Apple site update w/ tsunamis

its an amazing gesture by apple to devote pretty much the entire home page to highlighting aid agencies.

and as apples site is very popular, hopefully it will mean more money will be raised.
 
MS did not change their web site... or even make mention of the disaster. I wonder if any other company did what Apple did to their opening web site?
 
I hear it's better at this point to send monetary aid rather than physical (blankets, food, etc.) aid. Good on Apple for leading the way on this one! Another reason why Apple rocks. :cool:
 
I appreciate that Apple does things like that, although it still gives me a strange feeling, because after all, they're a commercial company - and it _might_ look to some as if they're just doing it as an image-building thing... (i.e. if they _were_ altruistic about this, they'd send money and not tell anyone about it). That's not how _I_ think about it, I just think it's a move on their part that _can_ get down the wrong throat.
 
Better than Spymac's effort, where they collect money till Jan 13th, skim off 3% for their troubles and then give it all to the Red Cross. Something about them taking part of it "for their troubles" seems wrong to me.
 
Yay for Apple! I don't think they have much to worry about their image to the public. Afterall, they thank their families for supporting them rather than Apple fans. Plus their visual insight is sure to have people visiting those links.
 
Thanks for posting this JetWingX! I just contributed to Oxfam via Apple. I saw them on the news and they seem like a good organization. I know what you mean Fryke, but I think Apple's intentions here are just fine. I myself wanted to do something, but just didn't get around to it until now. Providing links and the ability to then donate with a simple form makes it that much easier to get me motivated to help. P.S. A company that does a lot of good with significant donations and never mentions it is UPS.
 
Yeah good on apple for doing something. However i thought they couldve done something more attractive. But thats just me. Google have also mentioned something on their site. They have given links to more dontation agencies than apple has im think. But i think ms doesnt even care about the tsunami's in asia all they care about is talking about a new optical mouse.
 
Call me cynical, but to be honest, I buy more into Fryke's scenario, that this is more of a public relations thing above all. They're probably hoping they'll provoke fuzzy feeling in the hearts of potential iPod buyers, enough to make the sale. If Apple was really interested in helping these people, they'd start a fund or donate some percentage of every sale towards disaster relief. But taking up the entire page with this message seems suspicious, and unnecessary. I'm not saying they don't care about disaster relief, but after all they are a business. Loosing nearly all of their advertising space on their homepage would make no financial sense at a time when their sales are the highest they've been in years. Improving their public image to ensure continued business and loyal customers would.
 
Alas, we do indeed live in cynical times! I'm the last one to trust a corporation, but this is far less offensive than the post 911 idea that buying a SUV at 0% financing was the patriotic thing to do.

I'd really like to think that someone at Apple stopped and said something like, "Man, a hundred thousand people died and millions are homeless. This is bigger than selling iPods..." but who really knows. Does Apple have manufacturing plants in any of the effected areas? If so, that might be part of it?
 
FYI, Amazon is now doing this. I just heard a report on NPR about corporate donations to this disaster and 9/11 - seems many companies were influenced by their employees after 9-11 to be more active in this sort of thing. Customers want it too of course. At the same time, they did mention it is a mixed bag motivating all this - marketing and charity hand in hand. Also, many employers will match employee donations, so if you work for a company with this policy, you might want to check how this works.
 
With a death toll of over 114,000, I would very much hope that Apple and other companies are doing this 100% for the people that were affected by the tsunami, and not just to improve their company's image.

It makes me sick to think that companies would use a horrible event like this to increase their image.
 
steve jobs talks of 'good karma' buying from iTMS - i highly doubt he would approve of a marketing stunt that rides on the back of the tragedy.

apple have done this because they are a brand with a social conscience - this is a global tradegy - i live in the UK - no-one I know personally has been affected - but the sheer scale has involved all of us around the world who are in a position to help. and it's right for all of us to help in whatever way we can - this is apples way of helping - by pointing visitors to the sites of aid agencies raising monetery aid for the region.

apple know they are a popular site - for apple users and unique visitors alike - so why not use that leverage to good.

even if it was the marketing people who thought of this - and even if there is residual market return - its all good.
 
Yes, the companies that will follow suit in this are more likely to be the ones doing it via pressure from employees, customers, marketing... Apple, as usual, was way out in front.
 
Cheryl said:
MS did not change their web site... or even make mention of the disaster. I wonder if any other company did what Apple did to their opening web site?
Click to expand...

Incidentally, they now have. I wonder if it was pressure from the fact that competitors had info on their sites, or genuine altruism?
 
The easy way of viewing what Apple and other companies have done to promote charitable causes is to be cynical. Most companies are not so cold as to be completely involved in charitable causes for PR and image. At the same time, it is not ethically wrong to let others know that you do promote or support a certain charitable cause. In all likelihood, it's a two way street. Companies benefit from the PR, and also, charitable organizations receive greater publicity and more donations. So I think some people unduly think of companies as being "evil," which is unfair. Companies are built by the people.

As an example, Target has donated a certain amount of its profits to charities even before they started making a fuss about it. Now, they let people know that. Personally, I think it's more virtuous to not make a fuss about it. And if it's mentioned, then it should be done so in the proper way. But it doesn't hurt that they do. In the end, the good they're doing is of more benefit than the fact they publicize it. In this case, the enormous suffering and need of the people in South Asia is worth mentioning without second thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top