2007-05-28 04:45:35 · 11 answers · asked by Porgie 7 in Travel ➔ Africa & Middle East ➔ South Africa
To Zelda: I'm talking about products made specifically for CAUSES such as AIDS. Like the RED campaign fueled by the shopping spree Bono and Oprah went on! They bought loads of clothing and other RED stuff I can't even remember, like I-Pods and T-Shirts. Get busy reading or get busy leaving our section!
2007-05-28 05:29:00 · update #1
To Zelda: I'm truly soory. Don't know what came over me. I was a little cranky last night and started being stupid. Anyways, I hope you can forgive me.
2007-05-28 12:32:05 · update #2
Edit: I meant "sorry".
2007-05-28 12:33:27 · update #3
I would go for the 'cause merchandise' because I like to believe that is what's happening with the profits. I do appreciate that not all charities are running honestly but if we all did not trust any cause, alot more people would die everyday.
2007-05-28 22:11:41 · answer #1 · answered by Commodore 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A couple years ago I would have answered your question straight with: I will support campaings against AIDS etc buy buying certain products.
Until I found out the following: Sometimes these products sold for a good purpose are getting produced in third world countries by young kids under terrible conditions. Since then I do not purchase these kind of products no more. It's just not right when one group benefits of the misery of others.
What I do now: I donate (mostly to the red crescent or collecting points in our country) and I like to buy products of third world countries which state that no child labour was involved.
Btw: I think Oprah did a very good job, no matter what plane she took. What counts is the result.
Take care
2007-05-28 08:31:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hi Porgie,
I know I'm going to sound extremely heartless now. I do not support AIDS charities. I feel there are a lot of hungry and poor people in SA. It makes one almost think that if you are poor in SA, try your best to get AIDS, at least you will then be fed and clothed. Shocked?
I love my brand names, but then again I love anything I feel comfortable in, so if it is "cause merchandise" and I feel it is fashionable and I'd wear it, I will buy it if it is for the less fortunate and not only for the AIDS "victims".
Sorry if I've disappointed anybody!
2007-05-28 22:45:30 · answer #3 · answered by poepies 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a problem faced by many countries. Here in England the church cries poverty, and yet they hold vast acreage of land, often selling it off to developers allow building, this makes them even richer. They try to tell us they are poor and expect the people in their congregations to give ever larger proportions of their earnings to the church, and if they don't are made to feel guilty. Most Churches can afford to give aid when people in their area are suffering and indeed should help... I am very sorry the people in Greece are suffering because of the fires, I hope they are give the aid they need to rebuild very soon. Cassandra
2016-05-19 22:34:13 · answer #4 · answered by arletha 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would go for "cause merchandise". My only worry is that these have also become so expensive. That makes onewoner if all these merchandise are really intended for the causes mentioned.
2007-05-28 19:42:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The phrase "cause merchandise" baffles me. Do you mean buy or support such merchandise?
Typically, at least in the US, people are willing to buy products and merchandise that supports good causes in a big way, providing two requirements are met:
1) The quality of the products and merchandise are high.
and 2) The organization supporting this charity is doing it in a significant and very transparent way.
Two very good examples of companies that have supported charity efforts like this are Ben and Jerry's (ice cream products which support peace efforts) and Paul Newman's products (food items which are often organic, support independent repertory theater companies.)
If you are referring to clothing - it must "look good" or be of a significantly high quality or people will not buy it. Why should they, when they can buy the clothing they like and contribute directly to charities supporting AIDS victims? Why should they support some company producing a lousy product, especially if most of the money goes to the profit of that product and not the charity they are interested in?
2007-05-28 05:04:49 · answer #6 · answered by Zelda Hunter 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Porgie, I have no problem in contirbuting to worthwhile causes but when you mention the names of Bono and Winfrey I find it a huge turn off. They have got to be 2 of the biggest hypocrites on this Planet. They fly into Africa in their private jets and spend a couple of days in the poorest areas before flying out again in their private jets. Then they have the cheek to go on TV and berate people for doing nothing to help which is far from the truth. The pair of them make me sick and if an appeal came from either I would ignore it.
2007-05-28 06:40:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Neither. Both are a waste of money.
I don't support people charities, I only support animal charities. Animals won't take the whole arm when you're offering a hand.
And as for brand names - waaaaaay overpriced!!
2007-05-28 18:51:13 · answer #8 · answered by Angelpaws 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Cause merchandise. Brands are a waste of money.
2007-05-28 12:06:38 · answer #9 · answered by Lady G 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I dont own an hiv positive shirt, I do have some breast cancer things (keyring, bag etc)
I support Jeep, because they have nice coloured tshirts :)
2007-05-29 04:36:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋