Blood Money 28
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?
A well researched piece. Nice work.
The really sad thing is that the directors on the AMEX board all think they are using their positon and might to do good. Fooling yourself is how people sleep at night.
T-shirts from Lesotho and mudcloth shoes ... Did someone say sweatshop?
Bono is probably sold on his own 'real-economik' speak. But I wonder: is he being naive or callous?
a classic example of the twisted state of our culture. What really does my head about these kind of greenwash-style scams is that a lot of people swallow it and say, a la Bono, well they're doing something to help, it's better than nothing. When actually it's worse than nothing because it creates an illusion of change, and is a merely a 360-degree profit feed - as you illustrate with your directors roll-call. However, a lot of people also see right through it, which keeps my faith in the human race alive.
It's also frustrating because the hall of mirrors architecture of this kind of thing makes it very difficult to explain to people in a simple, quick and convincing manner - it needs a mini-essay and lots of different facts, as you have put together here, to show people what the real picture looks like. And that too, is a microcosm of the challenge of pretty much all resistance to the non-explicit global machine. Keep that brain ticking monsieur Legassick, much appreciated
What inspires me about your article is that you actually responded to your outrage and put it out there. I ll be forwarding your email to many.. The danger as is so obvious is that comsumers are now feeling good about an unethical/miseducated choice. Clear cut exploitations I find less scary than green wash, which causes feel good consumerism based on crap. Thank you, Sean
What irritates me about your article is the total lack of alternative suggested and lack of realism and horrific spin applied.
You suggest that "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.
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?
Surely the product red campaign does 2 things. It raises awareness by creating a product that advertises the issue 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.
In a typical transaction a credit card issuer will charge in the region of 2 to 3 percent of the value of the transaction to the seller. They then pocket 1 or 2 percent and 1 percent goes to Red. So who lost out here? Certainly not the consumer, not the seller (they'd have paid those fees anyway), not the Global Fund, they wouldn't have received that funding otherwise....
Or are you going to just boycott them? Do you have a credit card? Do you have a bank account? I bet you have a mobile phone? And who wins then? Certainly not the people dying of aids.
Ok, so now I started following your own links, and where do I get, the Global Funds spreadsheet. "The Gates Foundation has donated $500 million without recourse to a marketing campaign like this."
1 I can't remember the last time I heard Bill Gates name mentioned without at least one reference to the "Gates foundation" and
2 comparison of a pledge over 8 years is hardly the same thing as an actual donation over 6 months.
3 The actual amount pledged is 650 million, the cash recieved to date is only 250 million and the donation this year is only 100 million.
4 from your own figures the number of ethical consumers is set to grow by 266% over the next 3 years, that equates to a contribution of 53 million a year, from one country.
5 If you extrapolate those figures to the US's 300million people as product red prepares go go global you wind up with 264 million annual donation (assuming uk population 60 million), add in the rest of the EU (another 390 million- excluding UK) and you have a total of circa 660 millon a year. That would make it the single biggest contributor to the Global fund.
All I am saying is that there is more than one way to spin the figures. 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.
Explaination of numbers:
Current UK ethical consumers per article 1.5million
Projected to grow to 4 million
4/1.5 = 2.66 or 266 percent
Extrapoplation to 2009
6 month donation = 10 million => yearly donation 20 million
20 x 2.66 = 53million
Extrapolation to US:
53million UK donation = 53/60 88.33pence per person
US population 300 million => donation of 300 x 0.8833 = 264.99 million
EU population = 450 million
UK population already accounted for = 60 million
Balance = 390 million
390 x 0.8833 = 344 million
"Western world" donation = 344 + 53 + 265 = 662 million
Thanks to all for reading and for the comments.
Russ: I've addressed some of your points in a follow-up post.
As to your figures, nice math but it's all a bit speculative. Like I said, let's see AmEx actually give some significant money. Apart from anything else you assume that people will buy into this sordid scheme! I'm hoping otherwise, and hoping that people find better ways to spend their money and time fighting the injustices of the world.
I own a Red mobile phone, and while I do find this article enlightening I still have to agree with Russ’s point. I would say the idea of getting a company like AmEx, whose corporate stance towards the third world has been laissez-faire for decades, to do so much more than would be considered ‘business-like’ with regards this issue, is highly unrealistic.
The whole point of (product)RED is that it’s a generally (although perhaps not wholly) original idea. Putting a new consumer product from a popular and high-grossing company, under an ethical brand, where a portion of consumer expense is directly contributed to the concerned charity / fund has never really been carried out before. Certainly it is a sad fact that whilst Motorola’s deal with all relevant mobile phone providers (in the UK at least) means that 5% of all call costs using the L7 phone go to the fund, other partner companies are generally contributing less than 5%. But given the nature of this entire campaign, it’s not hard to forget that many organisations involved are business. And as they say, business is business. In the same vein, AmEx’s advertising campaign expense could indeed have been given straight to the fund. Not all transactions involved in advertising can be charitable, like that of Sir Alan Sugar’s contribution to Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital for the National Savings adverts he did for the UK government. Business is just the way it is, and that’s a fact that’s hard to accept for anybody in this world who is poor or suffering. Even living a reasonably healthy life in Britain with a roof over my head, i can empathise with that fact since my life like so many others’ in the UK has been far from perfect. But in my opinion making a difference is better than making no difference at all.
As for the whole thing of AmEx directors also holding interests in profit-mongering drug and healthcare companies, well it’s sufficient to say that your research on that has at least partial consistency, but then who else can we expect to actually help the disease problem in Africa? There is no-one else available! Yes i’m aware of the whole issue regarding patents, which have kept third-world businesses from making cheaper equivalents of the anti-AIDS medicines, and as a result i do boycott all Glaxo-Smith-Kline products. But beyond choosing between one and three companies to boycott, living as a protest-ethic consumer is a minefield most of the time. I’ve been pressured over such things before myself, and the question I and my friends end up asking is simply “What do you expect us to do? Cast off all modern material possesions and live in an Amish community?” Radical ethics in a consumer society does seem to turn that way, and it’s a real turn-off for most people.
And of course, in that I’m not necessarily classing any argument towards giving more aid to impoverished and diseased areas of Africa as being ‘radical’, but at the same time it goes without saying that the problem has come about from a lot of stupidity. Anyone noticed how gullible some e-mail scammers from african countries can be? These are people from the same sorts of cultures where men infected with HIV/AIDS are being convinced that having sex with a virgin will cure them! Children barely even a year old are being raped as a result! It sounds insane, but it’s true! It is not just big business that has made the stupid mistakes which have proliferated the AIDS crisis in Africa. We can’t even count the number of people there are to blame! But i figure, profit-making or not, if any organisation out there is going to do something positive and outstanding for the communities in Africa so blighted by disease, then they deserve some recognition.
That’s effectively the bottom line of it.
Hi Sean,
I came across your blog after posting my own on myspace earlier this morning. I don’t really understand the economics of the issue, but here’s what I posted as my feelings on the issue:
Product RED' is it a good thing?
It's a nice idea: carry on your consumerist lifestyle but do so with a social conscience. At least that's what we're being told is the theory behind Product RED, the branding strategy being adopted by a handful of major companies and championed by Bono.
Having been aware of news reports earlier in the year about the Motorola Red phone, I was alerted to this campaign again this morning by a bulletin posted on myspace. So Product RED has a myspace profile. After spending last evening trying to add 'friends' with a social conscience to my own dubious profile, I thought it apt that this campaign was highlighted to me and I typed in the URL to check it out.
Why, when this is all in the name of goodwill and charity, did this site give me a sickly feeling in my stomach? Could it be the slick graphics, and picture of a blonde, smiling, Claudia Schiffer posing with a 'RED' Amex Card, or the meaningless, bland comments from 'friends' offering their support.
Some brief research on the net revealed numerous newspaper reports that mindlessly outlined which companies are involved: Amex, Converse, GAP and Armani. Companies that to me spark memories of stories of children exploited in sweat shops (NIKE owns Converse), GAP (once infamous for its connection with dubious production involving child labour), Armani (accused of creating child birth defects with its tight fitting fashion jeans) and AMEX (a credit card company, need I say more?).
It seems to me that all of the companies involved are trying to erase any bad press associated with to do with unethical practises.
I'm far from adverse to supporting good causes, but this RED campaign reeks of selfish consumerism. How does encouraging consumption help the situation in Africa, when that's the cause of the problem in the first place?
Surely the only way to address the poverty in Africa is to dismantle the power the big companies derive from it? But I suppose that's what Bono's saying: people are lazy, they're comfortable in their consumerist led lifestyles, they're distressed by poverty but unwilling to give up what they see as their 'rights' to endless supplies of energy, cheap clothing, participation in a materialistic society; so why challenge this part of western culture, why not try to tap into it to make a difference? I can see his reasoning, but to me, it's a sell out - he's even said himself that these companies may not be the best bed partners when it comes to dealing with these issues, but it's a source of cash, instant gratification. For the people who buy into this, it allows them to feel 'cool, and good about themselves… You buy a red mobile and you've done your bit? I think it's dangerously close to letting people off the hook, rather than engaging them in discussions about how to really tackle the causes poverty, and the tragedy that is AIDS.
RED, is about using a good cause as a marketing tool for capitalist companies. These companies, judging by their past exploits, seem unlikely to have suddenly developed a social conscience, more likely, is that they're targeting the estimated 1.5 million 'conscience consumers' which is said to rise to the region of around 4 million in the next four years. These companies will be making a profit by doing the same thing that made them so powerful in the first place: exploiting the week and vulnerable in the world.
Bono says that the motivation behind RED is irrelevant, but I don't agree. Yes, it may generate loads of cash for the Global Fund which distributes this money to help address the spread of AIDS, Malaria and TB, but it also re-enforces ideals which contribute to keeping Africa in its state of poverty, how is that really a good thing?
Drewyd: I hear you, you make your points reasonably, and I recommend you read the follow-up posts and comments for responses to some of them. Basically I disagree with the premise of your first paragraph - I want US companies to do less not more to Africa. I'd be quite happy if they just withdrew from the continent altogether.
Melanie: couldn't agree more, thanks for posting here too. Feel free to add a link to your page (even if it is hosted within murdoch's evil empire ;-)
I am frustrated that people are so quick to judge... What we've done as a global society so far is not working- obviously. So criticize others who are at least trying some visionary approaches to end someone's suffering. I think these African products are at least helping to infuse money into the African economy and we are going to buy things anyway because that's what our wasteful spoiled consumerist culture does- so why not reap the benefits? Bono has been working on African AIDS and famine issues for 20 years- can we say the same? This article says that none or very little of the money will actually benefit the people--- really now-- would Shriver, Bono, and Oprah endorse that? I totally agree with Product Red- can't wait to support. It's about time we get off our well-fed complacent behinds. Why be part of the problem when you could be a part of the solution? With the global economy and stability where it is right now, I think we had ALL better become more conscientious consumers. Go Bono!
In the mid-80's, there was another large collaboration among artists (remember We Are theWorld?) all seeking to alleviate the hunger in Ethiopia? I am not cynical about Africa's plight & I am actively participating in my own way (contributing to UNCF primarily). I do not have to buy into this RED trend to relieve me of my own consumerism. This RED campaign (if you call it that), without full disclosure by each of the participating companies how much truly goes to support the Africa cause, is nothing more than another pop culture trend. I pity the individual who is too naive too think that buying something red will suffice to help the African cause. Nice thought & compliments to this whole media kick-off. But not having full disclosure of how much proceeds go where is very underhanded.
How many people wore red lapel ribbons, Yellow LiveStrong bracelets (etc...etc...) and not know what these truly stood for and consequently not actively get themselves involve to help the cause? Same concept.
Here's a facinating interview with an economist from Ghana, George Ayittey with Bill Moyers a respected journalist in the U.S. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/botswana/transcript.html Wow.
I’ll believe they did some good when I see the actual numbers in teh bank. As Sean points out, a bunch of companies have given $10 million in total so far…
That said, I think some of the later posters are missing the absolute crassness of the concept of shopping to help AIDS, the poor (or whatever social injustice we are talking about).
Our consumer culture is to blame for these injustices. Giving a small % back (to western pharma companies at the end of the day in this case) is like saying ‘ok, you and your children are practically indentured labour for us in the West, making cheap goods, our protectionist farm subsidies mean that you can’t even get a fair price for your natural production- but guess what? I’ll give you lollipop.
It is an insult to the recipients of this ‘largesse’ and a manipulation of consumers into thinking they can consume with a clear conscience. Its a step in completely the wrong direction. Another smokescreen for the problem.
I agree fully with your analysis of Label Red, and I thank you for adding more info to what I have already collated.
Did you know that Bob Geldofs Company TenAlps (turnover 47 million) does PR work for the UK Ministry of Defence, The UK Foreign Office, JP Morgan, Ford, Volvo, EMI, Disney etc…….? These boys are well in with the corporates who have destroyed much of Africa… and they dare to ask us for cash ……Bono could easily cash in his entire fortune (approx. 100 million) and next year still collect around 20 million in royalties…..
I have written a parody of “streets with no name” it’s called “thieves with no shame” …… enjoy
I have also recorded and released a parody of “I don’t like Mondays” entitled “I don’t like Geldof” for pretty much the same reasons……there’s a video too……
THIEVES WITH NO SHAME
I want to run, rule your country
I want to make sure you get nothing for free
I want to reach out and wear my red shades
Where the streets have no shame
I want to fill my wallet with untaxed profit
See the cash come rolling in, untaxed, untraced,
I want to take your money, again and again
Where the streets have no shame
Where the geeks wear red shades
Where the streets have no shame
We’re still lending, then burning down welfare,
Burning down welfare
And when I go there, I go there with your cash
Gotta go now, gotta dash
(spoken (weasly excited vox)= hi gordon, how’s it going, give us a hug, you lovely man! go on! do!)
Orleans is a flood and our rule turns to lust
You’re beaten and blown by the wind, trampled in dust
I’ll show you a place we can start all over again (bridge)
(spoken (texan accent, ten gallon hat)= “not here! not. you can’t live here, we’re redecorating it for tourism, look we’ve got a lovley camp for you in nevada, now come on, your government loves ya.”)
Where the streets have no shame
Where the banks have no shame
Where the big boys have no shame
We’re still lending, then burning down welfare,
Burning down welfare
And when I go there, I go there with your cash
Gotta go now, gotta dash
In god you can trust
when you’re beaten and blown to bits
Blown by the war-heads
Oh, see our love, see our profit driven lust
And you’re beaten and blown all to bits
Blown by the greed
When I got there, I go there with your cash
hard commerce indeed,
Gotta go now, gotta dash
(outro)
(spoken (bono vox) = “where’s me shades! Jaysus. Bob, did you nick me shades? you’re always tryin’ to upsatge me, you’re jealous of my success … now come on, where are they? … Bob, bob? Where’s me arse? Shit! that’s gordons elbow… mummy! bobs nicked me shades again)
Just a quick comment about the corporations and giving them a conscience - if we can change the legal definition of profit to one that is based around a balance of the benefits/costs to the environment, and to those communities affected by the corporations actions or redefine profit as that which should benefits the community and environment for us all then yeah.
Other wise forget it, they are but greedy tools of the banks, and banks like cash!
and sorry for the previous post being all over the place in one long sentence - it looked ok, I did not insert the html for breaks, and I neglected to check it in preview.
The truly sad part of all this is what an otherwise relatively sensible “business model” has become. The ridiculous amounts of marketing, proverbial lame celebrity endorsements, and a general public misunderstanding of both the campaign itself and where its “proceeds” are going makes the entire concept ooze of the very worst parts of capitalism and Americanism (okay, all the parts). As such – and this isn’t anything new, we all know it and can see it coming – it won’t work. Why would it?
I’m not actually sure how Americans, Canadians and Brits feeling noble and sleeping better at night will help anything. Or help the millions of dollars being raised (sorry, (RED) would probably me rather say “redirected” or “allocated”) actually reach programs or people who may benefit.
This is ignoring, of course, the obvious political elephant in the room. And the curious, at best, (RED) Board of Directors.
I realize these posts are a bit old now, but I just had to write, Sean, after reading your reaction to the tube Amex ad. A few weeks ago, a friend and I walked by a downtown Toronto Gap store, whose windows were predictably covered in (RED) posters and products. (I think they like it because all the red makes it look like Christmas decorations. But that may...or may not be…irrelevant.) What really made me outraged in particular were a series of shirts with “(RED)” words on them: inspi(RED), desi(RED), etc. And then “hamme(RED)”. For some reason, I find the “hamme(RED)” so ridiculous that it was somehow offensive. It’s just such a clear example of why the program is no better, if not worse, than other attempts at “aid”, and why Western companies need to just simply stop.
Firstly, does a child in Mozambique, for example, who theoretically may or may not benefit from the sale of this shirt, understand the concept of such an arbitrary Western colloquialism? Secondly, would the Gap ever sell such a shirt otherwise? And the obvious: are we really reducing the concept thinking globally to buying a shirt that implies that you are, or wish you were, hammered? Really? Am I the only one who finds this a bit insulting?
I stood there, far-too-loudly (but just loud enough so the Gap manager could hear me and give me a confused look) denouncing the entire (RED) program, clutching the “hamme(RED)” shirt and becoming frustrated and jaded all over again, all at once.
Of course the (RED) campaign ignores the idea that maybe the last thing Africa needs is money. Of course it ignores acting locally, creating real solutions and political action. And of course it encourages consumption and capitalism. But it’s also carved out some new lows to which we can all now comfortably sink.
I have started a group on myspace, for this issue to be explored.
It's called "incredulousconsumerzzzz" ....
Lets talk, share and get to work on the psychology that is being applied .... it amounts to abuse, insofar it manipulates peoples psychology, their guilt and lack of detailed knowledge, for profit and does nothing real to deal with the problem, when in fact it is making the situation worse.
http://groups.myspace.com/incredulousconsumerzzzz
there are over 500,000 myspacers in the JOIN(RED) group who need to be informed, and it is a discussion that is NOT anywhere in the media - let's make it happen.
My activist profile is
http://www.myspace.com/djlookwood
Brilliant...
I am writing a Global Studies paper on your exact arguments. This is all just a big marketing scheme. I have emailed the publicist for the red campaing as well as the Global Fund. The first time I saw a commercial for the red line, I was astonished at how they use the deaths of these people to market their own companies. Great article.
I don't see what all the confusion is about. Yeah, these companies are donating money to the Global Fund, but they don't deserve praise or "recognition" for doing so. They are doing it for one simple reason: profit. Being aligned with Product Red will attract new customers to their business. So the one to five percent they give to the fund will be replaced and exceeded by the growth in their sales.
Basically, the "red" companies are telling us that they know people are dying of AIDS because they lack the drugs they need to fight the disease, that they have the money to buy the drugs and that they won’t take action unless we first buy their overpriced products. The money for the drugs is coming from the consumers, and the companies are racking up sales while polishing their reputations.
The AIDS pandemic is being crassly exploited to make a buck, quite simply. The glossy advertising campaign, to me, is obscene. Don’t get me wrong. I want AIDS patients everywhere to get antiretroviral drugs by any means necessary, but as an African, I am offended by this campaign.
This is off the point but since he brought it up, I can't help but be a little irked at the comment from Drewyd about how Africans' stupidity is partly to blame for the high infection rates in some parts of the continent. It’s not stupidity; it is ignorance and yes, perhaps some gullibility. Some African scammers are gullible, not unlike their targets in the West who continue to fall for the scams because their greed exceeds their common sense. But when we’re talking of treatment, what does it matter who is to blame for the epidemic?
For Russ, who asked for an alternative to Product Red, there are many. A relatively painless one would be to buy a (recycled) ipod off gumtree and donate the savings directly to the Global Fund or a charity of your choice.
"For Russ, who asked for an alternative to Product Red, there are many. A relatively painless one would be to buy a (recycled) ipod off gumtree and donate the savings directly to the Global Fund or a charity of your choice."
I love this comment.
To see more tangible examples of raising awareness without putting more money in the pockets of the multinationals, please check out some of our initiatives at reinspired.blogspot.com
We have suggested a few ways of participating in red without directly supporting sweatshop labor/civil war/etc.
Why do people always have Find a negative side to people giving money to charity! Yes the companies may have made money but they have still donated over $10 million dollars between them! If product red had not been introduced that would have been $10 million less. Also I bet that you dont give every bit of money you make to charity! Cant people just appreciate the simple fact that product red has helped raise $10 million for charity and its likely to become more!
Wow! Thanks for the article. Learned about it through MySpace. I thought this campaign was a little crass and trite to begin with.
Hey Sean,
haven't visited for a while and I'm very glad I did today. Agree wholeheartedly.
To Reinspired... what an idea...I am there.
We live in a consumer driven country; this is nothing new! Why is everyone so shocked? Are you really that outraged? Did you just wake up from a denial-induced comma? Do you really want to live as the Amish do? Do you eat everything on your plate every time you sit down for dinner because; “there are starving children in Africa”? Are you returning Christmas gifts and giving the money to charity because you just feel that strongly about it? If you are, I’m impressed!
This campaign is not for those who volunteer their time/money and are deeply socially involved. (Buying a shirt does not make you socially involved). It is for the majority who are happy living the lives they’ve been dealt and will buy the damn Gap shirt/I-pod regardless of who is dying. Those that really feel compelled to help are actively trying to do something, and will continue to with or without this “red” endeavor.
I think it’s great that someone has figured out how to use these consumers (I include myself) even if it is a small percent! Why do you care what the percent is? What is it to you; how does that affect your life? If they did nothing you wouldn’t have batted an eye; you wouldn’t even think to stand on a soapbox. It’s a business; they will use advertising and this exposure to their advantage. Are you still shocked?
Maybe, I’m a skeptic when it comes to human nature, but I don’t believe that the Red campaign is going to truly motivate and influence those who normally don’t think or reach out beyond of the realm of themselves, to sell all they have and give their money and lives to helping the poor/sick even in their own country. (Whew… that was a long sentence; go ahead and take a breather.) Oh, don’t even get me started on the “we need to take care of our own children first” argument. I’ve yet to met anyone who has used this argument who was actually involved in taking care of our “own children”. Doesn’t that always seem to be the case? And once again I roll my eyes.
This effort reaches people who will buy a red product while perusing through the mall simply because it was cute (well, and it’s cool thing to do now) and move on to Starbucks. Even those who feel like their making an impact may only make an impact in this way…THEIR ENTIRE LIVES! Don’t act surprised; I’ve met these people, and so have you. Their future decisions/accomplishments will not be held back because they bought a t-shirt once that went to charity and that should be enough. Either people want to be involved or they don’t.
What I think is just worse and horribly distasteful, are those who sit around and bitch about the horrors of our consumer driven system and all the conspiracies behind it, but do nothing, and have no intention of actually doing anything but bitch!
Funny, it’s actually all the same to me.
Someone buys a T-shirt (maybe a few) and feels like he made a difference and his conscious is clear, so then he stops there.
Someone else boycotts the endeavor because the system for giving isn’t perfect or enough, bitches about it, ridicules those who buy into it, and then goes on with his life with a good conscious (or at least a stance) because he wasn’t fooled.
But, then neither feel an individual responsibility to do more, or sacrifice anything for those that suffer. And this goes way beyond giving to Africa.
If you hate our consumer driven system, then work on changing it.
If you don’t believe it can ever change, then figure out how to use that fact to your advantage in order to help others; we do every day to help ourselves. Hence, the “Red” campaign, even with its little percentages.
If you have no intention of making an impact in anyway and just want to “get yours” oh and stand on your soapbox and bitch to feel better…well, I shouldn’t finish that. I’ve already said, “bitch” enough.
All this to say…if you believe in helping Africa then figure out your roll and be at peace with it. You don’t actually have to be a peace or agree with how everyone gives his or her time/money. I know it’s a new concept…take your time. We were not made to do everything. Each of us has a specific calling that we need to fill. So fill it!
*DISCLAIMER The American Express ads are shameful in so many ways! Are we really that sex consumed that it’s found its way into a saving lives campaign. Though, if dying aids victims were on the ad people would have something to say about exploitation and guilt driven images. We really have issues.
Oh, and forgive me for bitching? J
~I’m going to Kenya in 6 weeks to visit Nairobi where native Kenyans are starting an orphanage and need help on the fund raising end of it. It’s time to find my place in all of this. If I even have one I may not, but I’m willing to make mistakes and give myself plenty of room to figure it out. It’s more important that I know my calling in life, than it is for others to tell me what that is. Just… make sure you do the same for yourself with or without “red products”.
Nickey: thanks for your passionate rant, and much respect for finding a role for yourself in making the world a better place and going with it. I agree with some of what you say, except that I think that this campaign is actively harmful - because I do think that it's possible that some who participate in it might otherwise make a positive difference elsewhere - and so I'm happy with this polemic as a small part of my role in making the world a better place.
I fit your first category: I "hate our consumer driven system" and I see this article as a small part of what I can do to work on changing it. My deconstruction of this scheme is indicative of a broader point, as I've written about in follow-ups: that corporate culture and the making of a better world are fundamentally incompatible. I think this broader point needs to be made more, not less, and in as many different ways as possible. I think it's important to point out the various ways that AmEx plans to profit from this campaign, just in case they'd passed anyone by.
I agree that negativity alone helps no-one, but I also believe that positive action and incisive criticism are necessary parts of a broader movement to better the world. I've observed at times an understandable but in my view incorrect aversion to "negativity" in change-work; for me if we don't strongly criticise this brutal sadistic culture as well as look to make a positive difference, our efforts will be in vain. YMMV.
(PS in the spirit of good faith, I'll imagine that your rant is directed at an imagined group of people who complain just to feel better and feel no compulsion to do anything else - or perhaps a real group you've experienced in your life. Next time, it might be a good idea to determine whether your rant applies to the audience you are ranting at before you let off steam).
I understand why this campaign turns some people off. The promotion of consumerism and the use of a tragedy as a marketing tool are enough to make a person think twice about it.
Having said that, however, I think in the long run the Red product plan is worth a try. Why? Because in the end, does it matter if money gets to Africa because people spent time shopping at the mall? Heck, does it matter if the hypothetical 'people' in question are as greedy, spoiled, and materialistic as people can be? Will people getting HIV medication in Africa be turning it down because it came from something less than 100% idealistic? I think not.
A lot of the criticism seems to stem from "will they REALLY donate that money" type arguments. If there is any evidence that this isn't happening, I will be the first to criticize these companies. Until then, though, it seems a little unfair to bash a novel money-raising effort on hypotheticals about what we think someone might do. Like it or not, we live in a consumer nation. Should we wait until that changes, or deal with the reality of the situation and use it to help people?
Charity that aims to alleviate the problems that are caused by taking away resources from those people who require help , and does not acknowledge and face up to the damage being caused by THAT TAKING AWAY is merely PR and guilt appeasement.
LABEL RED falls into this category.