"1 Pack of Pampers = 1 Vaccine"

cantdecide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAvjWVj12AU

Cynical guilt trip marketing using the suffering of people to shift product and raise brand awareness or not?

Capt'n Midnight

what % of the price goes to the vaccine ?

Skylinehead

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

what % of the price goes to the vaccine ?

$0.05 according to the small print.

Sofaspud

Another way of looking at this, "We can afford to pay for a lot of vaccines, but choose not to unless you buy more of our stuff."

LETHAL LADY

Pampers are overpriced as it is. They are great quality poop catchers and in my experience the best for preventing nappy rash, but I have to go for the cynical option with this simply because of the owners Procter and Gamble.

El Guapo!

People try to be too skeptical about everything these days. Why not try look on the bright side for once? If you buy the product, a child gets a vaccine.
No matter what the motive is behind it, that can only be a good thing right?

LETHAL LADY

Dean09 wrote: »

People try to be too skeptical about everything these days. Why not try look on the bright side for once? If you buy the product, a child gets a vaccine.
No matter what the motive is behind it, that can only be a good thing right?

But most parents can't afford this product these days, so they choose the cheaper option and now it comes with added guilt, a well-known parent affliction.

El Guapo!

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

But most parents can't afford this product these days, so they choose the cheaper option and now it comes with added guilt, a well-known parent affliction.

You'd want to be seriously sensitive to feel guilty about not buying the nappies.
I'd say it's just aimed at people torn between buying two different brands and they may lean towards the Pampers because of the offer.
I doubt anyone is gonna be too cut up about it if they can't afford it.

SafeSurfer

They're full of shlt.

cantdecide

Sofaspud wrote: »

Another way of looking at this, "We can afford to pay for a lot of vaccines, but choose not to unless you buy more of our stuff."

Dean09 wrote: »

No matter what the motive is behind it, that can only be a good thing right?

Million packs sold in the last period of time so million vaccines by way of charity? No! Stop buying our crap and little Camara dies and it's your fault...

flutterflye

I buy pampers because I find that they are the best.
I wouldn't put a young baby in any of the lesser known brands.
The vaccine thing has nothing to do with why I buy them, but I am glad that each pack I buy goes towards something that can save the lives of children.

SafeSurfer

Proctor and Gamble probably own a majority shareholding in the firm that produces the vaccines and makes a profit on that too while having a nice little tag line for western marketing campaigns.

This is a company who changed their logo because the old one allegedly contained occult symbolism.

But having said that I use them too, but I am not fussy what receptical is used for my daughter's feces.

UCDVet

Dean09 wrote: »

People try to be too skeptical about everything these days. Why not try look on the bright side for once? If you buy the product, a child gets a vaccine.
No matter what the motive is behind it, that can only be a good thing right?

Send me 10 euro and I'll make sure a child gets a vaccine. Seriously.

Just don't question my motive too much or be skeptical about all the details.

LETHAL LADY

Dean09 wrote: »

You'd want to be seriously sensitive to feel guilty about not buying the nappies.
I'd say it's just aimed at people torn between buying two different brands and they may lean towards the Pampers because of the offer.
I doubt anyone is gonna be too cut up about it if they can't afford it.

Have you watched the ads, it is totally guilt tripping the western flahoolick (wrong spelling) parents. When the vast majority of ourselves are out bothering ourselves with making ends meet, suddenly an ad appears on our LED 1000 inch screens of far off places and utter poverty, just letting us know of the sheer depth of our greediness.

Sofaspud

cantdecide wrote: »

Million packs sold in the last period of time so million vaccines by way of charity? No! Stop buying our crap and little Camara dies and it's your fault...

Exactly, plenty of companies donate to charity and don't make a song and dance about it.
These tell you they're going to donate to charity in future, but only if you buy their stuff.

Lyaiera

Procter and Gamble are one of the most sinister and devious companies going. In America they have a programme called Vocalpoint. You sign up to it and get free stuff, great right? But they make no bones about the fact that they only give free stuff to "community orientated mums." So basically, to get on the free stuff list you have to be involved in loads of activities, actively talking to loads of other parents, and be generally a picture perfect mother. They refuse people getting on these lists because the parent isn't popular enough. They use Facebook logins and other social networks' gathered info to evaluate how successful at influencing their peers the people on their lists are, and the better they are the more free stuff they get given. And of course in the marketing industry this is cited as genius.

Now things like this have always happened. Companies have given out free product for over a century in the hope that people like it and continue to buy it. And celebrity endorsements have been happening for just as long. The thing with celebrity endorsements though is that it's honest. Everyone knows it's marketing, everyone knows the celebrity is getting compensated in some way for their appearance, or for using a product. People know that it's advertising. However with things like Vocalpoint it's not just giving people free product, it's actively targeting the free product at "influential" parents, and encouraging them (usually within self-regulated industry guidelines) to tell their peers about how wonderful the product is. And of course the more of their peers they tell, the more free stuff they get.

It's absolutely sickening. And if you think it's bad that this is happening with nappies and baby formula, there's even cases (not necessarily with P&G) of companies doing the exact same thing with kids. They identify the cool kids in a school (and teachers have been found complicit in pointing out who the coolest kids in the school were) and the companies ply these kids with free shoes, clothes, electronics etc.

hardCopy

People can always buy another brand and make their own donation if they don't like it.

Capt'n Midnight

Dean09 wrote: »

People try to be too skeptical about everything these days. Why not try look on the bright side for once? If you buy the product, a child gets a vaccine.
No matter what the motive is behind it, that can only be a good thing right?

If they are spending more on the advertising than the vaccine then you are subsidising advertisers more than the children.

lidllady

http://artsytime.com/img/people/best-magazine-covers/best-magazine-covers07.jpg