informage

David Cameron will today unveil radical plans to harness the power of the internet by reaching out to a blogging generation that is disaffected and disconnected from mainstream politics.

At the heart of the initiative, which is designed to make the Tories one of the most technologically progressive parties in Europe, is “webcameron” – a website for video blogs by their leader. Mr Cameron will provide regular clips with him speaking direct to camera, as well as written blogs and podcasts.

Tories unveil their secret weapon: ‘webcameron’, The Guardian, September 2006

The villagers have spent the last six decades dressing up in home-made US army uniforms, drilling with bamboo rifles and parading beneath the Stars and Stripes in the hope of enticing a delivery of cargo once again.

They have even hacked air strips out of the jungle and built crude wooden aircraft to tempt the speedy return of American generosity.

Culture clash in the South Seas, BBC News, May 2004

(format of juxtaposed quotes as commentary shamelessly lifted from Billmon)

Thanks to all who have commented thus far on my previous post, Blood Money. I deeply appreciate being read and responded to. I’d like to address in particular the points that a guy called Russ raises (thanks for taking the time Russ, and though we strongly disagree I’m happy to have got you thinking, and happy that you got me thinking further).

I’ve decided to write a follow-up post, as he raises issues that I didn’t really address. His underlying question – “what are you proposing as an alternative?” – is something that I intend to write about in more depth in the near future, although not specifically in relation to the African AIDS epidemic. Here I’ll address some of his other criticisms and questions and offer a couple more alternatives that we can all be campaigning for.

Why don’t they donate the money they are spending on promoting this card (they spend $550 million annually on marketing)?

The answer is that that would be illegal. Companies exist to make profits for their shareholders, and directors are bound to act in their best interests. They go to jail otherwise.

You won’t be surprised that I find that particular law to be a very serious problem, and particularly so for our planet’s health. A Guardian blogger called Tony Juniper has written a good post about this. (Also, I’ll add that corporate donations to charitable causes are common, and can be justified as profitable by virtue of being good PR. I’m not necessarily endorsing that, but it is an alternative).

And actually, the 1% of the card that people donate would go to their pockets anyway, so are you suggesting that they keep that and they’ll still get your custom?

They certainly don’t get my custom, but if they want to give 1% of credit card spending to charitable causes I don’t have a big problem with that. What I do particularly have a problem with is their profiteering and objectionable ad campaign, especially when they’ve yet to give anything more than what is small change for a corporation that makes several billions of dollars in annual profits.

Surely the product red campaign does 2 things. It raises awareness by creating a product that advertises the issue…

Raised awareness cuts both ways. There is already reasonably high awareness of the African AIDS epidemic in the West. This campaign serves to suggest that the problem is being solved when it is clearly not, and to create the false notion that more capitalism is the answer when I believe that precisely the opposite is the case. Take Gisele’s recent interview in the Sunday Times for a striking example: “We can all start shopping more, and feel good about it. No more guilt!”.

…and it creates a precedent for ethical consumers to force big corporations to create products with an ethical spin. In effect this creates a tax on the very profits (which as I pointed out earlier they are obliged to create) which you find so abhorent.

You believe that global capitalism can be tweaked and improved to address the world’s problems. I do not. You believe that consumerism can be part of the solution, I believe it is a fundamental part of the problem.

I’m sure you’d like all multinationals to curl up and die. It won’t happen, swallow the pill, pay your money and make your choice.

As a South African I am deeply offended and upset that American Express and their directors seek to profit so crassly from the misery of HIV/AIDS in my country. The problem is huge. It is no solution to have British consumers believe that by purchasing some extra stuff with their credit card they can rest their consciences, whilst the West continues to extort debt repayments and impose neoliberal policies, both of which restrict the scope for wealth redistribution that might start to really address underlying causes. If British people want to make a difference to AIDS in Africa then they must address the legacy of colonialism and stop oppressing other countries. Then, maybe, they can start to feel “no more guilt”.

As a caring denizen of this planet I do not believe that seeking to increase consumer spending, particularly in the UK – one of the richest and most profligate consumer cultures in the world – is a solution to any of our immense problems. What is bought is often produced in sweat shops in the Majority World and transported between continents by a fuel that is fast running out; the burning of which is changing our climate and killing our fellow earth-dwellers. In the UK there are 67 million credit cards in circulation for a population of 59 million, creating misery for individuals, and enabling the overproduction that is a hallmark of civilisation and that is literally destroying our planet.

(Disclaimers: I’ve phrased these posts as though I am a South African and not British. In truth I am both, and I was actually born and raised in the UK. I now live in South Africa, hold South African citizenship, and have a father who spent decades of his life in exile from South Africa fighting to free it from oppression. It was the South African in me who reacted to the AmEx ad so vehemently, and so it feels authentic – and somewhat simpler – for that part of me to write these posts.

I am also a participant in this civilisation: I do use banks and credit cards, I do work for capitalist corporations, I do behave in environmentally destructive ways. I am in many ways a hypocrite. This will not stop me from saying what I see. I regularly reevaluate my choices and my life, and there are no easy answers or obvious paths. Right now writing this stuff is something that I can do, and I participate in various ways in trying to change this world. Is it enough? Never, but not doing enough won’t stop me doing what I can).

Despite being prepared for some shocks upon my return to the UK, nothing had prepared me for the crass and exploitative commercialism of this advertisement for the American Express Red card. I first saw this at Clapham Common tube station. I turned to my friends and asked them if they felt the same outrage I did, and realised that my exposure to the tragedy that is South Africa’s AIDS epidemic caused me to feel the pain in a way that they didn’t (I checked with some South African friends: I’m not alone).

Most offensive to me is the phrase “Has there ever been a better reason to shop?”, a somewhat surprising admission of the nature of this product and campaign (interestingly it was omitted from the other ads I spotted). The purpose is to tap into and profit from a particular market of “ethical consumers” on the back of the suffering and death of millions of Africans. Any actual benefit to those suffering will be marginal, and wholly outweighed by the profits AmEx and its board intend to receive.

More than six months after launch AmEx has donated some indeterminate sixth of $10 million to The Global Fund (see the pledges & contributions spreadsheet – the contributions of six companies including AmEx are lumped together), during which time two hundred thousand South Africans died of AIDS and AmEx made something like $1.8 billion in profits.

In contrast, The Gates Foundation has donated $500 million without recourse to a marketing campaign like this. I’m no big fan of the Gatesian approach to social change (see Slavoj Zizek’s Nobody has to be vile for a well-argued analysis), but at least the self-proclaimed “liberal communists” don’t make me queasy as did this ad and the details I went on to dig up.

The profiteering nature of this venture is made explicit in an article by the Global Business Coalition:

AmEx believes the number of conscience consumers in Britain will grow from its present level of 1.5 million to more than four million by 2009…

…each of the partner companies will return a share of the profits from the sale of Red products to the Global Fund in return for the opportunity to increase their own revenue – and profits – by attracting ethical consumers.

One imagines that this large and growing group of British “conscience” consumers is not the traditional customer base for American Express, and they must be hoping the backing of Bono and the oh-so-fashionable “we fight AIDS in Africa” message will reverse their fortunes with the fairtrade crowd.

Of course this is aside from the potential kickbacks for the fatcats running the joint. A cursory examination of the American Express Board of Directors reveals that there may be a few profits coming to some of its members through any purchases of pharmaceuticals or medical supplies that get funded by the scheme:

• Robert D. Walter, also Chairman of Cardinal Health “focused on the high-growth healthcare market” (Cardinal Health website) whose product line includes the Reveal HIV test

• Jan Leschly, former CEO and Director of GlaxoSmithKline who produce three anti-HIV medications

• William G. Bowen, also on the board of Merck & Co., Inc. “a global research-driven pharmaceutical company” (Merck & Co. website) described by Wikipedia as “one of the top 5 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world” and as the manufacturer of Crixivan a “protease inhibitor HIV medication”. (Although Bowen is not listed on the AmEx page, he is cited as a director by Forbes, and searches on an SEC database demonstrate at the very least a significant ongoing relationship)

• Peter R. Dolan, former CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb “a leading provider of medicines to fight…infectious diseases — including HIV/AIDS” (Bristol-Myers website), was recently fired from BMS over a patent dispute and was also until recently on the board of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

• Daniel F. Akerson, also MD of The Carlyle Group “one of the world’s largest private equity firms…focuses on sectors…[including]…healthcare” (The Carlyle Group website)

Of course all this assumes that any real money will make its way out of AmEx coffers: after all “less than 1 per cent of the income received by Global Fund…comes from private corporate sources, rather than individual donations.” (the aforementioned GBC article).

Bono anticipated criticism like mine when he launched his “Red” campaign with a rather patronising and simplistic metaphor (and by the way thanks for wrecking my enjoyment of those amazing songs you performed back when you weren’t a shameful corporate marketing tool!):

“We’re working with big business. But the problem just has to be sorted and we can’t do it with governments alone. We’re fighting a fire. The house is burning down. Let’s get the water. You end up beside somebody who lives up the road who you don’t really like. Do you care if he’s polishing up his image by putting the fire out?” (Independent Online)

Well before that makes any sense let’s see AmEx do some significant firefighting instead of trumpeting their worthiness in advertising. A few million dollars doesn’t douse many flames when 25 million are suffering. Why don’t they donate the money they are spending on promoting this card (they spend $550 million annually on marketing)? Why? Because profiteers don’t operate that way.

Even if they do end up giving any significant amount to The Global Fund, I’m still left wondering about the overall economic structure of the relationship of Western big business to Africa. If most of that money ends up back in the pockets of AmEx directors and others like them, whilst Africans suffer from the straitjacket of imposed neoliberal trade policies, who are the real beneficiaries?