Talk:Product Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U2 Portal
Product Red is part of the U2 WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of U2 and U2-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
U2 WikiProject and notice board • U2 Portal

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Timeline & Images

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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
These are correct
  • (RED)
  • (PRODUCT) RED
  • (PRODUCT) RED

Knowsitallnot 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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 • talk 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
okay. gotchya. Knowsitallnot 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

 This article or section reads like a review and may need a cleanup.
Please help improve this article to make it neutral in tone and meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by unattributed statements.
You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel worded statements.
This section does not cite any references or sources. (January 2007)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clawson (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --neonwhite user page talk 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)