I've no problem with buying goods where a portion, however small, goes to charity from the sale.
If, and only if, I'm going to buy that product anyway.

I for one don't buy things to enable a charity to get money. But if the choice is buying something I want to buy and having the full profits go to shareholders compared to having some donation going to charity, its a no brainer.
The charity gets more money.

If I do decide to buy an iphone (not sure I'd have much use for it), I will probably look out for the (red) one.
People can of course do what they want - some will be put off by charity links.

Martin

The way that company law works means that Directors are legally obliged to consider only the best interests of their share holders in cold financial terms. Being nice to people for it's own sake might be laudable but it's simply not a legitmate consideration. 

This means that commercial initiatives and products which impact positively on the community must have benefit to the company too  - hence the jargon heavy language of CSR, CRM etc. Whether this is clever ploy used by genuninely nice business executives to make their companies work to benefit the wider public is a matter for some debate. But then, as Adam says, who really cares if a charity/business partnership is mutually beneficial. Surely it's the end rather than the means that's important.

I also don't buy the argument that the (Red) phone is diverting money away from charities. People don't make a donation instead of purchasing a phone! In fact if more products built in a percentage donation to charity I think you might find that more people start making unsolicited charitable donations because it'll become embedded in our culture.

Don't shoot the messenger

Yes, Tobyr, I know it's annoying that companies are acting in a 'cynical' way (as you call it) to rake in consumers to buy their charity products. But I say: so what? The fact that companies exist to make money isn't big news. So when they do anything with an altruistic bent, I'm inclined to welcome it.  Yes, I'm sure Apple could be doing more. And yes, of course most of us should be giving more directly to charity too. But that doesn't mean I can't welcome (RED) as a good thing.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

The reason for disliking (Red) products isn't that they're associated with Bono or the Geldof-mafia. It's that the motivation behind companies' use of them them is entirely cynical, and is clearly being used by companies to align their brands with something they think is in fashion. Consumers don't like being obviously manipulated, and the (Red) products are just a bit too transparent. They make me cringe.

Companies have huge power to do good - for instance, they could support directly the very worthy cause you highlight, and make the case for this to their owners and customers. Wouldn't this be much more efficient, less cynical, and better received by wary consumers? Customers could exercise their charitable wishes by - radical, this - giving money directly to charity. This is much more efficient than buying a product, and some portion of that value (probably less than they imagine) going to charity eventually. They could also buy products, and some of the profits from those could then be donated to charity by the companies, as they see fit. Why confuse the two, and let peoples' consciences off the hook so easily?

And why isn't the branding of the charities/causes themselves, rather than the nebulous (Red) brand, which is meant to stand for commercialism and altruism, everything and nothing, all at once? It's messy, patronising, and somehow manages to make charity look un-cool. How did Bono manage it?