1.       A year after Product (RED)’s launch, Ad Age reported that although $100 million had been spent on marketing the campaign, only about $25 million had gone to the charity itself. Industry observers speculated that this could trigger a backlash against the campaign. Do you believe the criticism is justified? Do you think the campaign could lose supporters as a result?

I believe the criticism is justified. If I was a supporter of this campaign I would be furious. This is a campaign where 100% of the profits are supposd to go to charity. Then, it would be ethical to spend only 50% of those profits to advertising, and marketing. If this was true for this company then, at most, the company should have only spent 62.5 million on advertising and marketing. Almost 40 million dollars in advertising could instead have went to a better cause, like charity. This is a type of company that is looked at like they are helping out the world but they are giving the money away to other companies that don't need it, instead of to the charity it is supposed to go to. I would say something to the company if I was a supporter. Do you believe that this company is still as ethical as it seems?