Originally Posted by
Method Man
I just don't see what the issue is. It's obvious that the main source of funding is going to come directly from direct donations but I just can't see how generating more funding through these creative means is less helpful.
It is less helpful if these sorts of promotions wind up
competing with direct donations.
By buying these products, people can feel as though they've completed their "obligation," that they've made their donation, done their good deed, and helped Japan. If the only way to help was via direct donation, the process would be far more efficient. Instead, we have people using the opportunity to promote their brands, do a little CSR / image buffing, and sell merchandise. "Well, as long as I'm buying the Japan shirt, let's see what else is on the site." It's good for business.
People need to think critically about this sort of thing. I don't think it's right for companies to be able to use charity as this impenetrable shield that renders them invulnerable to criticism. Just because $8.50 of your (Product) Red iPod goes to "the global fund" doesn't exempt Apple from the practices of its suppliers in China.
Underage girls are literally getting sick while polishing the chrome backs of iPhones and are subjected to humiliating strip searches in plain view of their coworkers before they leave each day - but let's not question that, because a portion of the proceeds not exceeding what you likely paid in sales tax will go "to charity."
That's kind of irrelevant to your argument because ppl usually buy products like ipods regardless of how they're produced. In other words, ppl are going to buy an ipod regardless of whether or not underage girls are getting sick, so they might as well buy one that goes for a good cause. Honestly, I don't blame this kind of thinking either because its not a companies responsibility to protect the citizens of another country. If a country doesn't have strict laws against this sort of thing, than the blame falls solely on the government for exploiting its own ppl.
The rest of your argument makes sense, but your not taking into consideration people who don't plan to donate at all. Take me, for example, I don't plan on donating for personal reasons, but if I liked a product that would benefit disaster relief, than I wouldn't hesitate to buy it. I'm sure I'm not the only peson that has this type of mentality, so these companies are providings funds that would otherwise not have been donated.