Expo Markers has a new television ad starring actor Kyle Chandler. He begins by telling viewers that teachers spend as much as $500 annually on classroom supplies that their schools don't provide. He also says that Expo markers are near the top of their shopping list, a vague claim that would be tough to prove or disprove. He then encourages viewers to nominate inspiring teachers for a competition sponsored by the brand, adding that ten winning teachers will receive help with their expenses.
Expo likely wants viewers to think of their brand as altruistic and socially conscious, generating goodwill for the brand and more sales. But how much are they really doing for teachers? It sounds like they are willing to pay out a maximum of $5,000 (that's $500 each for ten teachers) to help our inspiring educators. That sum almost certainly pales in comparison to the cost of hiring Mr. Chandler, and it seems even tinier relative to the cost of purchasing time on network television. If anything, Expo seems pretty stingy - the opposite of the image they're probably hoping to create among consumers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Daniel Altman is a Harvard-trained economist who has been an economics columnist for The Economist, The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune. He is the author of three books and teaches a course on the future of the global economy at New York University's Stern School of Business.
Good point. I've always wondered, in this line of thought, how much money do benefit dinners actually make, since the initial investment is terribly high: renting a fancy place, luxurious catering, entertainment... what do you think?
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that some benefit dinners make a lot of money. In the United States, for example, political campaigns often have $1,000-a-plate dinners with the candidates, where the cost of the dinner is probably closer to $100. Those dinners also represent an exchange; in addition to giving money to a campaign, you have the opportunity to network with other supporters and perhaps even meet the candidate him/herself. If these things had no value, and the only goal was to give money to the cause, then of course it would be better simply to collect checks.
ReplyDelete