.

Additionally we are using 'critics say' - a blatent use of weasel words.

Chupper 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section removal
The criticism section currently has no references and is filled with weasel words. In my opinion it is also not prominent enough to be mentioned. It sounds more like a 'bash section' and a 'soapbox' than an encyclopedia section. Because I know I'm not always right, I'm moving it here if anyone should disagree. See also User:Chupper/Unwarranted criticism sections

Criticism of Product Red includes the commercialisation of charity, the amount of money that is actually donated (only 5% of the price of a Product Red-branded iPod Nano) and the fact that is regarded degrading donating a small amount of money to people in need while spending a much bigger amount on the luxury goods themselves. Additionally, some of the products are produced by companies which are known to violate worker's and human rights in third world countries like Nike, manufacturer of Converse-branded sneakers. Critics see this as a cynical proof that the interest of at least some of the participants is improving their brand image instead of helping in the fight against AIDS in Africa.

Furthermore, Product Red itself is a for-profit corporation, owned principally by Bono and Shriver that makes a profit on the Product (Red) branding that is not donated to charitable causes. Because of their status as a private for-profit corporation they are not required to disclose their financial information, thus Bono and Shriver have an ability to make personal profit from what many see as an act of charity.

Chupper 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

of course it needs rewording, alot of the criticisms are opinion based, though some is fact, like the undisclosed finances. --Neon white 17:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Chupper 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some sources and less opinion based information. --Heran_Bago

Citations and product description
One of my problems with this page is that not all of the external links at the bottom of the page can be immediately accessed. The expensive campain nets meager...link leads to AdvertisingAge's webpage, and I'm not signing up just to get a chance to read the article. My second critisism is that the time line reads like a retail flyer. the item description area of the chart is to expansive. It's actaully hawking the items with vainglourious descriptions of the items. and lastly, can i spell check this sucker in the edit page?137.229.182.93 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section removed again
An anon recently edited the quote in the Criticism section. Since quotes are sacred, I figured I'd take a look at the ref to see if that was a helpful edit or not, but it turns out the YouTube video used as the sole source of the whole section is private.

I've placed the section here for the time being; if someone can cite reliable public sources for it, it's welcome in the article.


 * According to Stephen Lewis, the Red campaign allows big corporations to create a product line, brand it Red and out of the money generated exclusively from the sale of that product line donate money to the Global Fund. In other words, the Red campaign benefits the corporations more than the cause it is supposed to serve. The campaign allows the participating corporations to associate with an issue that makes them look good in the public eye. In addition, it inflates the public image of the participation corporations which may or may not be socially responsible in the first place. In the words of Avi Lewis, "People really feel that they have done something about the AIDS pandemic by buying a damn iPod." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clawson (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Productred.gif
Image:Productred.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue with using colored formatted text in the forst line of the article
It seems to me that the use of the brand formatted text in the first line doesnt jive with the encyclopedia as a whole, I think it should be removed SeamusHC (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How did this blatant advertising end up on Wikipedia?
topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.146.100 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so your point is...?  [Jam] [talk] 18:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that the entry is a fluff piece, and it falls far short of Wikipedia's standards. My opinion is that it should be wiped out and started over, but even if that's not done a major overhaul is neccesary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.146.100 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No it isn't, it's perfectly verified and balanced. There is nothing in the article that violates any policy, the only thing that might be better is the formatting of the timeline but the content is fine. In fact with a little expansion it might be a candidate for GA status. -- neon white user page talk 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Update
Hi - I'm from (RED). There are several notes and discussions surrounding the (RED) page and I'm here to help clean-up the entry, propose citations and provide up-to-date and accurate information so that the entry meets Wikipedia standards. I am not looking to make changes directly to the page, rather to give suggestions for editors to consider. The following intro information about (RED) is out of date. //CP112 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I propose the following re-write from 'It is an initiative begun by U2 frontman Bono and Bobby Shriver of DATA to raise money for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria' to 'It was founded in 2006 by U2 frontman and activist Bono and Bobby Shriver of DATA/ONE to engage the private sector in raising awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS in Africa. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is the recipient of (RED) monies.' (source: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/agency/e3i3088c639a8acf60c03f3ed9695f3c96a )
 * Motorola and Microsoft are no longer (RED) partners
 * New partners are Nike (global) and Peguin Classics (in UK & International) are now partners.
 * American Express is just a UK partnership
 * Hallmark is just a US partnership
 * We propose adding the date of when (RED) launched which is 2006 *DATA merged with the organisation ONE, and we propose referencing it as DATA/ONE
 * (RED) appointed Susan Smith Ellis as CEO in June 2007 (source: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6686832/Susan-Smith-Ellis-Appointed-as.html). Bobby Shriver is no longer CEO.

As the Global Fund is the only recipient of (RED) monies I propose adding in the following section about the organization after the introduction:


 * Your requests are noted, but I also note they're dependent on PR, so I await agreement to make changes; also, your request does not appear to be just "Change THIS to THAT", so I cannot process it as a simple request to edit the page. I'll cancel out the "Request edit" for now, and see how the consensus/discussion forms below.  Chzz  ► 02:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Global Fund
Created in 2002, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria supports large-scale prevention, treatment and care programs for these three infectious diseases. (source: http://www.avert.org/global-fund.htm) Today, a quarter of all international funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs, over half for tuberculosis, and almost three-quarters for malaria worldwide comes from The Global Fund. The concept of "performance-based funding" is central to the organization and only those grant recipients who can demonstrate measurable and effective results from the monies received will be able to receive additional financing. (source: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/livingproofproject/Pages/globalfund.aspx) 100% of the funds generated by (RED) partners and events goes to Global Fund programs that provide medical care and support services for people affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa. No overhead is taken by either (RED) or the Global Fund. (RED) is the largest private sector donor to the Global Fund, and has generated over $150 million for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa. (http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/pressreleases/?pr=pr_100601)

Article Update
Hi - I'm from (RED). I'm here to help provide up-to-date and accurate information so that the entry meets Wikipedia standards. I am not looking to make changes directly to the page, rather to give suggestions for editors to consider.I propose adding the following section underneath the Global Fund section to discuss one of (RED)'s largest initiatives. //CP112 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lazarus Effect
The Lazarus Effect documentary debuted on May 24, 2010 on HBO, YouTube and Britain's Channel 4. It is directed by Lance Bangs, executive produced by Spike Jonze and presented by (RED), HBO, and Anonymous Content. The documentary follows HIV-positive people in Zambia and shows the transformation possible with access to lifesaving pills that cost around 40 cents a day. The film is also available via a free iPad app called "(RED): The Lazarus Effect," which contains the full length documentary, additional information about how antiretroviral drugs work and photos of the transformative effect that ARVs can have. In May 2010, (RED) launched a complimentary PSA campaign to promote the film.

The Lazarus Effect public service campaign features celebrities including Bono, Don Cheadle, Hugh Jackman, Penelope Cruz, Iman, Gwen Stefani, Gabourey Sidibe, and Common. Celebrity participation and the media placement for The Lazarus Effect campaign, was secured pro-bono.

The following section is proposed to show the tangible impact that (RED) funds have had in Africa. It neutrally states the number of recipients in each country:

(RED) Impact
(RED) was designed to provide a scalable and sustainable flow of funds to the Global Fund. By 2011, it had generated $170 million to support Global Fund financed AIDS grants. These grants have reached more than 7.5 million people in Ghana, Lesotho, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland and Zambia.

Rwanda (RED) has provided antiretroviral therapy (ART) to more than 27,000 people living with HIV and reached over 34,000 HIV positive pregnant women with preventative ART to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission of the virus.

Lesotho (RED) has provided more than 45,000 people living with HIV with lifesaving ART and reached more than 16,000 HIV positive pregnant women with preventive ART to reduce mother-to-child transmission of the virus.

Article Update
(RED) would like to propose some modifications to the Guiding Principles section to keep them current. Please see proposed changes below. Would love any feedback to ensure conformity with wiki standards. Thanks Codydamon (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Guiding principles
Product Red states that its main principles are:
 * To expand opportunities for the people in the continent of Africa.
 * To respect its employees and ask its partners to do the same with their employees and the people who help make their products or deliver their services.
 * To see the power of a community mobilized for hope, health and progress.
 * To ask its partners to uphold the same principles.
 * To transform the collective power of consumers into a financial force to help fight AIDS in Africa.
 * To engage businesses to create a sustainable and scalable flow of private sector funding to the fight against AIDS in Africa.
 * To ensure 100% of (RED) money goes to AIDS programs through the Global Fund, with no overhead taken.
 * To promote awareness of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Article clean up
I've removed quite a few bits from the article for lacking secondary sources which are needed to show that information is relevant to be included. We need newspapers or books as references, not press releases from the charity itself. I've also removed poorly sourced criticism too. More work is needed on removing spammy content and making sure the criticism is fair. SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed Critique section
Can anyone tell me what the latest on the disputed Critique section at the end of the article is? I have not seen such a section before and I would like to understand what is required to remove the tag.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section
I would suggest the criticism section be added to the main body of the page. I understand the need to keep the information on the page. However, listing this as a separate section at the bottom of the page defeats the NPoV by drawing extra attention to it. The information would flow better if it was added to the end of the main body, before “The Global Fund” section. I also suggest to add the following: “ The theory behind (RED) was to embrace commercialism and consumption by leveraging brands to reach new audiences and build awareness of AIDS, TB and malaria epidemics in Africa.” I think this will provide a better idea of why the organization functions the way it does and balance out the criticism which is already provided to make it more neutral.

I am a new user and not affiliated with the organization. Melweave77 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

CEO Information
I’m new to the talk page and editing Wikipedia but I would like to make a few suggestions to include in the first section of the article. First, I suggest changing the sentence “Susan Smith Ellis was appointed to the position of CEO in June 2007” to include that she replaced Bobby Shriver, who is now a chairman for the company. I found a new reference, since the link to Goliath News does not work.

Second, I would like to suggest including that Susan Smith Ellis has over 20 years of experience as an executive in advertising and brand development and has a passion to fight HIV/AIDS around the world. She has also introduced new ideas such as (RED)Wire and (RED)Nights, both of which fight AIDS thru music. She was appointed to the Board of Director’s for Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria in September of 2010.

Third, it needs to be added that Deborah Dugan was appointed the new CEO of (Product) Red in September 2011 and is the current CEO of the company. Dugan has more than 16 years of “diverse and pioneering media experience.”

I think adding information about who the CEO is for (RED) is important because it helps us see who is running the company and it allows someone to do further research on them if they want to. Also this information would provide up-to-date facts about the company, which is very important on a Wikipedia page. Leweav01 (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)