Product (RED)

Overall, I believe that the intentions of Product (RED) are good, but I don't know if Bono and Bobby Shriver went about it in the right manner.  I understand the desire to have a charity that keeps on giving, but I wonder if the methodology of giving a large lump sum outweighs the long-term potential of a charity that continues for five to ten years.  If the fundraiser wanted to continue making money in the future, I also see a problem if it only still promotes via the GAP, Converse, and Myspace.com as these aren't the broadest of markets.  Offering businesses with a larger market base the ability to go 'RED' might help to raise the awareness and profitability of the charity.  Another thing that didn't make total sense was the amount of revenue that the GAP took in ($71 million) and the amount donated ($2.5 million).  I have to assume that the revenue doesn't just include profit as that would be much less than the 50%.  On the other hand, I think that the incorporation of adding the whole new product line of INSPI(RED) shirts and shoes to Converse and GAP was a great idea to get the word out about the charity.  Much like the Livestrong wristbands, it does seem that product promotion corresponding to a charitable cause allows for a better following, and thus more 'donations.'

Is the world turning into a place in which we need to receive rewards for doing right?