# Consumerism makes me sick



## interlude (May 30, 2006)

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

_"Shop till it stops"_ ??? geesh.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

I tend to agree with you. The message is that shopping is a good thing, it helps others, you don't need to feel guilty. 

If you really want to help, send that $9.99 that you'd have spent on an album to the charity instead. It will do far more good, I think. I can't find anything that says what "Proceeds" amounts too. Is that he profit that Apple would make from the sales of music bought with the card? 

At least with iTunes there's little physical waste. Had this been for HMV, it would be consumerism and usage of non-recyclable materials.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

interlude said:


> Consumerism makes me sick


Then try Pepto Bismol!

Whether you're suffering from heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, nausea, or diarrhea, Pepto-Bismol can provide the soothing relief you need.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

interlude said:


> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
> 
> "Shop till is stops" ??? geesh.


Yes, its much better to put on kerchiefs over ones face, burn an effigy of a politician, and smash some bottles. That gets things done. 

Commerce is not going away any time soon. People spend lots of money. Companies have huge marketing budgets. Why not tap into that to divert some of that money?


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

I have to agree with the mayor. People are going to buy gift cards anyway, why not take advantage of Apple's excellent marketing and coolness factor for a good cause?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Random thoughts.

I think some of the partnerships between selling good and breast cancer are completely over the top.

Every act and non-act, every purchase and every non-purchase is a political one. If I was buying an iPod anyway and they were the same price I would choose one that would do more good in the world.

Yet I wonder why a company wouldn't make such charity fuction part of their product anyway. Why does it have to be a special marketing thing? Maybe it should should be any iPod from now on.

What I find incongruitous with some of these charity deals, is that the cost of the promotion and maketing of the charity connections can cost more than the money that is raised for the charity.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Many of the costs associated with such programs are donated buy suppliers down the line. For instance, if I run a charity event and need posters to promote I would ask a designer to donate some time for the design and a print house to donate the printing. The costs are kept to a bare minimum making way for more profit which gets donated to the charity.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Consumerism...what is that? 

Who cares, I want it! 

How much?!


----------



## mrt_mcfly (Oct 25, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Yes, its much better to put on kerchiefs over ones face, burn an effigy of a politician, and smash some bottles. That gets things done.
> 
> Commerce is not going away any time soon. People spend lots of money. Companies have huge marketing budgets. Why not tap into that to divert some of that money?


way to think different!


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

You don't really hate consumerism until you get : "House Mortage 3.2" 
Then and only then, just a little after you start planning in getting an assault rifle, but you can't afford it...... then you will know what pissed off really means.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

They're raising money for a good cause by tapping into a culture of consumerism that's already there. The kind of people who they're targeting with these products are people who buy things as a status symbol. They probably wouldn't give money to charities on their own because they have nothing to show for it. 

I wouldn't buy any of that stuff, but I have volunteered for charities, including CAP AIDS. On the other hand people who buy these products may never volunteer a minute of their time. This way they're covered on both fronts and raise money from a source they may not have previously had.


----------



## mrt_mcfly (Oct 25, 2005)

i guess it's no worse than a plastic bracelet which creates additional waste & is highly fashionable...why do people feel the need to advertise that they support cancer research. who is against cancer research anyway?

on a related note, anyone see "the office" episode where michael scott makes a livestrong bracelet out of paper? genius...especially since he didn't have to donate anything!


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

TrevX said:


> I have to agree with the mayor. People are going to buy gift cards anyway, why not take advantage of Apple's excellent marketing and coolness factor for a good cause?


That's fine, but the blatent message of "shop till it stops' is what I object to.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

interlude said:


> Consumerism makes me sick


Illness makes me want to buy things.


----------



## interlude (May 30, 2006)

*


Atroz said:



If you really want to help, send that $9.99 that you'd have spent on an album to the charity instead. It will do far more good, I think. I can't find anything that says what "Proceeds" amounts too. Is that he profit that Apple would make from the sales of music bought with the card? 

At least with iTunes there's little physical waste. Had this been for HMV, it would be consumerism and usage of non-recyclable materials.

Click to expand...

*


Atroz said:


> the blatent message of "shop till it stops' is what I object to.


*My thoughts EXACTLY. Well said, sir!*


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

In the end, the child who gets his medicine probably doesn't really care that someone had to buy a red iPod Nano first.


----------



## John Calhoun (Oct 5, 2003)

So charity comes with a price?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ehMax said:


> In the end, the child who gets his medicine probably doesn't really care that someone had to buy a red iPod Nano first.


But in the end who gets more real benefit, the child or the company, Yes, children may get some medicine, which is nice, but did the company sell way wore product because of the advertising and therefore pad the bottom line. What bothers me is the phrase " a portion of the profits " or " a portion of the price " will be donated. Tell me how much is being donated from the purchase. Otherwise I tend to see it as just a marketing gimmick.


----------



## interlude (May 30, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Then try Pepto Bismol!
> 
> Whether you're suffering from heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, nausea, or diarrhea, Pepto-Bismol can provide the soothing relief you need.
> ________________
> I've lost my pants.



Unfortunately there's no cure for this (sometimes awful) system of consumerism that society has created.  

Now go find your pants before someone sells it on eBay too


----------



## interlude (May 30, 2006)

Voyager said:


> But in the end who gets more real benefit, the child or the company, Yes, children may get some medicine, which is nice, but did the company sell way wore product because of the advertising and therefore pad the bottom line. What bothers me is the phrase " a portion of the profits " or " a portion of the price " will be donated. Tell me how much is being donated from the purchase. Otherwise I tend to see it as just a marketing gimmick.


Great point, Voyager!

Apple, or any other big company for that matter can stitch up logos and put "Support The Global Fund to Fight AIDS" on their website. That's good, BUT, until they explain in detail exactly how this "portion of profits" will benefit people with AIDS, it's pretty much meaningless


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ehmax is right, commerce isn't going anywhere. 

But if you understand the difference between what you want and what you actually need then you have taken a big step in dousing the wildfire of consumerism. Don't limit your freedom for a few baubles.

Also give directly to charities and don't get suckered into thinking that buying new things is noble.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

And buy durable stuff when you need to buy. There's too much junk being sold today that is not intended to last and consumers just don't care. When something breaks, it's just an opportunity to consume more.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Voyager said:


> But in the end who gets more real benefit, the child or the company, Yes, children may get some medicine, which is nice, but did the company sell way wore product because of the advertising and therefore pad the bottom line. What bothers me is the phrase " a portion of the profits " or " a portion of the price " will be donated. Tell me how much is being donated from the purchase. Otherwise I tend to see it as just a marketing gimmick.


I remember seeing an exposé on this sort of thing where a multinational company was promoting 'a portion of the proceeds' would go to whatever cause, and it was something like 1¢ out of each purchase to a maximum of some ridiculously small amount for a product that sells millions and millions of dollars worth a year.

I look at this type of thing as people being able to fulfill their desires for 'stuff' for themselves while assuaging any guilt pangs for their blatant consumerism.

I don't donate to charities that telephone solicit because it is the solicitors that keep the bulk of any donations. I don't buy shampoo just because it's got a pink ribbon on the label, and I certainly won't allow 'marketing' people to make us all 'feel good' about buying things we really don't need.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

All of us on this thread, are going to keep shopping and buying Mac products etc.. I don't think one of us is going to all of a sudden forsake every commercial product, and suddenly donate every spare cent we have to help the Aids crisis. 

So, since we are all going to keep buying things, why not pick a product that also benefits people dying from Aids in Africa?

If companies sell more products because a portion goes to help the crisis... THAT'S AWESOME!!!!!! I hope the Red iPod is Apple's best selling product of all time. 

As for the "Shop till it stops." If Apple, GAP, converse etc.. raises Billion to get everyone who has AIDS in Africa the ARV's they need, the thousands of needless deaths a day CAN be stopped. 

What always baffles me, is how anytime there is an effort to help the humanitarian crisis of our time, that is AIDS in Africa and other countries, all the nit-picky gripes come out. 

People, Apple is going to sell probably a million + of these iPods. That's $10,000,000 more dollars that will go towards buying some medicine for a child with AIDS that only costs $1 a day. So they have an iTunes card that says "Shop till it Stops." Really, of all the effort and good that is going to come of this, this is what you focus on?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Really, of all the effort and good that is going to come of this, this is what you focus on?


Yes. Because they are using people's emotions of wanting to help others to market a consumer item. Linking consumerism with an innate desire to help others, but at no real 'personal cost', and actually at personal benefit. It's a slippery slope. Justify self interest any way you want, but it's still all marketing. Make people feel good a purchase - and this is all about 'appearing' to help others while actually benefiting personally. It's about being selfish without the guilt. THAT'S marketing 101.

Apple could certainly donate money to buy medicine to help children without advertising the fact. But where is the 'marketing' benefit in that?

I'm not saying it's all Apple - they're just the latest on the bandwagon.


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

CD warehouse in ottawa used to put their gift certificates in an empty jewel case. Now they put them in a fake jewel case, which is the same thing as the real one but missing the black part that holds the actual CD. What a waste, it has to go in the trash.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MLeh said:


> Yes. Because they are using people's emotions of wanting to help others to market a consumer item.


Yesterday, there was several different colour iPods for $229. Today, there is a Red one that is $229, in which $10 goes to the Global fund. If Apple sells 100x more iPods because of it, where is the negative. I just don't see it. The only thing I can think of is 10 more companies will want to join the Red program and donate more money. 

Companies like the Heart & Stroke use lotteries to raise money, and there are all kids of ways. 

The Red project is one on an enormous scale that is going to do a lot of good.


----------



## Jeepdude (Mar 3, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Apple could certainly donate money to buy medicine to help children without advertising the fact. But where is the 'marketing' benefit in that?


It's called good corporate citizenship. 

And I'll bet that if Apple didn't practise any good corporate citizenship, the same line of people criticizing them for the program they're running now, would be criticizing them for not doing anything to help people at all.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Yesterday, there was several different colour iPods for $229. Today, there is a Red one that is $229, in which $10 goes to the Global fund. If Apple sells 100x more iPods because of it, where is the negative. I just don't see it. The only thing I can think of is 10 more companies will want to join the Red program and donate more money.
> 
> Companies like the Heart & Stroke use lotteries to raise money, and there are all kids of ways.
> 
> The Red project is one on an enormous scale that is going to do a lot of good.


Justify it any way you want. It's still marketing. 'Feel good' marketing. Just another form of 'conspicuous consumption' albeit with the 'aren't I so wonderful because I'm helping others by spending $229 on myself instead of just donating $10 to a worthy cause' twist. 

You perhaps don't understand the principle of 'helping others without personal gain' involved here, so I'll not bother trying to explain any further.


----------



## apple4life (May 6, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Ehmax is right, commerce isn't going anywhere.
> 
> But if you understand the difference between what you want and what you actually need then you have taken a big step in dousing the wildfire of consumerism. Don't limit your freedom for a few baubles.
> 
> Also give directly to charities and don't get suckered into thinking that buying new things is noble.



I see Interlude's point. As a mac fan, I gotta say that I'm surprised at Apple's blatant message of "shop till it stops." It's clear that they are making this AIDS issue into a shopping experience. Yes, at the end of the day, Apple is a computer company, and their goal is to increase SALES. BUT, selling billions of songs on iTunes and donating a portion of the profit isn't going to "stop" (their word) this issue. It’s too strong of a statement - they really should have phrased this better... and not show their intension of increasing sales so apparently.

EhMax, I think you've missed Interlude's point. He's *NOT *against Apple and buying products from Apple. I think what he’s saying is that their philosophy of “shop till it stops,” and their intension of drawing more people into their market at the same time is sickening.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think harnessing the demand of tech with solutions for the disenfranchised is ideal.









http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/science/10find.html

The technologies that drive water purification are aided by well heeled consumers to get home and "roughing solutions" at high prices allowing spin off's like this which can provide a person a years worth of safe water for $3.

It's really harnessing the power of technology in "good causes" together with the "shop til you drop" mental state in rich nations.

Larger renditions are guys like Gates funneling their profits into focused foundations.

One thing I would like to see is less environmentally unsound packaging and more end to end recycling mandates from gov.

Cell phones I think are getting into that zone of extensive reuse and recycle.
I don't think it's easy or even desirable to decouple "latest and greatest" as it can too easily lead to a stagnant "one size fits all" ala the Soviet Union experiment.

But yes abuses exist - I find DeBeers whole ethos questionable.
Apple on the other hand empowers big time with it's products.
I recall being very surprised when I did that poll on "personal music space" -iPods etc and how powerful the ability to build that into people's lives was.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=39069&highlight=personal+music

Baby and bathwater danger in blanket condemnation.
Lot of people didn't think we needed electricity either.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

ehMax said:


> So, since we are all going to keep buying things, why not pick a product that also benefits people dying from Aids in Africa?


I'm generally OK with that and I think the Red Nano is really nice looking. As I said before, it is the blatent message of "shop till it stops' is what I object to. That along with no clear understand of what "proceeds" amount to. 

Apple is not being a bad guy with the nano's, but their message on the cards are not a responsible one. 

I believe they get to claim this donated money on their taxes. They give away 5% of the sellling price of 1 model of 1 of their products, gets a lot of publicity and goodwill, and then reduce their Federal taxes as well. Sweet deal for them and that's fine. Nobody got hurt. Good business. I just wish their cards said something like "10% of the value of this card goes to (RED)" instead of not saying what the "Proceeds" are and promoting consumerism instead of charity in the message. Also, they are advertising these cards, but I can't find any way of buying them. What's up with that? No sales, no proceeds, no giving to Global Fund. 

I also find it interesting that they say "$10 from every iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED sold goes directly to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa." yet if you go to Global Fund site, they do more than AIDS. If Apple's money goes in to the same pot, it's not all going to fight AIDS. I guess there's more profit to be made getting people to give to AIDS instead of Mosquito nets (which is what they've spent some of the money on from the fund). So far they've helped about 20 million people with non-AIDS, and a 1/2 million with. Where's the truth in advertising? Ah well, I guess we can overlook this, afterall, they are doing something good.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Lot of people didn't think we needed electricity either.


Shocking.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> You perhaps don't understand the principle of 'helping others without personal gain


There is ALWAYS personal gain....it's just differs in the currency ..you help others because it satisfies you to do so. The currency there is your satisfaction....not monetary. Others use different currencies and differing motivations and that makes a diverse and dynamic world.

Spare me the "selfless sacrifice schtick"......just another "gratification".


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Okayfine.

Since you offered: what have you personally done to stop AIDS, put an end to world hunger, help your fellow persons, and make the earth a better place?

Time to put up--




interlude said:


> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
> 
> _"Shop till it stops"_ ??? geesh.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Okayfine.
> 
> Since you offered: what have you personally done to stop AIDS, put an end to world hunger, help your fellow persons, and make the earth a better place?
> 
> Time to put up--


This is getting too personal. This thread wasn't about individuals giving to charity, helping people out, etc. It was about APPLE promoting consumerism in the guise of helping others.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Since you offered: what have you personally done to stop AIDS, put an end to world hunger, help your fellow persons, and make the earth a better place?


but that's YOUR currency, your currency of satisfaction is pride in what YOU have done.

It's right on the point of the thread. Tieing in diverse motivations and satisfactions for a broader reach.

Some people buy lottery tickets to win the lottery, others to support a "cause" the win potential being incidental, others give directly.
EACH has differing morivations/rewards.
The hospital gets built faster by appealing in multifarious ways to those differences. :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I feel the Wall Street quote coming...maybe there will be further understanding of it after MD's posts. Uh oh, here it comes:

...........
The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed
...........

Greed for love, self-respect etc. Greed is neither good nor bad but, judging by observation, finger-pointing is divine.

Nice quote:
"There is ALWAYS personal gain....it's just differs in the currency ..you help others because it satisfies you to do so. The currency there is your satisfaction....not monetary." 

I disagree with the ALWAYS. The argument is generally based on a tight circular argument regarding rationality. I think people can rationally make a decision that does not provide personal gain (or loss). It's the "meh" factor.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The "gain" is the delta between one option or the other. In a situation where there is a choice there is always personal gain ..you do it because you want to.
It's only the currency of the gain that changes from person to person.

It's like opening the door for someone - do you do it for the person or for your own satisfaction?.....and you KNOW what the answer is to that.,...some just don't like to admit it.

••

Some psych experiments are very interesting in that they illuminate a point where tolerance of unequal rewards shifts currencies.
It becomes more important to punish the one getting more than gaining a small portion for oneself.
Currency switch.

The idea is to harness a wider variety of motivations to reach a particular goal and there can be positive feedback in BOTH the "good deed" and product satisfaction categories.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The "gain" is the delta between one option or the other. In a situation where there is a choice there is always personal gain ..you do it because you want to.


My point is that of indifference decisions with zero deltas. There may be a gain from the status quo but not necessarily between other choices. The sort of things that would freeze a robot.  The "meh" factor.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Atroz said:


> This is getting too personal. This thread wasn't about individuals giving to charity, helping people out, etc. It was about APPLE promoting consumerism in the guise of helping others.


The quote "Shop till it stops" is not Apple's, its from the Product Red campaign:
http://www.joinred.com/

Here's the simple concept:
You buy stuff. Global Fund gets money. They buy pills and distribute them. People with AIDS stay alive. The needless death over the lack of a $1 a day pill *STOPS*. 

The success of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs for patients with HIV is close to a Miracle. Here's some information:
http://www.who.int/3by5/treatmentworks/en/index.html

And yes, the Global Fund has several great initiatives. Money raised will go specifically to providing these ARV's to people living with AIDS in Africa. 

If it makes you feel better about yourself attacking "consumerism" or whatever, knock yourself out. As I said, the people and children who will be receiving live saving medicine really won't care.


----------



## apple4life (May 6, 2006)

ehMax said:


> The quote "Shop till it stops" is not Apple's, its from the Product Red campaign:
> http://www.joinred.com/


It's Apple's GIFT CARD
http://www.apple.com/itunes/


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Do you really think that every dollar from that $10 from a purchase of an iPod is going towards medicine for African children? Not before everyone in the Product Red campaign has a piece of it.

I'm sorry, I think most charities are scams, and why do you think there is a new charity that gets created every week, because there is a lot of money to be made.

Sure money goes into research, but what does it solve other than the void in the pharmaceudical makers pocket? All this money for research, but no cures. All this money for children in Africa, but they still need more. 

You want to help someone in need do it yourself, because your dollar wont do it for you, sorry.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

apple4life said:


> It's Apple's GIFT CARD
> http://www.apple.com/itunes/


Yes, its Apple's iTunes Gift Card, that has a slogan from the Product Red Campaign. The card will not be released until next month where I'm sure they will have full disclosure of exactly how much from the card with go to the Global Fund Aids initiative.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> Do you really think that every dollar from that $10 from a purchase of an iPod is going towards medicine for African children?


Yes. I know it does. The Red Program has very few paid staff members. The money goes to The Global Fund Aids initiative. More on how the Global Fund works:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/about/how/
More on the Global Fund Governance:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/about/governance/

ARV drugs are not just dispensed to children. Here is a fact sheet (PDF) of how ARV drugs have been dispensed:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/publications/factsheets/aids/ARV_Factsheet_2006.pdf



JumboJones said:


> Not before everyone in the Product Red campaign has a piece of it.


Yes, major corporations like Apple, Amercian Express, Motorola, The Gap and Converse are going to explain to their shareholders that they are donating hundreds of millions of dollars to an organization that is simply going to use the money to line their pockets. Riiiight. 



JumboJones said:


> I'm sorry, I think most charities are scams, and why do you think there is a new charity that gets created every week, because there is a lot of money to be made.


Or just maybe, outside of your little bubble, there are a lot of people in the world who are hurting from issues that need to be addressed with more than just good intentions. 



JumboJones said:


> Sure money goes into research, but what does it solve other than the void in the pharmaceudical makers pocket? All this money for research, but no cures. All this money for children in Africa, but they still need more.


ARV's are not a cure for HIV, but they DRAMATICALLY improves people's life and prevents death. (See link in above post) The issues of poverty, AIDS in Africa is complex, and some of it has to do with fair Trade. Most Africans just want to be able to work for a living and provide for their families. 



JumboJones said:


> You want to help someone in need do it yourself, because your dollar wont do it for you, sorry.


Maybe your little rant made yourself feel good about something you're doing to help others in need. I'm glad. But your notion that people's money going to the Global Fund does no good could not be further from the truth. You're just plain incorrect. Period, full stop.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Match it with this:































Wow, $10 here, $5 there, this should add up to millions. Pretty soon, we'll be talkin' real money, as they say.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Is the lesson here that you have to buy to give? What makes you happier, a shiny new red bauble or the $10 given to charity?

Will you be proud of yourself (which is the marketer's intention) when you display your shiny red bauble to others? I care you'll say. Will it make them want to help others or just want a shiny red bauble of their own.

Perhaps Apple has realized that their market isn't concerned with thoughts of rampant consumerism. It just wants new stuff.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=45533

To whom is consumerism a positive force? You could write a shopping list of it's ills. But who is defending it and why?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=53507&SelectRegion=East_Africa

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2C9CD5A3-55AD-4DA1-940C-782D569B9BD6.asp

Like I said, you want to give, do it yourself. This wont be the last time you hear of something like this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> To whom is consumerism a positive force?


To me it is with caveats. Life itself is consumption based. Consume, use breakdown, eliminate and around it goes. ( caveat - feeding dead cow parts to live cows etc ).

Another caveat for me is keeping the cycle from creating harm to the environment and not keeping reasonable value within the recycling.

We can't really change how our brains are wired most like new, different - think of music - what's wrong with just having ONE song. One sonata, one symphony etc.
Most humans enjoy and seek diversity, different foods, different views ( tourism ).

The trick in my mind is harnessing that drive in ways that are socially and environmentally sound.

For instance "the itch to get a fancy new fridge" also happens to coincide with much more energy effective appliances and I think many people do look at the EnerGuide values. That particular program has been deemed a success.

Consumerism is a form of renewal of place ( rebuilt inner cities ), products and services. Hitching positive social goals ( ie gambling with hospital building ) to what IS part of the human psyche is in my mind a better approach than browbeating people into a sackcloth and ashes guilt gift.

Even the church socials often have a bit of "harmless" gambling to pick reluctant pockets. Fun, consumerism and positive social effort CAN be harnessed together.
In my mind it's worth the effort and I am pleased top see more and more of it.

Societies try abolition and it never works. Harnessing human wants/likes for social goals while regulating the abuses seems the best path in my mind. Heck the little girl at the door with the GG cookies knows THAT!
We're not going to change human wiring......let's just make good use of it as it exists by combining personal "desires" with social goals.

If there are two mostly identical products you are contemplating to meet a personal need or want and one has a worthy cause attached......it's a double incentive.
And then you read the small priint and find the company ALSO has a goods end to end recycle program for the product - now there is a third incentive.

Good causes and good stewardship are just additional marketing facets along with looks, function and reliabilty etc. I think the trend should be encouraged but with some oversight that the "good cause" is truly getting benefit.

Bob Geldorf kicked off a trend by combining good cause with the consumption of music both live and recorded. U2 combines both all the time. Apple is doing some. Gates Foundation does it a bit differently but it appeals to me and makes me friendly towards MS.

More please sir......


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=53507&SelectRegion=East_Africa
> 
> http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2C9CD5A3-55AD-4DA1-940C-782D569B9BD6.asp
> 
> Like I said, you want to give, do it yourself. This wont be the last time you hear of something like this.


Those were great examples you gave of the Global Fund cutting off funding when corruption was discovered. (Just like the Liberals were voted out of power when corruption was discovered. Just like Enron execs are in jail etc..) 

In order to tackle the epidemic in Africa (Please stop calling it charity), existing civil structures must be used. The Global fund has extensive transparant financial statements and reports on how much and where money is being spent. In the examples you gave, funding was cut off, and those politicians who were corrupt are no longer in power. 

The millions with Aids, the kids who were born with Aids from their parents, the wives who contracted aids from their husbands... don't need to be punished because of corrupt politicians. 

Of course, if you're inclined to fly to Uganda and help with the programs yourself, I'm all for it!

=====

The Red Program is also not about Apple coming up with a way to sell more iPods. The Red Program approached these companies to get involved. North America spends Billions and Billions of dollars on products. Rather than trying to get people to spend less on consumer products and give more to aid (Organizations have been trying this forever), why not get a percentage of those Billions that is going through every day business and commerce. 

When people are buying, give them the choice to select a product to have some of the funds diverted. 

It's a brilliant idea that will raise millions (Billions) of dollars. There is no extra cost to buy a Red product. People can buy a Red product, and still chose to give more of their own money. 

If anything, the Red program will help bring much more exposure to the crisis in Africa and help persuade people to open their pocket books.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> When people are buying, *give them the choice to select a product to have some of the funds diverted.*
> 
> *It's a brilliant idea that will raise millions (Billions) of dollars.* There is no extra cost to buy a Red product. People can buy a Red product, and still chose to give more of their own money.
> 
> If anything, the Red program will help *bring much more exposure to the crisis in Africa* and help persuade people to open their pocket books.


Exactly :clap: ...and the oversight of the Global fund helps reassure that the funds are being spent appropriately. "It takes a planet...."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Interesting theories from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism



> Opponents of consumerism argue that many luxuries and unnecessary consumer products are social signals that allow people to identify like-minded individuals through consumption and display of similar products. Some believe that relationships with a product or brand name are substitutes for the healthy human relationships lacking in dysfunctional modern societies.


And the counterpoint: 



> The libertarian attack on the anti-consumerist movement is largely based on the perception that it leads to elitism. Namely, libertarians believe that no person has the right to decide for others what goods are "necessary" for living and which aren't, or that luxuries are necessarily wasteful, and thus argue that anti-consumerism is a precursor to central planning or a totalitarian society. Twitchell, in his book Living It Up, sarcastically remarked that the logical outcome of the anti-consumerism movement would be a return to the sumptuary laws that existed in ancient Rome and during the Middle Ages.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Good topic of discussion. 

I've put this thread on digg.com. Can you digg it?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Apple has a new iTunes (Red) ™ gift card coming out that states, "Shop till it stops [AIDS]". Motorola has a new (Red)™ headset advertised with the phrase, "Designed to help eliminate AIDS in Africa." Is the (Red)™ program a positive or a negative? Does the ends justify the means?


The way this is phrased it's hard to say it's a negative. Not sure if this really picks up on the spirit of this thread.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

What I want to see most is transparent monitoring of the benefits and how those benefits are being put to use. The worst thing that happens with fundraising is the lack of transparency...you hear about a cause and program to raise money, and then never hear about it again. I want to be able to access information about where the money goes and how it is being used. If we see our actions are making a difference maybe it will get things rolling.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

mrjimmy said:


> The way this is phrased it's hard to say it's a negative. Not sure if this really picks up on the spirit of this thread.


The description simply gives a factual statement what the iTunes Card and the Motorola headset say. Then asks if its positive or negative. Does the end justify the means. Don't know how much more neutral in descpription you can get. Of course, if you're looking for fault in everything, you'll find it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Eukaryotic said:


> What I want to see most is transparent monitoring of the benefits and how those benefits are being put to use. The worst thing that happens with fundraising is the lack of transparency...you hear about a cause and program to raise money, and then never hear about it again. I want to be able to access information about where the money goes and how it is being used. If we see our actions are making a difference maybe it will get things rolling.


http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/media_center/publications/


----------



## interlude (May 30, 2006)

*It's THE LABEL, and the FACT that Apple decided to make it as their gift card*

This "discussion" is really going off topic, Ehmax. My issue in this thread is with the label "*Shop till it stops*" itself. I'm disappointed that Apple decided to make a gift card out of it. They certainly could have done this fundraising thing without this particular label. The Red Product campaign has other slogans. You guys can try to justify this all you want, but I still PERSONALLY hate this blatant message. I can't say that I'm proud of Apple's iTunes marketing on this one.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

interlude said:


> This "discussion" is really going off topic, Ehmax.


I take it you are new to internet debates?  We can still see the topic clearly from here - it's not offtopic until we are in a different timezone. 



interlude said:


> My issue in this thread is with the label "*Shop till it stops*" itself. I'm disappointed that Apple decided to make a gift card out of it. They certainly could have done this fundraising thing without this particular label. The Red Product campaign has other slogans. You guys can try to justify this all you want, but I still PERSONALLY hate this blatant message.


Yeah, not commenting on the other issues at work (others have already said all I would say, I think), the slogan itself is one I don't like, either. I assume, however, it is intended to be a parity of the old "shop 'til you drop" saying that epitomised the explosion of consumeristic greed in the late '80s/early '90s. Which would certainly be part of why I don't like it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

interlude said:


> This "discussion" is really going off topic, Ehmax. My issue in this thread is with the label "*Shop till it stops*" itself. I'm disappointed that Apple decided to make a gift card out of it. They certainly could have done this fundraising thing without this particular label. The Red Product campaign has other slogans. You guys can try to justify this all you want, but I still PERSONALLY hate this blatant message. I can't say that I'm proud of Apple's iTunes marketing on this one.


My question would be... who is getting hurt / offended by the comment and why?

I don't understand who is being fouled. 10% of the proceeds of the iTunes card will go to the Global fund (Greg Joswiak, iPod VP confirmed). If enough Red products are purchased, there will be enough money for ARV's for everyone with HIV in Africa, and the dying will stop. 

I PERSONALLY (strongly dislike) that given how much good this global effort is going to do, that there are people who chose to nitpick and focus on their perceived negative. Its been argued that its a negative that people will (falsely?) feel good about themself for buying a Red product. I'd argue that some people make themself feel good and important by harping on a little detail and somehow feel they're being productive with their armchair criticism.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's not a parody = it's progress over the old slogan.
It's marrying shopping with a good cause. It's clever and EXACTLY on point of the campaign.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> It's not a parody = it's progress over the old slogan.


That's one way to look at it.

First off, I don't believe that anyone here is disputing the fact that helping African's deal with the Aids crisis etc. is bad or misguided. 

The dispute (I believe) is regarding consumerism and the perpetuation of it in Apple's use of the slogan. In it's most basic form it's saying that shopping will end this blight.

I believe that there are pretty solid arguments for both sides of the consumerism debate. But seeing how this is a consumer related forum, perhaps this is not the most appropriate venue.


----------



## interlude (May 30, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I PERSONALLY (strongly dislike) that given how much good this global effort is going to do, that there are people who chose to nitpick and focus on their perceived negative... I'd argue that some people make themself feel good and important by harping on a little detail and somehow feel they're being productive with their armchair criticism.



Apple iTunes will do its part by donating 10%, but at the end of the day, this marketing will do more to help their sales. The companies in the Red Product campaign think that this marketing is seriously the “best” way for them to approach this AIDS issue. I certainly think that they can give huge NON-profit donations if they are willing to. I certainly think that major corporations can do much more if they wanted to, and not attach personal gain to this campaign. I would give nothing but praise :clap: if these companies in the Red Product Campaign donated not just a portion, but all the profits made during this campaign period. The red iPod nano and “Shop till it stops” iTunes gift card are not going to be around forever in Apple’s product line. Donating all of their profits from this campaign wouldn’t be considered a “loss” of income if it’s going to a good cause, right? Doing this as a one-time thing to raise huge funds for _The Global Fund to Fight AIDS_ would be a great idea. These companies are always making new products anyways. They don’t need to worry about losing income. If anything, this Red Product Campaign has given these companies positive publicity and reputation, which will help their sales later. 

It’s not that the Red Product campaign is a terrible idea. People with AIDS desperately need support, and we gotta do whatever works to help them. If donating a portion of the profit works, then that’s good. But giving everything without taking any benefit from it is more effective. Using a product as a vehicle to raise money is one thing, but putting “*Shop till it stops*” on gift cards and telling their customers that this is going to stop AIDS is a bold, and nonsense statement. I don’t like how they are making people think – that the AIDS epidemic is an issue that can be stopped once and for all, through shopping. If it’s that easy, AIDS would have stopped long ago. It’s insulting if you think about it, because they are treating us as nothing but ignorant consumers who love to shop and consume. Simplifying the AIDS issue in a really messed up way (“Shop till it stops”) can’t  be a parody of “Shop till you drop.”


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

More could be done, but something is better then nothing. We can only hope that in the future more will be done to help those in need. But we can only do it one step at a time.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

interlude said:


> Apple iTunes will do its part by donating 10%, but at the end of the day, this marketing will do more to help their sales. The companies in the Red Product campaign think that this marketing is seriously the “best” way for them to approach this AIDS issue. I certainly think that they can give huge NON-profit donations if they are willing to. I certainly think that major corporations can do much more if they wanted to, and not attach personal gain to this campaign. I would give nothing but praise :clap: if these companies in the Red Product Campaign donated not just a portion, but all the profits made during this campaign period. The red iPod nano and “Shop till it stops” iTunes gift card are not going to be around forever in Apple’s product line. Donating all of their profits from this campaign wouldn’t be considered a “loss” of income if it’s going to a good cause, right? Doing this as a one-time thing to raise huge funds for _The Global Fund to Fight AIDS_ would be a great idea. These companies are always making new products anyways. They don’t need to worry about losing income. If anything, this Red Product Campaign has given these companies positive publicity and reputation, which will help their sales later.
> 
> It’s not that the Red Product campaign is a terrible idea. People with AIDS desperately need support, and we gotta do whatever works to help them. If donating a portion of the profit works, then that’s good. But giving everything without taking any benefit from it is more effective. Using a product as a vehicle to raise money is one thing, but putting “*Shop till it stops*” on gift cards and telling their customers that this is going to stop AIDS is a bold, and nonsense statement. I don’t like how they are making people think – that the AIDS epidemic is an issue that can be stopped once and for all, through shopping. If it’s that easy, AIDS would have stopped long ago. It’s insulting if you think about it, because they are treating us as nothing but ignorant consumers who love to shop and consume. Simplifying the AIDS issue in a really messed up way (“Shop till it stops”) can’t  be a parody of “Shop till you drop.”


Smallpox is a disease that was responsible for approximately 300-500 million people last century. In the late 70's, the disease was eradicated. 

Now, we don't have a cure for HIV right now, but with ARV's, many people's lives living with HIV take a 180º turn for the better, and they can have a quality of life and work in their community. These drugs are not perfect, there can often be some side effects, and there is quite a regime to taking them, but the results are nothing short of amazing. People are on deaths bed, and in months, they are back to near perfect health, alive and well. Able to care for their children. Able to work. Able to have dignity. 

*There is absolutely no question, that ARV's save people's lives. Without the drugs, they would die. With them, they live. 
*

The problem is, getting this medication and regime out to everyone with HIV, especially in many countries in Africa. But much progress is being made on many fronts:
http://www.avert.org/aidstarget.htm



> Never before in the history of the epidemic has so much money been available to finance treatment and care for people with HIV, and never before have life-saving antiretroviral medicines been so cheaply and plentifully available. But still, every day, 8,000 people are dying from a disease which can be treated, but which all too often isn't.


The price of these drugs is about 50 cents - One dollar a day per patient. So when money goes from the Red program to the Global Fund to getting drugs to people with HIV, preventible deaths are being stopped. 

I'll say it again: When money from the Red program goes to the Global Fund to getting drugs to people with HIV, preventible deaths are being stopped. 

If enough money got to the Global Fund to treat everyone in the World living with HIV, all preventible deaths would be stopped. 

The Red Program is not a campaign constrained to a time frame. Greg Joswiak has said:



> Apple’s and (RED)’s goals are to create “*sustaining revenue* and increased awareness” through the (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition campaign, and Apple has *“not set any end date”* for the product.


So rather than a small time frame of a company forgoing any and all profit to get money to the Global Fund (Gee, a lot of companies will want to sign up for that), the Red program is designed to be a sustainable program. Again I ask, who is being fouled? Why is there a need to begrudge companies for making money while diverting money? 

The worst outcome is this: Say the program is extremely successful and companies selling product do really well with them. What will happen? Other companies will want to get involved and sell red products, and more money will be diverted. 

Sure Red could go around requesting companies have a sustainable program where 100% of proceeds to a given product would go to The Global Fund. The sound of crickets chirping would be deafening. THEN, you would only see short lived campaigns. The idea is sustainability. The idea is getting more companies on board. 

The Global Fund does not move into areas in Africa unless they know they can have a sustained ARV program. The absolute worst thing in the world would be to offer drugs to someone suffering from HIV, and then have to cut the program.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Again I ask, who is being fouled? Why is there a need to begrudge companies for making money while diverting money?


Blind ideology. The usual force behind the loudest political discussions. Left meets Right in an empty place of bitter opposition to the "un-ideal". 

end mini-rant. (there will be sequels  )


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Beej said:


> Blind ideology. The usual force behind the loudest political discussions. Left meets Right in an empty place of bitter opposition to the "un-ideal".
> 
> end mini-rant. (there will be sequels  )


Hopefully they will make more sense.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Are they still poisoning people with crappy food?
> ...............
> Is this a ploy to justify excess consumerism and publicity to generate profit?


Parental responsibility? You can't control "society", and the "good vs bad" line gets drawn from personal politics. It ain't easy, but that's why there's no manual for parenting. Or, considering the hundreds of pseudo-manuals, none are government-defined as The Book. 
...............
Does excess begin before or after the iPod? Before or after the Mac? Before or after...blind ideology.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MB you think it has to be one OR the other - it can be multi-faceted...it is. As long as there is a positive result to the social need why is there any need to question "motive".
The agencies benefitting here are clearly part of the process and decision making- let them be the judge.

For those with an Economist sub - this is terrific on the topic of CSR and discusses the pros and cons. Summary - it's good practice to a degree BUT should not alter the responsibility to earn the shareholders money.
If both can be done well........that's ideal.



> OVER the past ten years or so, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has blossomed as an idea, if not as a coherent practical programme. CSR commands the attention of executives everywhere—if their public statements are to be believed—and especially that of the managers of multinational companies headquartered in Europe or the United States. Today corporate social responsibility, if it is nothing else, is the tribute that capitalism everywhere pays to virtue.
> 
> It would be a challenge to find a recent annual report of any big international company that justifies the firm's existence merely in terms of profit, rather than “service to the community”. Such reports often talk proudly of efforts to improve society and safeguard the environment—by restricting emissions of greenhouse gases from the staff kitchen, say, or recycling office stationery—before turning hesitantly to less important matters, such as profits. Big firms nowadays are called upon to be good corporate citizens, and they all want to show that they are.
> 
> On the face of it, this marks a significant victory in the battle of ideas. The winners are the charities, non-government organisations and other elements of what is called civil society that pushed for CSR in the first place.


I suspect the nay sayers on this figure it's this way ( illustration from the article above )










Note the RED 

http://www.economist.com/business/globalexecutive/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3555212

••

Beej - just what ARE you inbibing


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Hopefully they will make more sense.


Wink acknowledged but, for fun:

A typical individual donates and mentions it to his friends (mea culpa);

A rich individual donates a huge amount and media covers it (perhaps even bringing in more contributions from others);

A corporation develops a way to advertise Brand and donate.

Which one doesn't often get criticised as shameless self-promotion?

MD, in my read, seems to be getting at the similarity of these acts, despite what some ideologies say. The extreme ideologies sort of merge in how they desire to control morality, whether through an old Book or a new Consensus.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MasterBlaster said:


> Well, the Hells Angels have their Toy Run where they deliver toys one day a year for good pubic image. The rest of the time are they still drug dealers?
> 
> MacDonalds has Ronald MacDonald house and a place for children to play at many of their locations. Are they still poisoning people with crappy food? Does this also create more pressure from kids to make their parents go to these places. Does it genereate more sales and create more junk food addicts?
> 
> Is this a ploy to justify excess consumerism and publicity to generate profit?


Yes, "bad" companies, organizations etc.. often do good things to sell more bad stuff. 

I'll recognize that some people have a thing against consumerism in general, and that a meaniful discussion on that specific topic is a pretty hard sell on a website dedicated to a particular consumer product. 

I don't believe buying stuff buys happiness, but I do find a certain level of joy in tech stuff like cell phones and iPods and computers. I love music, and I love listening to my iPod on the bus, on bike rides etc.. 

The next time I go to buy an iPod, I'm happy to buy one where $10 will go to the Global Fund. (Just like I'm happy to throw some change in the Tim Horton's kids camp fund at their counter, and donate a dollar at Shopper Drugmart for their children's charity etc... )


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The iPod is actually and interesting and unique case as there really is no competing product so Apple is likely doing this mostly from a sense of good corporate citizenship as opposed to marketing ( tho it helps in general goodwill ).

Two cereals - one with a "good cause" attached is clearly making a "buy me buy me..I'm a good guy" call to action.

Apple's I think is actually using corporate power and it's reach to youth to increase awareness and stimulate a specific purchase to raise funds.

Just like wearing a cause bracelet - the red iPod is personal branding.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> The iPod is actually and interesting and unique case as there really is no competing product so Apple is likely doing this mostly from a sense of good corporate citizenship as opposed to marketing


With all due respect that statement is either incredibly naive or a master salesman's pitch.



> Just like wearing a cause bracelet - the red iPod is personal branding.


Like a tattoo.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Apple does not NEED to use CSR to market the iPod it OWNS the iPod market.

That they CHOOSE to make a unique iPod as a statement of support for a good cause and donate some of the proceeds will mean diddly squat to their bottom line.

If it happens to spur some EXTRA sales - well and good but no person is likely to buy an iPod solely because of this campaign. Are more people going to be aware of this AIDs effort?? .......damn right.

Yeah like a "I support AIDs research" tattoo.

Lame try on the sarcasm.  Exactly what meaningful insight have you contributed with your post???


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Lame try on the sarcasm. Exactly what meaningful insight have you contributed with your post???


So much for the "With all due respect" part I predicated my comments with. 

Perhaps the tattoo comment was kneejerk but the term 'personal branding' and it's many connotations makes me shudder.



> so Apple is likely doing this mostly from a sense of good corporate citizenship as opposed to marketing ( tho it helps in general goodwill ).


Regardless of product monopoly, there will always be continued marketing to lure new customers and promote further sales with existing customers. How many on this board alone are contemplating adding this product to their collection.

It isn't altrusim. It's marketing. Ask the shareholders. 

'Shop till it stops' is misleading and offensive.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Found quite a few interesting interviews on the net. Here is an interview with Bono on MSNBC. that I thought was relevant to this conversation:



> *Why isn't this charity?*
> 
> *"Sustainability is the key word here," *says Bono. "The reason why we're not calling it charity and we're describing it as a new business model is that Red companies will make some profit. Not as much as they would usually. But, we want them to prosper because it's a long term fight with this illness. We don't want to just put out some T-shirts and jeans and Motorola phones and Apple iPods for a year, get people on the drugs and then not continue with their treatment. Great brands always have an emotional component. We think we bring that with our brand to theirs."


(Video link on the web page)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i would like to see apple announce that they are donating $ from the sale of EVERY iPod/computer and create a RED company instead of product line
altho' the red iPod is a step in the right, err correct, direction
hopefully consumers will pick up the gauntlet and show Apple and others that people really DO care about helping others


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It isn't altrusim.


 sic

Why would you assume anyone views altruism as a virtue especially when it's "demanded".

It's self interest and personal satisfaction that drives ALL such giving - whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not. The currency is clearly satisfaction helping others not so fortunate.and doing in small part help to rid the world of a disease you yourself might fall prey to.
It's not altruistic it's acknowledgement that one is one with the world and personal choices can have positive or negative consequences on oneself AND the world.

No sackcloth or flails needed.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

To be perfectly clear:

The slogan 'Shop till it stops' I find misleading and offensive. It is a questionable choice in my mind. Although to one who consumes and doesn't question, it probably sends out a positive message.

I find consumerism in it's present form to be rather disturbing. Personal Debt is at record levels. Waste from packaging and manufacturing is clogging our landfills and polluting our air. Kids rob and kill one another for bobbles and brandnames. We are like Pac Man™ gobbling up goods and services being chased by creditors, greed and envy. 

I am hesitant to put trust and faith into ANY corporation. Think Enron etc. I believe _we are being sold_ a responsible corporate image. Call it healthy skepticism. To quote MLeh:



> Apple could certainly donate money to buy medicine to help children without advertising the fact. But where is the 'marketing' benefit in that?


Corps as a rule aren't stupid. They see consumer demand for something (charity and social responsibility in this case) and they dish it up. If not, we shop somewhere else. 

Sure you can say "it's helping people so who cares?" But at what expense to us? "Shop Till It Stops'? I prefer to give charity other ways and I do.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Consumerism is the reason we are all here at this site - because buying Apple products is part of our identity.
Scary, huh?


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

elmer, I'm at this site because I USE Apple products – a wee bit different than because I BUY Apple products.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I came to this site because I was looking for some technical help, and this site was Canadian, and at the top of the google list. I stayed, because there were people here I enjoyed chatting with, and I was between boards at the time. My Apples are tools. I chose the tools that are most comfortable to use, and, just as I am proud of the really nice hammer I own (I am, I show it off to friends ), I am proud to own tools that serve me well, work well, and are dependable. I don't consider being an apple user to be a part of my identity.

Well, other than when I want to give someone a hard time about all their winblows viruses


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

elmer said:


> Consumerism is the reason we are all here at this site - because buying Apple products is part of our identity.
> Scary, huh?


My Apple products are not my identity, they are my tools. They're no more my identity than any of my power saws from Makita, Ridgid, Porter Cable, Sears, Skill, etc. or my woodworking routers from Makita, Dewalt and Triton. Notice that there's no real brand loyalty, I picked the tool that was best for my needs. Just like with Apple.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Identity???.....mmmmm mine other hand


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Forgive me if I exaggerate too much, but...
People chat because they have something in common...
Lots of people here put their Mac in their signature...
Being proud of what you own, tool or not, can often be a sign of some consumerist tendencies...



> You buy furniture. You tell yourself, this is the last sofa I will ever need in my life. Buy the sofa, then for a couple years you're satisfied that no matter what goes wrong, at least you've got your sofa issue handled. Then the right set of dishes. Then the perfect bed. The drapes. The rug. Then you're trapped in your lovely nest, and the things you used to own, now they own you.


 ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 5, seen at http://www.quotegarden.com/bk-fc.html

BTW, do you think I should purchase a new DSLR lens before or after Christmas? I think this is a really important topic of discussion that we should all dig into; I'd like representative viewpoints from across the country.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

> In a pitch for U.S. manufacturers and farmers, Bush told his Chinese counterpart:* "I strongly support your vision, Mr. President, of encouraging your country to become a nation of consumers and not savers."*


Bush responding to the President of China, trying to convince them to buy more American products. If China becomes anything like American consumers, or even Canadians we'll be in big big trouble. China with an ecological footprint as large as ours or Americas is just plain scary.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/bush.asia.ap/index.html


----------

