Advanced search

To think '1 pack = 1 vaccine' is exceptionally stingy charity from Pampers

(30 Posts)
Mosschopz Sat 29-Dec-12 21:21:59

The cost of a vaccinating a whole village would only be a few pence, a pack of Pampers I'd estimate at about £5 and they're promising ONE vaccination. Is it just me or is this a cynical attempt to endear themselves to the 'ethical' customer while making very little impact on a third world problem. This kind of marketing really doesn't sit right with me.

Fakebook Sat 29-Dec-12 21:27:32

Sorry but they're a business making money, not a charity. Yes it may seem a bit stingy but at least they're making a small difference.

(I never buy pampers though because the nappies are leaky and overpriced)

Bananapickle Sat 29-Dec-12 21:31:51

I hate this advert, it feels a bit like emotional blackmail. It's great they're doing something but I hate the fact they make it dependent on each pack being bought. I don't buy pampers for a few reasons (mainly they leak on my DD) but I always feel guilty when I see this advert.

MaryMotherOfCheeses Sat 29-Dec-12 21:36:47

Interesting. I've just been googling it.

They've been doing this since 2006, which, tbf, is good from the charity's point of view, because it's sustained. Apparently, they've provided 300 million vaccines in that time, which is quite a lot I guess.

But yes, no company should be complacent about its CSR - they can always do more.

carovioletfizz Sat 29-Dec-12 21:37:55

Also, there is a strong link between disposable nappies and climate change. They emit methane once they are in landfill which causes the planet to heat up.

Which causes climate change such as flooding and other natural disasters.

Which devastate communities and cause waterborne disease. That they're vaccinating against, when their product is actually contributing to the problem.

complexnumber Sat 29-Dec-12 21:39:11

I think we used to get through at least one pack a week per dd (or have I completely forgotten how often we would change our dds?) over a period of a couple of years.

If that was multiplied by the number of pampers babies around the country (or even world), I think that would represent a significant number of vaccinations.

Of course, if you are seriously concerned, there are more direct ways of contributing.

MaryMotherOfCheeses Sat 29-Dec-12 21:46:39


If you really wanted to make a difference, get washable nappies and after the initial outlay, donate the money you save direct to unicef.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 29-Dec-12 23:13:05

At least they are doing something, how many companies or individuals dont.

If you dont think they contribute enough, then you can make your own donation direct.

NameGotLostInCyberspace Sat 29-Dec-12 23:15:55

Something is better than nothing. But have to say I have thought exactly the same thing.

TraineeBabyCatcher Sat 29-Dec-12 23:17:24

I used to think it was stingy when I bought them for ds, but at least its something.

somedayma Sat 29-Dec-12 23:19:32

I assume you're making a regular noticeable d

somedayma Sat 29-Dec-12 23:20:10

I assume you're making a regular noticeable donation to UNICEF yourself...?

SantasENormaSnob Sat 29-Dec-12 23:20:14

They are a business not a charity.

EverybodysSnowyEyed Sat 29-Dec-12 23:23:07

well according to the merlin website it costs £1 to vaccinate a child.

FestiveElement Sat 29-Dec-12 23:44:41

It is never 'stingy' to donate money to a good cause.

notnagging Sat 29-Dec-12 23:46:50

I agree op. they focus on it like they're doing a wonderful thing. It's like when you find out only 5p from a charity product is going to the charity. Very meansad

MaryMotherOfCheeses Sat 29-Dec-12 23:48:40

Somedayma, many companies have charitable giving policies and it is reasonable for members of the public to comment on them without actually giving to those charities themselves.

AnnieLobeseder Sat 29-Dec-12 23:51:57

MaryMotherOfCheeses has already said exactly what I wanted to say.

They're only doing it to sell nappies. If they cared at all about the babies they'd just quietly make donations without advertising it. Charity you have to boast about is no charity at all in my mind.

somedayma Sat 29-Dec-12 23:52:05

I actually don't think anyone objecting to this kind of marketing has a leg to stand on unless they donate themselves. It's like 'i don't donate anything towards vaccinations but I don't like the way this company is going about donating'. It makes no sense. At least SOMEONE is donating

somedayma Sat 29-Dec-12 23:53:04

oh I fully agree that it's just a marketing ploy but so what? UNICEF still benefits

MaryMotherOfCheeses Sat 29-Dec-12 23:55:13

I donate to various things. I don't spend a fortune publicising it though. That's the point. Pampers aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart, there is a demonstrable commercial benefit for a business to have a strong corporate social responsibility policy. And it's quite legitimate that that should be questioned by consumers.

MaryMotherOfCheeses Sat 29-Dec-12 23:59:12

list of Unicef's corporate partners, not just Pampers, just for balance

somedayma Sun 30-Dec-12 00:06:06

Yes I agree that it's done from a selfish place but why does that matter? The bottom line is that UNICEF are better off than they were before pampers started the campaign. That's all I care about

Mosschopz Sun 30-Dec-12 08:05:47

somedayma I don't regularly donate to UNICEF but have a direct debit to Oxfam instead, they've always been my charity, and I donate quite generously. However that's not the point - I'm not a large company with big profits and what I give per month is pro rata a bigger gesture than Pampers make. Yes, at least they're doing something but that gesture is pitifully small.

NC78 Sun 30-Dec-12 08:46:03

YANBU It's just for good publicity IMO

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: