I do believe that the partnership with (RED) is an attempt for Gap to try and reinvent their image. Many companies, much like Gap, have been caught in business practices that reflect poorly on the company and have tried to redeem their image through charitable or philanthropic causes such as this.This can be a great opportunity for any company to make amends with the consumer and show that they have changed for the better. But in order to reinvent your image you must first address the issue which resulted in the tarnished image in the first place.
It does not appear to me that Gap has addressed this at all.
While the (RED) product campaign is an honest one with admirable intentions, It sounds to me like Gap sees it as more of a public distraction from some of the companies real issues rather than a charitable opportunity. If Gap really wanted to make a difference, they would start internally by fighting for better working conditions for the people who make all their products rather than searching externally for problems. With Gap's production factories failing inspection in 2005 (this article being posted in 06'), I believe that their are much more important issues to be dealt with, but because they are much more financially costly, they get sidelined and replace with the charitable event that deals with the current issue of the companies failing image.
The (RED) campaign is structured in such a way that it is less charity based and more business based with (RED) only taking 50% of proceeds in an attempt to keep businesses more involved in the long run and extend the life of the campaign. I believe that Gap is waiting for this campaign with run its course and hopefully by the end of it, the public will have forgotten all about the sweat shop issue.
Do you think it is the norm for most companies to try and cover up their problems or address them immediately upon discovering them?
No comments:
Post a Comment