you're hired!

Well, if any consumers are like me, who didn't
pay close attention to these ads but do fuzzily recall big blurs of red and some puzzling permutations of the parenthetical "(RED)," then they, like me, assumed the campaign was for TARGET. Oops.

Great pics. I wish I was still in the GAP demographic so the context was better. Irregardless of that, thanks for sharing!

I think what copyranter meant to say was "you're hi(red)"

BRILLIANT No. 4! You're Hi(red) too! martinis for every frickin' body!!!

really, really bad taste.

inspi(red)

you're all reta(r)d(ed).

Wonde(red) when someone would do a mock ofthis campaign! rolflm(red)ao

Is anybody else confused as to why the GAP can get away with all this good press for helping in the fight against AIDS, while at the same time all of those red shirts are made in sweatshops by children?

Why are HALF of the PROFITS going to the charity. Why not 100% of the profits??

Megan, believe it or not, but The Gap has actually one of the better ethics codes for mainstream retailers. They actually have third party systems in place and something resembling transparency. The Luis Vuitton's of the world, The Expresses, The Ann Taylor's of the world are much much worse.

Jo Jo, because at the end of the day it's not about saving the world it's about a marketing tool. Realistically you can't buy your way into a better world no matter what Christianity says. The key word is also profits which means that the cost of making the shirt, of transporting the shirt, of the staff etc are all deducted before starving kid in Malawi or wherever sees a kernel of rice. And no profit means no money gets sent overseas. If you really give a damn donate to Kiva (microlending) or sponsor a kid don't buy a freaking shirt.

Jane Doe, you are correct. Gap actually is ranked in the Top 3 in the world for social responsibility and this is based on research done by NGOs. No other US retailer even compares to the amount of work Gap does to assure that their factories are social responsible.

Now if you want to talk about major offenders, let's talk Wal Mart or Pottery Barn

And like all things of importance of helping the most helpless people, Amer(ed)icans will forget.
But the thing here is they will go to the gap and buy more more product (red) and will forget they are doing a great thing!
Most people in the year 2006 will never donate money to someone dying a slow death. Only causes with cool pictures of the cause. There is nothing cool about a child dying a slow death. Easy to switch the channel. The others are causes, product (red) supports an emergency.

Or do like most people I know pay a huge amount of money to play golf and never really know where the money went and the next day remember those were the most expensive beers you will ever buy!

You are so stupid.

The reason why only 50% of the Gap (Red) products are being donated and not 100% is because if there is no profit for the company then they will eventually discontinue the line and stop their support. All of the companies involved are donating some percentage of their proceeds and everyone gets what they want. The companies make money, the consumers get a great product, and the Global Fund is able to get help to those that need it. The (Red) products don't cost any more than a non(Red) product and they are well made. Most of the Gap's (Red) line is made from 100% African cotton. The factories producing these clothes employ Africans who are then able to feed their families and care for their children with the honest wages they earn. Product (Red) is such a simple idea and yet it works.

Let's not give the credit to Gap here. Sure, they've done a great job of creating buzz and promoting their own products, but the Global Fund was not the retailer's idea. They've simply Gap'ed it up to make it work with their demographic.

As for the merits of buying a shirt, iPod, etc. vs. donating directly to the cause. Let's be honest. Many, if not most, of the people buying these products are doing so because it's trendy. Live Strong bracelets and the off-shoots from those are a great example. Even if they don't necessarily care enough for the cause to make an outright donation, these people are now contributing.

Bono and Bobby Shriver either knew what they were doing, or they hired someone who did. This campaign is a fantastic idea.

The idea is that people wont give out of the need to give. I give to charities but I am one of the minority. The brilliance of this is that it is to get people to give by appealing to their desire to have things. The state of the world is that of materialism. People like having stuff, plain and simple. This way people buy things that are popular and some of the proceeds are given to charity. Why do you people have a problem with this? Are you too simple minded to recognize genius? Are you too faux-cynical to realize that love needed to be converted into a marketing scheme to work? Go to joinred.com and see that this is a good thing which should be helped as much as possible. Trade in your old phone and get a red razr or wear a GAP red t-shirt . No one will mock you for being trendy for a while. You just gave money to help fight AIDS and you got a comfy shirt. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Just to add my $0.02 :

The GAP (among others in the (red)diculous scene) is doing a decent thing…however, I KEEP it at decent. I'm not going to hurl stones when any organization, agency, business, or the like does something positive with some of their money. I do believe as many of you do though, that the companies with (red) eyes (GAP, Armani, and the like) also see the benefit of having the amount of good press this generates, or the endorsement that a celebrity with a conscience (give me a break) might give for a campaign such as this. Then you begin to check the "made in", or "assembled in" labels, and find that the products that are part of this campaign, sure aren't doing much for the American class of poverty participant textile workers. In fact, you'll find that most of the (red)clothing that you find in GAP stores or otherwise, is of course, manufactured in another country-cheaper. Now, most of you will say, "this is nothing new Yosef", and you will be correct. However, this campaign is new(er), and therefore, we begin anew with our evaluation of these companies reasons, motivations, and tactics. And to be fair, I care about the epidemic that the African continent is faced with, and believe that great amounts of money should be given from wealthy groups, or individuals. I do also believe however, that wealthy groups and individuals should try and make it mutually beneficial for their own country, not themselves. ie. Manufacture your goods in the United States, where working class americans starve everyday. Or, perhaps 50% of their shirts could go to the (red) campaign, while the other 50% go to the (blue) campaign, to help with poverty in the United States. The (blue) campaign being a ficticious campaign…but certainly playing on the same sort of marketing genious as (red). Well, my rant is at an end. Just tired of seeing labels of clothing, and products manufactured for the (red) campaign, with little to no money helping the american working family.

Plain and simple, they are doing something good. Could they do more? Sure, we all could but by purchasing these products we are helping out and so are they. So if I feel the need to cover my body in Gap and stay plugged into my iPod and phone at all times, and pay for it all on my credit card, in true american consumer fashion, at least I am doing it with things that are contributing more than the companies who aren't giving a damn.

Patr(ed)ick: Well said. I think the red campaign is absolutely wonderful. Something this world needs, along with the ONE campaign, they have such loving campaigns that serve an amazing purpose. The difference should matter, not that $12.00 of the (Red) bag you bought from Gap actually goes to the Gap, it's not the point, it was never supposed to be. If that's all you see when you look at these campaigns, I beg you to open your eyes and see the *hope* this entire operation is instilling in the people in Africa who thought there was no silver lining to their clouds… that's what really matters.

its clear people really have nothing better to do when they mock these projects

Red is an inc(red)ible campaign. Like many of us, we are unwilling to "give" away to charity without any incentives (not counting moral incentive). This is a tool for consumer to get what they want, while helping out others in desperate need. We need to think globally. What if the table was turned around, our situations switched with those of misfortune? Be thankful of what you have, and share what you do not need.

One world, one race, no second chances.

I think its stupid to make fun of this campain its only trying to help.

People who make fun of this obviously are very self-centered and stupid. Now I shouldn't be one to judge, Im only a 15 year old high school student. But I think its great what the GAP has done. 50% of proceeds going to fight HIV/AIDS? That is probally the most I've seen go to charity for selling anything in my lifetime. And people say "Why not 100%?" I'll tell you why. Because it cost money to make them. Of course they want to help the world but they do need to at least make back capital. I'm saving my money so I can go and change my entire wardrobe over to (red). Why? Because even though I'm 15 years old, If I die tomorrow I want to have made a difference, even if its a little one.

Jane Doe….if I am going to buy a freaking shirt anyway, I might as well buy one that looks good, And helps people…