There’s an article in Advertising Age about how the Red Campaign has (so far) only raised $18 million to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
I’m not a big fan of these sorts of things, although the bay area in general embraces opportunities to display altruism whenever possible. If you drive down the street in your Toyota Pious, wearing a yellow bracelet and listening to a red iPod, you are a caring person and have a good soul. If not, you aren’t and you don’t.
People shouldn’t give to charity to get laid or feel superior to those around them. They should do it because it’s the right thing to do. And if you care about AIDS, don’t buy an iPod. Donate $400 directly to the Global Fund instead. For more on this, see buylesscrap.org.
From the article:
The Red campaign can be a good start or it can be a colossal waste of money, and it all depends on whether this edgy, innovative campaign inspires young people to be better citizens or just gives them an excuse to feel good about themselves while they buy an overpriced item they don’t really need. (Trent Stamp, president of Charity Navigator)
Hmmm…I’ll agree with you that there are better ways to give, but there’s always been at least a bit of vanity involved in giving. Maybe the wristbands and red crap are just a natural extension of getting your name listed on a plaque somewhere. I’d exlude the Prius from your braod-stroke comments. If everyone who buys a car bought a Prius, it would make a big difference. If everyone who buys an iPod buys a red one…not so much. As for buying less crap, maybe you should do your part by shuttering CrunchGear. The MC4 Music Cocoon? Please…
Yes, people should help because it is the right thing to do. However, huge marketing campaigns raise awareness and associate beloved brands with helping to find a cure. This is good and it doesn’t matter if you are a fan or not. However, in your own way you’re driving attention to the cause right now which is also good. Nice work!
inefficiently raising money that will be donated to inefficient charities. red isn’t a non-profit, if you want to help out donate to UNHCR or the red cross directly, or just visit a poor country
Biz - Hey, if you are going to buy an iPod anyway, sure, get the red one and $10 will go to charity. But to buy red stuff because it makes you cool is just lame.
At the other side of this, would you consider it to be incorrect for a NPO to use the (red) campaign to it’s advantage, bringing in more money to do their thing?
I’d be quite happy to abuse someone’s vanity who believes they’re going to ‘get laid or feel superior’ for anothers gain (in a charitable context), if that means they are giving something when before they weren’t. No?
While I usually am as adamant against that sort of hyped marketing charity, I think that it’s a good way to leverage consumerism for a good cause.
And Mike, just as you wrote above, if someone’s buying an iPod anyway, why not one where a certain amount will go to charity? In the end, the beneficiaries likely won’t care whether they received their money because someone wanted to get laid or not.
The problem I have with such senseless advertising campaigns is that they leverage global epidemics for profit. While it may raise a marginal amount of money in the name of charity, I believe the longer lasting effect is just desensitization to issues that matter. It’s not a panacea, it’s profit. At my startup Fivelimes.com, we are creating a community around conscious consumerism and sustainability - where people can share there concerns free of greenwashing and such.
-r
I read somewhere else that over $100,000 has been spent promoting the Red campaign by all the parties involved too. That’s not a very good ROI, the money would have been better donated directly too!
My family gave me a red iPod for Christmas. It was a nice thought, especially at that time of year. I dig the looks of the red anodized case, but I’m not hung up on the “look-at-me” factor … it’s not like the thing is strapped to my forehead. Most often, it’s tucked in a pocket, out of view.
I think smugness in general is kind of silly in any capacity, so if people are acting so in some way because they’re buying Red products, I agree that it’s silly. But I don’t think you should let a few bad apples spoil the bunch (or whatever that saying is) - if it’s working to help the cause, it can’t be all bad, and lots of people have the shirts and don’t think it makes them cool (like me, as I only wear it to run or at the gym). Plus people who act smug over buying Red are probably smug over all kinds of nonsensical things - at least this way, it’s benefitting someone else.
Far worse are smug consumers who are completely ignorant about the world around them (which of course there are plenty of). At least this is a start.
I agree that we should buy less stuff and send more to fight poverty, malnutrition, and AIDs but I believe that if those that give it all can exploit the Stuff Gods to squeeze a little giving out of an otherwise selfish lifestyle then I say a big high five to the exploiters of the ‘Stuff Gods’.
I think promoting good causes is simply good, even with commercial products. Even though I have doubts about Red campaign’s effectiveness and results, I still think it is a good thing.
If consumers can direct a small portion to nonprofits for the stuff they already want to buy, why not?
That’s why we created FreePledge.com. We currently have 165 affiliated retailers like Office Depot, Target, Expedia etc. Users can pick a nonprofit and every purchase generate a donation, at the same price.
We have seen users bought books for $20 a piece and donated $1; or someone bought a digital camera lens for $5000 and donated $150. If its no cost to consumers, why not?