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.