Amy Lockwood is reformed marketer working in international development. She spent some time in October in Democratic Republic of Congo, the largest country in Africa, and collected some data, information concerning the marketing of condoms there. Before touching the main point, there is also some information she presents about Congo: during the past 10 years almost 5 million people were died due to war in east, but unfortunately that is not the only reason of difficult life in DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo). One of those is the HIV, a problem which is faced by almost 1.3% adults in DRC, which states that 930,000 people from 76,000,000 are suffering of that, and according to report infrastructures, only 25% of them are receiving drugs for saving their lives. That became a reason for donor agencies to provide low or no cost condoms to DRC. She surveyed some people, who run hotel, pharmacy, etc. related to condom marketing there, and came to conclusion, that there is almost no demand for condoms, as people in DRC generally do not use condoms (only 3% of population does). Related marketers said that those 3% prefer generic condoms to branded ones, provided by donor agencies, despite of fact that they are low or no cost. And being interested by the fact, she started to observe the reasons of such behavior. After figured out that it is because of wrong massages they give trough the advertisement, like naming condoms, and writing massages on them in such way, that has no relation with thoughts of consumer, before going to get condom.Messages like fear, financing and fidelity...etc. When local, private companies, producing condoms, do their marketing in significantly different way, by placing in condoms pictures and names, that are provocative for consumers, in order to sell. And Amy Lockwood raises a issue, that donor agencies have forgot the key approach, that by producing something they must understand who is the costumer, and what massages they must use in order to change costumer behavior, and in this case to save people from HIV.

To be honest, I did not figure out the main purpose of Amy Lockwood's presentation. What is the real issue? To find ways for saving more people from HIV in Congo, or to make branded condoms competitive with local ones? As in the topic she mentions that only 3% of 76,000,000 population uses condoms (by the way there were no sources mentioned, were we could check the data), taking in to account the fact the local ones are more attractive for them than branded ones. Here arises a question, if donor agencies make their condom as much attractive, would it increase the demand for them? I guess no, because with the same condition only 3% uses condoms according to her data. According to all above mentioned, we have got gaps, lot of them, in sense of accuracy, precision, relevance, as the issue in my opinion is to save them from HIV, not to make competitive condoms. She also settles a question about the approach of the agencies, that must understand their consumers. Right! But, how her answer to that question, or even raised question is facing the complexities of the issue. I would say weekly, as she considers all this stuff from the point of view of marketer. What about the political or social-cultural points of view, mentality, these are very strong factors influencing the consumer behavior. She clearly identifies her assumptions, from marketing point of view. According to this, can her approach to the issue be fair? No, as she looks to it only from marketing point of view. By analyzing the data given, and the results, presented by Amy Lockwood, we can assume, that those agencies do not really care about the wellbeing of Congo people, it is just a charity that can reduce taxes payed by the agencies, otherwise they would pay a little attention to such simple marketing and advertising factors, which is also not considered in the presentation.

To be honest, I did not figure out the main purpose of Amy Lockwood's presentation. What is the real issue? To find ways for saving more people from HIV in Congo, or to make branded condoms competitive with local ones? As in the topic she mentions that only 3% of 76,000,000 population uses condoms (by the way there were no sources mentioned, were we could check the data), taking in to account the fact the local ones are more attractive for them than branded ones. Here arises a question, if donor agencies make their condom as much attractive, would it increase the demand for them? I guess no, because with the same condition only 3% uses condoms according to her data. According to all above mentioned, we have got gaps, lot of them, in sense of accuracy, precision, relevance, as the issue in my opinion is to save them from HIV, not to make competitive condoms. She also settles a question about the approach of the agencies, that must understand their consumers. Right! But, how her answer to that question, or even raised question is facing the complexities of the issue. I would say weekly, as she considers all this stuff from the point of view of marketer. What about the political or social-cultural points of view, mentality, these are very strong factors influencing the consumer behavior. She clearly identifies her assumptions, from marketing point of view. According to this, can her approach to the issue be fair? No, as she looks to it only from marketing point of view. By analyzing the data given, and the results, presented by Amy Lockwood, we can assume, that those agencies do not really care about the wellbeing of Congo people, it is just a charity that can reduce taxes payed by the agencies, otherwise they would pay a little attention to such simple marketing and advertising factors, which is also not considered in the presentation.







