To think that Pampers are not bring that generous?

[startwig1982]

I've just seen their advert for one pack of pampers=one life saving vaccine of tetanus. Turns out the vaccine costs 4.4p....
I know they're doing some good but really? 4.4p from a company that earns millions? Poor.

I like the advert, they must donate millions of vaccines a year, no other nappy company does it. Those that say its not enough, then donate yourselves as well.

Exactly, Happy.

MindtheGap - if you mean the numbers I quoted, they are in millions of US dollars, from the P&G annual report on their website.

The total net profits are $11,797m on $82,555m of sales - so 14.2%.

I know P&G don't have to do anything - but the very fact that you are able to state that 'they are a very generous company' and 'their community initiatives in the UK are outstanding' shows that their PR and advertising departments are clearly doing something right with these kinds of initiatives ;-)

I don't get that from PR and Advertising.

I agree with OP YANBU.

But for more reasons than just that.

I think it is a cynical form of marketing to use a company's charitable activities to drive sales. Let's be honest here- P&G don't do this to warm our hearts, they do it to drive extra sales. If it didn't return for them, they wouldnt continue to run this campaign.

There are plenty of big bluechip companies out there that have policies where they won't use their charitable activities in their marketing campaigns. The reason being: charity is their way of giving to those in need, not of driving consumer behaviour.

If you believe that, you don't know P&G, Dorris.

P&G started in 1837, and right from the start, they have been giving back to the community. The original founders, James Procter and William Gamble had a strong sense of giving back. Ever since then, it has been a company policy, even through hard times.

Mindthe Gappp I don't doubt that they do plenty for charty. Most big companies do.

I think using their charitable work to drive sales is cynical and unneccesary.

We should want to buy their products because they are superior and worth it, not because we are being guilted into it through their marketing campaign. I think it is the mechanic that makes it less worthy for me - 'buy this and we'll do something good'

As you say, they already do plenty of good. So if they wanted to drive awareness of their charitable activities, they could just do a campaign saying so.

It is the fact that they use it to make us buy more, that doesn't wash with me

(and I know they aren't the only company who do this, plenty do- I just don't like it )

CSR sells, always has.

You can buy P&G products because they are genuinely superior and 'added value'. That has always been a company value, alongside giving back to the community, that has been there since 1837 - long before cynical commercialism.

Genuinely superior? Company value? Company values are whatever makes them the most money, and if that means their PR company spouting off about their charitable gift giving, then they will do it because there are always people daft enough to believe it.

Cynical? Definitely, but then I worked in PR, and know how the strategies are worked out.

Pampers make really useless nappies. Use Tesco, or as someone else said Lidl nappies and give the rest to charity yourself.

Oh and as for 'added value', they've been cutting pack sizes and still charging the same prices. Hardly the act of a superior company, is it?

Exactly Bearskinwoolies, as a complete aside, you can still get the bigger packs for £10 from Amazon (& they still donate 1 vaccine).

MindtheGappp - why did you choose to single me out?

Yes it is right that P&G don't have to donate any money towards the cause but 4.4p does seem minimal. I can't see there being very little profit on a jumbo pack, there will be even more on the 'carry packs' of 28 / 35 .etc which are, in comparison, very expensive.

Christ, how much is MindTheGapp being paid for these posts? Incidentally, I think Pampers nappies are crap. Every supermarket own brand I've tried has been better and far cheaper. I don't even buy Pampers (or Huggies, which are also rubbish) when special offers make them cheaper than the supermarket brand.

I think no-one is annoyed that P&G are donating vaccines; what's annoying is that they pride themselves on it so much and use the fact to sell more of their (crap) nappies, when it translates to such a tiny amount.

So, the wisdom of Mumsnet is that:

1. Big business is stingy
2. Anything they do is for cynical reasons
3. If you don't agree with the concensus, you are being paid.

I'll leave the critical thinking to everyone else of this thread. My talents are wasted, har har.

So better that they gave nothing and didn't mention it on their adverts?! Or gave lots more and didn't mention it? And if it increases sales where is the harm, as that agai results in extra vaccine donations...I fail to see what is so bloody awful about what they are doing. I do however work for a company which gets vilified in a similar way by people who seem to think profit is evil.

Pootlebug - The 14.2% figure that you got from the annual report can't be applied to £10 per pack, as this is the retail price. The shops add their own mark up to the price that they purchase the packs from P&G at. We'll never know that figure unless a buyer from a store tells us.

I agree that they don't have to anything and I like the fact that they do this. Millions of packs of nappies will add up to millions of vaccines.