Monday, February 11, 2008

Getting a little (RED)? Embarrassed?

I’ve written an entry in the past, pondering on the effectiveness of the Bono's RED campaign. A recent NY Times articles reports on its successes and failures, notably a transformative improvement in the conditions and the care provided at the Treatment and Research AIDS Center in Rwanda. On the other hand:

Yet detractors say Red has fallen short. They criticize a lack of transparency at the company and its partners over how much they make from Red products, and whether they spend more money on Africa or advertising.

“Look at all the promotions they’ve put out,” said Inger L. Stole, a communications professor at the University of Illinois. “The ads seem to be more about promoting the companies and how good they are than the issue of AIDS.”

In its March 2007 issue, Advertising Age magazine reported that Red companies had collectively spent as much as $100 million in advertising and raised only $18 million. Officials of the campaign said then that the companies had spent $50 million on advertising and that the amount raised was $25 million. Advertising Age stood by its article.

Says Co-Founder of RED, Bobby Shriver:

“I hate begging for money. In most cases when you go and ask for a corporate donation, they’ll cut you a check and that’s it. We wanted something that was more sustainable.”

While I celebrate and am thankful for the change that the money raised has been able to bring, and while I can understand Shriver’s comment on the longer-term reliability of this type of corporate donation, I do not believe this is a truly “sustainable” method to help the world. The RED campaign is merely superficial, providing handouts and alleviating symptoms, instead of addressing the roots of injustice in the world. True corporate social responsibility needs to extend beyond passing off the bread crumbs of revenue to the poor.

5 comments:

M. Weed said...

I agree with you for the most part.

A lot of times when I read you, I'm not sure if you're offering a question or a critique. I appreciate that you're even-handed and that you let me come to my own conclusions, but sometimes I feel like you have a stronger opinion that you might not be expressing.

In this case, maybe I'm just projecting my very strong distaste for Product Red onto your writing.

Part of it could also be that you're offering basic quantitative performance metrics here, instead of playing up the obvious intrinsic contradiction of saving the world by buying more stuff. I tend to be so concerned with underlying presuppositions that I don't even care about Red's performance metrics, I just want them to burn for insulting the people they're avowedly supposed to help --- by making them guilt-relievers for Western consumers.

Nicholas said...

I agree with Matt for the most part. I do get the feeling that you sometimes hold back the force of what you really think. Remember "work/life balance?"

I also agree with you. (RED) and all of its spawn annoy the heck out of me. What a delusion.

I'm also sick of being told to use energy efficient light bulbs. While we're not saving the world by buying more stuff, let's save it by becoming obsessed with the minutia of our daily lives.

Nicholas said...

Oh, also - it's not Bon Jovi's campaign, it's Bono's. Bon Jovi owns the Philadelphia indoor football team. Bono is the world's coolest raiser of awareness.

Nicholas said...

Your post got me so angry that I wrote something of my own on the same topic.

M. Weed said...

Haha Nick --- so did I! But it was related to some other readings from the same day, from the City Journal and the Baffler. More on that soon!