Buy More, Feel Less 8
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).
Trackbacks
Use the following link to trackback from your own site:
http://informage.net/trackbacks?article_id=buy-more-feel-less&day=29&month=09&year=2006
One of my objections to what Russ is saying is that he seems to be implying that money=solutions to AIDS. How exactly does money help with the AIDS problem? Unless we actually get into the nasty business of how money is spent, who makes the decisions on how it’s spent and what conditionalities come with the money then it’s pointless to say that money helps.
For example take a look at PEPFAR, George Bush’s fund to fight AIDS - they have a bias to funding programmes that are about abstinance and don’t promote the use of condoms. Is that a good conditionality? You decide.
If Western corporations decided they want to donate a percentage of their profits to support communities in need - then they could do so and I’m sure communities will use the money well. However why not give money to communities and allow them to decide for themselves how it ought to be spent?
A general answer as to why this doesn’t happen is because the donors don’t trust communities to spend money “well” - there is a general perception about ignorance, capacities and corruption that keeps the entire development industry running.
More money raises the question of more power being exercised to make communities do what we want them to be, not what they themselves want to be.
Russ asks what an alternative is. There are many, many alternatives. It just takes a bit of imagination and a bit of selflessness - something our corporations are lacking in spades.
I dont want to get involved in all the points that you and Russ raise. I have some sympathy with your reaction to the ad - yes AMEX are using their relatively small donation to publicise themselves and yes, they probably dont really care about AIDS. but doesnt every little bit help? I agree with Russ - campaigns of this type will help reinforce better behaviour by corporations.
the statement that surprised me was the following:
“You believe that global capitalism can be tweaked and improved to address the world’s problems. I do not.”
What would you suggest replace capitalism?
Fighting AIDS (and nearly every other disease) is more likely to happen under capitalism than any other system. Who will benefit from an eventual cure from AIDS? People who have AIDS and….. big multi-national pharmaceutical profiteers. Yup, they will make oodles of money from a cure (which i hope comes soon). And you know what - they should be allowed to make that money. Because that is how capitalism works - the reward and profit motive get things done. do people get shafted along the way? Yes. Is Capitalism fair? Of course not. But it works - and we all know it does. It is no coincidence that the worlds richest and most powerful nations are capitalist.
Thats not to say there are very valid criticisms and improvments that can be made with regards the economic deal that the developed world imposes on the rest - particulalry with regard to (most importantly) trade tarriffs/barriers to trade and much less importantly, debt. So tweaks and improvements are required. But not replacement.,
As regards the comments coloniasm and british people doing something about AIDS - shouldnt you be criticising the S African government, who from what i understand have denied HIV causes AIDS, totally failed to adress the issue, failed to buy and dsirtibute retroviral drugs, and generally swept it under the carpet? thats nothing to do with british govt.
And who are the british oppressing now?
I agree with Zaid and the points he makes regarding the US AIDS program. The abstinence bias in that program is seriously harmful and ignorant of cultural reality and in many cases may assist the spread of AIDS.
Sean - if AMEX contributed the 1% but did not advertise the fact -would that work ?
Marcus
Hey Zaid and Marcus, glad to see you both spending some time at my online home. Marcus - I was again provoked enough to write a follow-up as a response,
Just to address your last question though Marcus, I guess the answer is that if they hadn't advertised in the way they did, and I hadn't been confronted with what I found really quite offensive one night in Clapham Common tube station, then I wouldn't have felt outraged enough to do the research and write the article, although I don't think I'm ever going to be much of an AmEx fan either way!
my problem with the ‘every little helps’ argument for these ‘good cause’ campaigns is that it is rolled out once people discover (thanks to articles like this) just how thoroughly they’ve had their humanity / moral sensibilities manipulated.
These campaigns are designed specifically to tap into consumers increasing awareness of the moral consequences of a consumption society: divides between rich and poor, damage to the planet etc etc.
These campaigns, may originally be conceived as beneficial, but by the time they make the rounds through the board, bean counters and potential shareholder wrath they have become watered down to the point that we see here: campaigns designed to plug into attitudes of human concern and exploit them with as little cost to the advertiser as possible.
For that reason, any campaign that uses these sorts of moral / human issues to increase profits should have to donate a minimum % of the proceeds to the cause they are using. Or at least they should be forced on the ads themselves to disclose exactly how much they have given as a percentage of the total they have received.
This is NOT reducing shareholder value. If companies really are interested in being part of the solution to these issues, they need to actually be doing something more than churning out big talk and little action. The people who use the RED AMEX card, expect that don’t they? Isn’t that what they have been sold? Surely as things currently stand consumers could make a case for misleading advertising?
btw- I dont think these campaigns reinforce good behaviour by corporations at all.
They reinforce campaigns that say a lot, but do nothing of substance while simultaneously duping the consumer into thinking they are helping a cause, when in fact they are lining the companies pockets.
Models for world poverty, and people following them, is the mosti difficult things to explain.
When I see models [and regular] drinking bottled water create a sense of numbness in myself, am I alone in this?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17093805@N00/203801918/
AIDS is an AUTO IMMUNE DEFICIENCY - when people do not have access to good clean natural food, when they are severely stressed, when their communities are broken down, their immune systems are severely compromised. This is established fact.
The plethora of degenerative diseases we experience in the west are due to both of the above and due to inflammatory states created in the body by processed foods. This established fact!
If people in Africa are allowed to grow their own food organically (and it is possible - look at Cuba’s Organic Revolution over the last 15 years or so) instead of producing cash crops for our markets or as raw materials for our industries they would be a) healthier, b) able to live their tradtional lifestyles and maintain their ancient communities.
The facts are that the West has ABUSED Africa since our first contacts - 250 years of trauma, war, slavery has done untold damage to traditional ways of life that worked really well for the most part, for millenia……. ‘progress’ is not more goods, it is happy people.
Our European culture has sytematically annihilated all those who have been able to feed themselves - when you grow your own food you need very little else. When you don’t you are dependent, and it is that dependency that the elites have always looked to create.
Again I say that the profit of any human enterprise must be the equal welfare and secure happiness of all those involved or it is false and inevitably toxic.
As the ancients said - “all is born of woman (Mother Earth), no harm shall come to the children”
Until we in the west ‘get’ how seriously important this is we will continue to hurt all who come into our sphere of influence. And we may well destroy everything in our path.
Wake up and smell yer armpits, those of you who argue that ‘progress’ and corporations and business is the core of human existence.
This site launched last week and has spurred a huge public debate. Lots of mainstream media will be reporting this week (Observer on Sunday). Don't lose heart! BUY (LESS). Give More! (And spread the word!)