James5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Bono launched (PRODUCT)RED in early 2006 as a way for consumers to make a contribution to the AIDS crisis in Africa by picking RED products rather then standard ones. For example, Apple has an iPod(RED), Motorola has a RAZR(RED) and Amex has an Amex(RED). In it’s first year the campaign was heavily criticised for what some estimated to be a massive outlay on advertising for a relatively meagre return of $18 million for the Global Fund. I think the economic issues don’t quite add up to the big hullabaloo that ensued, but the cultural impact of the RED campaign is what is starting to worry me.

Take a look at this Dell(RED) advertisement that aired during the recent Superbowl before reading on.

What stood out to me is the way ’saving Africa’ has been turned into another area of consumption. Dell seems to be saying that by buying their RED laptop, not only will you ‘SAVE LIVES’ but once everyone sees you splashing your RED around town they’ll like you all the more - who doesn’t want random bum slaps on the street. I can understood that creating positive social pressure towards giving is a good thing, I think this runs the risks of making certain kinds of donations and causes ’sexy’ to the detriment of others. The RED campaign essentially runs the risk of turning social justice issues into ‘conspicuous compassion’ brands, yet another way for consumers to spend money.

Additionally, this campaign relies on the feel good factor of “your laptop purchase just saved one poor African from dying”. This means the relationship relies pretty heavily on a certain image of Africa and our relationship to Africa, that is in no way helpful or realistic. Twenty-first century giving must move beyond twenty century ‘humanitarian’ archetypes if it is to achieve real outcomes for the world’s poorests.

Of course, all campaigns, from Make Poverty History to the Micah Challenge to fair trade run these same risks (white wrist bands anyone?), but I think it is something that the (reputable) NGOs have recognised and tried to address whereas these new ‘creative capitalists’ may not be as concerned about the sociology of social justice, seeing this as just another marketing ploy (which has certainly paid off!).

Proponents of RED argue that by branding these products and causes they are creating ’sustainable income streams’, as opposed to one off donations by big companies. This sounds good, but Nike gave $37 million in 2004, this dwarfs the yearly earnings of RED - so I’m not sure this ’sustainable’ argument holds water (see also). Especially when you consider the massive marketing boost the RED campaign provides the companies involved.

The RED campaign has also been followed by more questionable ’shop for a solution’ campaigns. Serious questions must be asked of these initiatives, the companies involved and the way the donations are calculated. Is 10c for every yoghurt lid you mail in to Yoplait really to be considered a charitable donation? Or is it just a marketing exercise?

To be clear, I am not absolutely against RED. I think it is involving consumers may never donate or think about this issues and there is some evidence that once people have bought RED they then go on to donate when they otherwise would have. But the companies and people involved in the promotion of these campaigns need to be careful not to be turning ’save poor starving Africa’ into another brandable, ‘must have’ accessory.

Popularity: 26% [?]