October 9, 2006
Gap Line to Fight AIDS in Africa
Gap Inc. has some entertainment heavyweights backing the rollout of its new, limited (PRODUCT) RED collection of clothing and accessories that will see half of all sales going
to The Global Fund to finance programs for women and children in Africa that are affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic on that continent.
The clothing and accessories line, which will rollout in stores on Oct. 13, comes out of a deal between Gap Inc. and RED, the organization founded by U2 lead singer Bono and
Bobby Shriver. The group seeks to generate ongoing funds to support the AIDS fight in Africa through partnerships with business. In addition to Gap, other companies partnering
with RED include Converse, Emporio Armani, Motorola and American Express.
“Gap is proud to be a partner of (PRODUCT) RED, and we are truly honored to be a part of something as critical as eradicating AIDS in Africa,” said Cynthia Harriss, president
of Gap Brand North America, in a press release. “Gap has a long history of not only providing great style but also making a difference. (PRODUCT) RED provides a unique opportunity
for our customers to help make a real difference in people’s lives.”
“I think it’s great that Gap is participating in this campaign, leading the way and giving back in a way that is all too necessary and overdue. This is such a great way to merge
fashion and activism,” said Don Cheadle, actor in films such as Hotel Rwanda and Ocean’s Eleven. “Hopefully this campaign will help people educate themselves and get them interested
about what’s happening in the world beyond our own borders. I hope that other companies can look to this campaign as an example for what they can do.”
Gap (PRODUCT) RED items range in price from $1 to $350 and include graphic T-shirts, tote bags, jeans and leather jackets.
A vintage-style T-shirt from the collection is being manufactured in Lesotho, Africa from 100 percent African cotton. The T-shirt is made for both women and men and will be available
in red, as well as a range of other classic colors.
Gap stores will also be selling three limited edition Converse (PRODUCT) RED Chuck TaylorAll Star canvas high top shoes, in red, white and black. They will be sold exclusively
in select Gap locations nationwide beginning on Friday.
Steven Spielberg, Jennifer Garner, Chris Rock, Penelope Cruz, Christy Turlington, Don Cheadle, Mary J. Blige and Dakota Fanning are among the celebrities who have thrown their
support of the Gap (PRODUCT) RED collection.
Gap is launching a print advertising campaign featuring a celebrity wearing their favorite Gap (PRODUCT) RED item. The ad images include a corresponding tagline incorporating
the word “(RED)” — such as ADMI(RED), INSPI(RED), CENTE(RED) and UNCENSO(RED).
Chris Rock’s ad will come with the tagline UNCENSO(RED) while Mary J. Blige’s will be tagged with EMPOWE(RED).
Discussion Questions: What are your thoughts on the (PRODUCT) RED initiative, which licenses its brand to retailers and manufacturers in return for a
percentage of profits from the sale of the products going to the Global Fund? Do associations between groups such a RED with retailers pose potential problems for merchants?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
As Gen Y continues to spend their dollars when associated with “causes,” this strategy certainly has a place. Not everyone will spend their money to support causes or even like companies associated with supporting specific causes. On the other hand, some consumers will want to specifically spend their money supporting specific causes. The fragmentation of consumers continues to make it difficult to have a generic strategy that appeals to a mass market. With many specific groups, each with its own set of values and concerns, targeting one group may mean offending another group. Finding your way depends upon how well you know your consumers.
There’s always a risk putting your merchandising and marketing muscle behind a “cause” if you become perceived as too blatantly political — the Benetton ads of years past are a good example. This cause has enough broad appeal and celebrity support to avoid the perception that Gap is playing in the margins politically.
It’s actually a smart move in terms of the positive PR (which Gap can use), the “cool” factor and the potential traffic draw to the stores. It can be perceived as part of the ongoing Gap “turnaround story” especially if the merchandise itself is compelling and performs at retail.
It would be nice if MOST of the profits from this venture went to the Global Fund. The rampant spread of HIV throughout Africa is one of the great tragedies of humankind and testament to the insidious government corruption on the continent. I would hope this is lasting commitment and not just the flavor-of-the-month charity.
As to whether it hurts retailers? I doubt if it will impact revenues to any great degree. People buy the products because they feel guilty — and well they should. It’s not going to take away spending for their regular wardrobes. As to the Gap, this is a company in such deep [trouble] that anything they do is bound to help somewhat.
In 1994, MAC cosmetics launched Viva Glam, a red lipstick whose sales went to fight AIDS. The Gap (PRODUCT) RED positioning seems very similar. Retailers who ally themselves with high-profile charitable work (Ronald McDonald House, Target’s schools fundraising, etc.) get great publicity. If the (PRODUCT) RED clothes are sexy, they will sell. Certainly Gap was smart about getting celebrity endorsements.
GAP has tried everything to try to please the consumer and the stock holders. With same store sales being “the same” and shopping selections in the adult apparel average, they need to reinvent the GAP wheel for themselves. Is this the way? I don’t know.
This limited RED collection may help, but honestly, if their sales weren’t ranging from average to below average would they be taking the initiative to create a collection to help fund the fight against HIV in Africa? As mentioned earlier I hope it does bring positive PR to the GAP, but this is just part of companies trying to bring themselves into a better light — like Wal-Mart is doing with organic, Gap will do it with funding relief for Africa to fight HIV.
To Ed Dennis’ point, it would have been more of an impact to me, as a consumer, if some of that money was helping lower income people in the US stricken with HIV that struggle with this illness.
Before saving the world they should pay attention to saving the company. Sarcasm aside, in the long run they can do much more good by focusing 100% of their time and efforts on turning the company around. When in a position of strength with more dollars and more traffic in stores, they can then strategically plan charitable efforts that are win/wins that would feed the growth of the Gap and provide long term help for good causes. The last five years have proven that good PR and good advertising do not help them sell more merchandise.
Sounds like a PR stunt. I wonder how much of the money will actually be funding the salaries of the executives that operate the Global Fund? I rather see GAP actually help someone directly rather than fund a bureaucracy.
Gap has said that half of its profits from the sale of the (PRODUCT) RED clothing and accessories will go to The Global Fund.
I applaud anyone who is honestly doing anything to try to help. I just hope that the impetus for this action is honestly motivated and not just a marketing ploy. I would also ask that some consideration be given to the black community in the US. Aids is a major problem there and spreading rapidly (albeit very, very quietly). It would be good to spend some of this goodwill at home.
Good PR, drives traffic to stores, positive brand associations; what’s not to like? Hopefully many of the efforts will be like the T-shirt mentioned; creating economic activity in Africa is so much more important that just giving money.
The results of this campaign remain to be seen, but there are a few key points that are missing in the discussion. Gap has increased the price of these products from its normal prices ($28 for a T-shirt, $150 for a pair of jeans), so it doesn’t appear it will be losing money on the project.
The goal of (RED) all around is to partner with retail enterprises to create a steady stream of money to the Global Fund, rather than rely on yearly donations from these companies. That way, a company can’t go back on a promised contribution. This formula stabilizes the income going to the fight against AIDS.
The campaign — which capitalizes on goodwill marketing — may be exactly what a struggling Gap needs to push it back to the top. Just my opinion.
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
As Gen Y continues to spend their dollars when associated with “causes,” this strategy certainly has a place. Not everyone will spend their money to support causes or even like companies associated with supporting specific causes. On the other hand, some consumers will want to specifically spend their money supporting specific causes. The fragmentation of consumers continues to make it difficult to have a generic strategy that appeals to a mass market. With many specific groups, each with its own set of values and concerns, targeting one group may mean offending another group. Finding your way depends upon how well you know your consumers.
There’s always a risk putting your merchandising and marketing muscle behind a “cause” if you become perceived as too blatantly political — the Benetton ads of years past are a good example. This cause has enough broad appeal and celebrity support to avoid the perception that Gap is playing in the margins politically.
It’s actually a smart move in terms of the positive PR (which Gap can use), the “cool” factor and the potential traffic draw to the stores. It can be perceived as part of the ongoing Gap “turnaround story” especially if the merchandise itself is compelling and performs at retail.
It would be nice if MOST of the profits from this venture went to the Global Fund. The rampant spread of HIV throughout Africa is one of the great tragedies of humankind and testament to the insidious government corruption on the continent. I would hope this is lasting commitment and not just the flavor-of-the-month charity.
As to whether it hurts retailers? I doubt if it will impact revenues to any great degree. People buy the products because they feel guilty — and well they should. It’s not going to take away spending for their regular wardrobes. As to the Gap, this is a company in such deep [trouble] that anything they do is bound to help somewhat.
In 1994, MAC cosmetics launched Viva Glam, a red lipstick whose sales went to fight AIDS. The Gap (PRODUCT) RED positioning seems very similar. Retailers who ally themselves with high-profile charitable work (Ronald McDonald House, Target’s schools fundraising, etc.) get great publicity. If the (PRODUCT) RED clothes are sexy, they will sell. Certainly Gap was smart about getting celebrity endorsements.
GAP has tried everything to try to please the consumer and the stock holders. With same store sales being “the same” and shopping selections in the adult apparel average, they need to reinvent the GAP wheel for themselves. Is this the way? I don’t know.
This limited RED collection may help, but honestly, if their sales weren’t ranging from average to below average would they be taking the initiative to create a collection to help fund the fight against HIV in Africa? As mentioned earlier I hope it does bring positive PR to the GAP, but this is just part of companies trying to bring themselves into a better light — like Wal-Mart is doing with organic, Gap will do it with funding relief for Africa to fight HIV.
To Ed Dennis’ point, it would have been more of an impact to me, as a consumer, if some of that money was helping lower income people in the US stricken with HIV that struggle with this illness.
Before saving the world they should pay attention to saving the company. Sarcasm aside, in the long run they can do much more good by focusing 100% of their time and efforts on turning the company around. When in a position of strength with more dollars and more traffic in stores, they can then strategically plan charitable efforts that are win/wins that would feed the growth of the Gap and provide long term help for good causes. The last five years have proven that good PR and good advertising do not help them sell more merchandise.
Sounds like a PR stunt. I wonder how much of the money will actually be funding the salaries of the executives that operate the Global Fund? I rather see GAP actually help someone directly rather than fund a bureaucracy.
Gap has said that half of its profits from the sale of the (PRODUCT) RED clothing and accessories will go to The Global Fund.
I applaud anyone who is honestly doing anything to try to help. I just hope that the impetus for this action is honestly motivated and not just a marketing ploy. I would also ask that some consideration be given to the black community in the US. Aids is a major problem there and spreading rapidly (albeit very, very quietly). It would be good to spend some of this goodwill at home.
Good PR, drives traffic to stores, positive brand associations; what’s not to like? Hopefully many of the efforts will be like the T-shirt mentioned; creating economic activity in Africa is so much more important that just giving money.
The results of this campaign remain to be seen, but there are a few key points that are missing in the discussion. Gap has increased the price of these products from its normal prices ($28 for a T-shirt, $150 for a pair of jeans), so it doesn’t appear it will be losing money on the project.
The goal of (RED) all around is to partner with retail enterprises to create a steady stream of money to the Global Fund, rather than rely on yearly donations from these companies. That way, a company can’t go back on a promised contribution. This formula stabilizes the income going to the fight against AIDS.
The campaign — which capitalizes on goodwill marketing — may be exactly what a struggling Gap needs to push it back to the top. Just my opinion.