So far, I haven't spent a red cent
on Bono's "Red Campaign," but apparently some people have.
The problem is this: It appears that the advertising effort undertaken to promote the program (people paying a premium for "red" items, with the extra money sent as aid to Africa) has dwarfed the actual funds raised.
So, some groups are calling the campaign out and imploring people to "Buy less crap"and simply donate more directly to relief work.
I don't know enough to have an opinion on this dispute, but I do know that it will
not help my recovery from Bono Fatigue.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
6 comments:
Interesting stuff, Nate. Here's my two cents. If people are gonna buy stuff anyway, it's good that a portion of the profits will go to a good cause. But if people are simply buying crap because they think it's the best way to help, they're misinformed. For the record, I have no problem with the campaign because it is siphoning off profits from mega-billion dollar companies.
And I still think Bono is hot.
Yeah, there is some value in people donating while shopping. The cause is good and the money is (hopefully) well spent. I do this at the McDonald's drive-thru window on occasion.
But the "Red" campaign is probably more about hotness than about radical, sacrifical living/giving. And I doubt executives of billion-dollar corps mind having the most angelic rock-star in history (besides the guys from Audio Adrenaline) lending his cachet to their efforts to sell products.
I'm already contradictng my professed lack of opinion. Oops.
Do you get the Ad Age emails too??
I found the artcle extremely interesting. The non-profit organizations see this (red) campaign as a dillution of donations. People could do SO much more if they weren't overpaying for a (red) tshirt. Over $100 MILLION dollars spent on advertising this stuff and they've pulled in $18 million dollars. It's probably helping the companies more than the non-profits....no company is going to continue to provide that kind of money without some return on the investment. So essentially, they're attempting to buy the consumer's goodwill without really contributing anything. In reality, the aids effort would have benefited MUCH more of the $100MM actually went to the organization instead of an ad agency.
The other part of the story that I think is interesting is that there's the feeling that this type of campaign is actually training the current generation that they should GET something in return for their donation. That's it not just about the donation, but what their benefit in the whole deal is. And, is it really a good idea that we're feeding into the over-commercialization/mass-consumerism that is the current america instead of going against the trend and be a better person?
Sorry, i verbally barfed all over your comments. I don't even know you....but I know tim! :o) Hi!
Barf away, Rebekah.
You restored the library at Hope. In my book, that alone entitles you to a couple of month's worth of opining on this blog.
Good point about the message the Red effort sends to today's givers. It probably does (as you say) seem to reinforce already rampant mass consumerism.
I suppose in a vacuum it can be justified because "at least it's doing something." But for a Christian whose goal is not simply to shift dollars around to make things more equitable, but to become transformed by Christ, something about the Red campaign appeals to the part of me that I am trying to kill.
So, having studied international development things like this are the kind of nightmares entire class periods are spent on...critiquing the living shit out of them.
That being said, I do appreciate that the red campaign is pointing people in a direction they may not have otherwise looked. Do the large majority of American consumers realize what is going on in regards to the AIDS pandemic in Africa? My guess is no--even though I can't back that up. If this campaign should help enlighten them, then I am pleased.
However, it does seem to me that there are far more cons than pros (some of which ya'll have listed). It helps to legitimize a selfish lifestyle. It makes AIDS "cool" and "hip" and I believe degrades the true depth and pain of the problem. It is a bit Pharissee-blowing-my-trumpet like to wear something that intentionally lets people know you gave to a charity. And like all charitable donations, it lets us off the hook from doing much else. Just send a check and you've done your good deed. Only this time you don't have to intentionally write a check to a charity; instead you can buy some lame ass red phone so people know you're great.
Seems like a bit of a win-win for consumers, and not so much for those suffering.
I also find it interesting that on Red's blog, in response to the criticism they in turn criticize the $100M figure for it's vagueness. However, every figure they give us begins with "around" and certainly carries no citations whatsoever.
But, people are notorious for being critics without solutions. At least Bono is trying to use his platform to help others--even if he needs a punch in the nuts and a broken pair of shades
Post a Comment