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

[Mosschopz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Agreed.
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]

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]

yyy.

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]

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]

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

[TraineeBabyCatcher]

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

[somedayma]

I assume you're making a regular noticeable d

[somedayma]

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

[SantasENormaSnob]

They are a business not a charity.

[EverybodysSnowyEyed]

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

[FestiveElement]

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

[notnagging]

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 mean

[MaryMotherOfCheeses]

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]

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]

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]

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

[MaryMotherOfCheeses]

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]

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

[somedayma]

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]

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]

YANBU It's just for good publicity IMO

[McNewPants2013]

It could be said on a few charities functions, why should a man wax his leg for charity why don't people give without the need, or children in need why the big song and dance why not just give the money.

Pampers relies on people buying thire product in order to make the donations without publication how would people know.