Very interesting post and ad campaign (they sure did use a pretty model, eh?). I see where Davis is going. And he's right that a $100 buy means far less to charity. I also agree that both campaigns have their place, as you say.

What I like about the (Red) campaign--from a marketing standpoint--is that we're not asking people to change their behavior (which is THE toughest challenge in marketing). They're already buying a phone or a t-shirt; we're asking them to buy (Red) products instead. That purchase is already going to transpire...sans a % going to charity. Sure, the (Red) t-shirts have become quite trendy and all the better as all the more $$ to the campaign. What Davis is asking is instead of that money going to a product purchase, have it go directly to a cause. A banner idea, but a more challenging one--which is why so many charities have to get so creative with their fundraising efforts (e.g. PBS giving away DVD box-sets away with donor contributions). Plus, tying in a product purchase extends both awareness of the issue and advertising thereof.

Its true for Motorola and other companies coming forward for the cause,this campaign [RED] is creating awareness among the people around with benefits to both the customer and the companies themselves and the cause.
So I think this is a very good campaign from the marketing point of view.

Having worked for nonprofits, here are some things you should know: 1) some percentage of your gift, and it can be a substantial amount, pays operating expenses, and 2) most donations go into a general operating fund, so often we do not know where our gifts are going.

Businesses are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Nonprofits criticize businesses for not giving more, and then when businesses find creative ways to help, they again are criticized.

My message: Project(RED)is a great idea. If you want to give to help others and can do so by purchasing a product, good for you.

I agree and disagree and mostly agree...

CK and Ann- you are both right. Changing behavior is next to impossible, as we know. Raising awareness isn't. Remember the little yellow rubber bracelets that have spawned a new industry of rubber bracelet fundraising (and spoofery)? $1.00 per bracelet. Then they became popular and when supply temporarily ran out, they were selling on eBay for several times that, because they were now fashionable! BUT... it did raise awareness of cancer research and the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Point is, if Bono lends his name and blessing to a cause, many people will want to be associated with it and will give- either via donation or purchase. All because of Bono. For some of those folks, they will sincerely feel they are helping and doing the right thing to help the cause and will spread that awareness around. Others will do it just for the Bono factor and will have no increased awareness, nor help increase the awareness of others.

I like the idea of Buy (Less) and what they are standing for. I hope that they actually help to foster increased awareness and donation amounts. That would be really awesome. My hunch though is that (Red) raises more money. More people in this country are into shopping than they are into outright charity. That's a bummer... but it's life.

So, in summation (sorry for the ramble), both campaigns are good. I do believe that Buy (Less) is a great extension of (Red). May they both stick around a long time.

So I assume "words pictures ideas" people don't have cell phones or other products. If you could just send that money to charity you don't need any material things.

Actually I think they did a good job bringing attention to themselves by tagging on to the millions spent by companies to highlight these social problems and sell their products.

I agree 110% with Lewis.

And we should remember that everyone "words pictures ideas" included, have an angle.

Lewis has a good point. Actually, several of them. I too have worked with non-profits and companies that give to them. Do I like the idea of "Just Give"? A lot. But I'm focusing on the objective (raising money) and experience points to making it easy for people to do what they naturally do--and do good in the process. People naturally shop, now they can have an *extra* incentive to shop (Red) products. We can't change human behavior (which some guy named Smith argued was all about self-interest) but we can get them to do good for others while serving their own self interests. At day's end, the money goes to fight the cause...there's just likely more money for that cause.

Now...do the (Inc)Red(uless) ads raise more awareness for Davis's mission or for Bono's? I guess that's an entirely different post (psst: he's doing Bono a BIG favor).

Tim: Nice example on those Lance Bracelets. Let's remember those were $1 and people still got a product from them (and they became rather trendy as a result, now every cause seems to have a bracelet). This cause is asking for upwards of $100 and you get to feel good. I hope it works (I do), I'm just not convinced (sadly).

I agree with Lewis and CK. I spent many years working for nonprofit organizations, one of which (a breast cancer organization) had several cause-related marketing partnerships.

Not all charity logo placements mean a percentage of sales. That organization often sold royalty rights to their symbol for a flat-fee - all of which was money for the cause. During Breast Cancer Awareness Month, many of these companies' products included the symbol and promoted the cause. It not only helped raise money, it increased awareness. And since many nonprofits limit their overhead expenses to 10% or less, 90% of that money went to breast cancer programs and research.

In cases where a percentage of sales is involved, it's up to the charities receiving the funds to hold companies accountable if there's a bonafide relationship. It may seem a bit more dubious when a company states it will donate a portion of sales to a cause without stating the beneficiaries of those funds.

There are exceptions, of course. Some companies have established their own foundations, such as Avon. This gives them the freedom to issue grants directly to applicants. If you want to learn where the money goes or how any charity spends its revenue, check out its annual report online or request a copy, or visit www.guidestar.org to view its IRS Form 990.

In a Utopian world, people would give willingly and often to charitable causes. In the real (western) world of consumption and excess, people will spend hard-earned money on consumer products, often at the expense of other needs. Research shows that consumers like to support causes with their purchases. They are likely buying these products regardless, but will gravitate to the ones connected to causes because it makes them feel good.

And the companies practicing cause-related marketing are balancing corporate social responsibility with accountability to their shareholders. Doing good must also benefit the bottom line. This is, after all, still a free market society.

I applaud a campaign that attempts to influence people to give more to charitable causes for charity's sake, but the reality is that we live in a consumer world. I think there's a place for both approaches. The bottom line for the charitable sector is - give so they can help solve society's problems.

Hi Ann,
Great post. I wrote a Daily Fix post about Project Red back in October, and it's nice to see a refresher on this great marketing initiative.
http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2006/10/joinredcom.html.

Raising awareness, and giving, and not necessarily within the context of purchasing material objects, is what it's all about. The more the word can be spread, the better. Thanks for bringing attention to this worthwhile endeavor.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that BUY (LESS) is built on faulty logic? It seems that the organizers are trying to say stop shopping, and start giving. The implication from them seems to be that people that participate in RED are buying items that they otherwise wouldn't have, and instead, they should just give money.

But is that the case? I thought that was the whole point of RED to pick items like cell phones, that the customer was going to buy anyway. The positioning was 'hey you're going to buy this stuff anyway, why not buy it from us, and we'll give a portion to help fight AIDS in Africa?' I don't think too many people signed up a 2-year cell phone agreement with Sprint just to buy a Motorola RAZR that they didn't need, so they could give a few bucks to RED. Far more likely, they were already looking for a new cell phone, or to upgrade their existing plan, and decided to go with Sprint and the RED RAZR, so they could help out.

And Lewis is exactly right, businesses are damned if they don't try to give, and damned if they do. All this does is make it less likely that the next company will join in to help out, cause they'll see 'see Sprint is trying to help, and they are STILL getting slam. Forget it, this aint worth it.'

But the most ironic part to me is, these guys start a CAMPAIGN telling us to not buy stuff we didn't need, and to instead just give. Shame the people behind Buy (LESS) didn't follow their own advice.

Davis and his campaign smack of snarkiness. I don't like snarkiness.

An outright charitable giver will write a check to a non-profit; cause-related promotions (like RED) not only tap into the charitable giver pool by focusing their purchases but also tap an infinitely larger pool of "altruistic but not necessarily charitable" shoppers, who will buy a cause-related promo'ed product but wouldn't necessarily write a check to a non-profit.

These are totally compatible.

Most of the developed world is far more interested in the kitchen remodel and returning the video than removing landmines in Chad. It's not that we don't care. We just have things to do. Programs like RED -- featuring a very accessible 'brand' in the person of Bono, the good buddy of the president and a co-Time Person of the Year, not for nothing -- allow a MOTO to get involved with AIDS in a way that doesn't feel too exposed or polarizing. And having worked for a lot of very big companies, CEO's don't like cause related promotions very much for this very reason.

So good for Bono and bad for this guy.

Who doesn't have a cell phone these days? I do...and yes, I shop. But half of my closet contains second-hand or inherited items from ongoing clothing swap parties with friends. I love that (LESS) promotes less consumption AND giving more. I've often wondered how much is spent on advertising for this type of campaign. Good on Davis for shining a light...not to "dis" so much as to question. Who would find (LESS) without a little controversy?...we live in a Jerry Springer world after all. Taking the high road is not easy. Kudos to (LESS) for doing it in an engaging way. I'm sure Bono and Oprah won't lose any sleep over it.

RI(COCK)ULOUS

It's so funny how I always lean towards a more conpiratory belief. What I mean is... Ann you are absolutely correct: "...it strikes me that the Buy (LESS) campaign is actually a natural extension of (RED): Those who literally have the T-shirt and a greater awareness, are now ripe for the Buy (LESS) message."

That said, I wonder if this is another example of guerilla marketing?

Dissing RED seems ridiculous, thereby increasing awareness of the RED campaign, generating conversation, and possibly increasing direct monetary gifts. More likely, RED will probably sell more RED stuff.
Causing me to wonder if they are in cahoots?

But I really am just a conspiracy freak!

Ann - Interesting subject matter. Great analysis. The comments have been fantastic, as well. The subject matter is bringing out the best in your audience, and you deserve credit for that as well for presenting it in the way you have.

At first glance, the (LESS) campaign seems a little hypocritical. After all, didn't they at some point have to decide to buy the tools necessary to promote their cause instead of donating that capital directly to the fund they're promoting? And aren't they, as you correctly pointed out, piggybacking off of the brand created by the (RED) campaign to do it?

It seems like a logical proposition: Donate directly and cut out the middle man. We're asked to assume that donating to the fund is the best way to help the cause, when, in fact, there are still considerable and valid questions about how to best solve the problem of AIDS in Africa. Money, by itself, won't solve it ("Here's a thousand bucks, Sonny. Now go rub some on that problem of yours.").

How that money is spent matters, and once we donate it, it's out of our hands. As such, both campaigns, but especially the (RED) campaign seems designed to help people in Africa, but also help people feel better about their purchases.

That's not altogether a bad thing, as it has built awareness and raised $12 million for the cause. How that money is spent is still an issue, but if people feel better about themselves for making their purchases, all that is required is that Bono have credibility with the audience for it to matter. And hopefully he's wise enough to put the money where it will do the most good. That's altogether a different topic.

The (LESS) campaign can be problematic for the audience, because if they do forego the pants they wanted to buy from a participating store and send the money they saved directly to the fund, then they don't get what they wanted to buy in the first place.

What I'd like to see come of it is a greater awareness of the problem and have people think about what the problem's root causes are, because the mental exercises one must go through to come to rational conclusions have all sorts of benefits for every day living.

Judging from the comments of this thread, that is happening. Kudos to all!

A very well-written and thought-provoking post. Thank you Ann!

Obviously, shopping is not a reasonable response to human suffering. Nor is shopping a reasonable response to terrorism and our present addiction to oil. A reasonable response to both requires compassion, passionate leadership, a long-term solution, individual sacrifice, and, perhaps, government intervention. That being said, in the case of Project (RED) the short-term end certainly justifies the short-term means.

I remember reading a story about Mother Teresa. She was on a plane trip to Calcutta to continue her work with the poor and suffering. When the flight attendant came by to offer the Mother her meal, Mother told her to take it back and, instead, "Give me the money that the meal costs so I can give it to the poor."

The wide-eyed flight attendant agreed and then reached across Mother Theresa to hand the meal to the passenger seated next to Mother. The passenger looked at the meal, glanced over at Mother Theresa, and looked back at the flight attendant and said, "Please return my meal as well, and give the money to Mother Theresa for the poor."

This spread through the entire plane like wild fire. Everyone sacrificed their meal to provide Mother Theresa with the money for the poor (and resolve their subconscious guilt). Here's where it get's interesting.

While deboarding the plane with a pocket full of airline money, Mother Theresa turned back toward the flight attendant and asked, "Dear? What are you going to do with those meals that everyone returned?" The flight attendant explained that they would probably be discarded. At that, Mother Theresa looked her in the eyes and said, "Then go get them for me so that I can give them to the poor."

Being an expert at human psychology and sociology (aka marketing) Mother Theresa not only left the plane with the money, she left with the food as well. Think about THAT marketers! :)

Hi all. This post is from Ben Davis, one of the BUY (LESS) organizers. Thank you, Ann,for the fair treatment. And thanks to all of you for the thoughtful and spirited exchange. The following is taken from an email where I answer some of Ann's questions. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions that aren't addressed below.

----Who is your audience for this?

Our hope is that BUY (LESS) will be shared virally by anyone who has questions about the (RED) campaign and other cause-related marketing efforts...how much is spent, where the money really goes (CEO salaries, etc.) and how much makes it to the “cause.” We believe this covers a wide demographic. Reaction to the site has been immediate, positive, and expressed from diverse quarters.

In addition, we want to stimulate a healthy discussion and exploration of the topic among thought-leaders. (Yourself included!)

----How did you choose the message?

It chose us. The idea of replacing the suffix (LESS) for (RED) hit me one day while being bombarded by (RED) advertising, and suddenly the vague discomfort with the campaign crystallized: SHOPPING IS NOT A SOLUTION. BUY (LESS). GIVE MORE.

Some great and talented friends loved the idea and together we sharpened the focus and created BUY (LESS) and its viral site www.buylesscrap.org.

---Do you feel cause-related marketing has a place in the charitable giving spectrum, for people who simply like to buy things and feel good about it - but don't donate to charity?

We support all forms of giving, including cause-related marketing. (And for the record, we love Bono, we think Oprah is great, we shop, we adore our iPods, and we want GAP--a San Francisco-based company--to do well.) It is our hope that with greater scrutiny, transparency, and possibly increased regulation, cause-related marketing can be less manipulative and can drive even greater and more certain levels of donations to charity.

We do not think that shopping, however, should ever be considered a legitimate substitute for charitable giving. Just Give.

----Have you coordinated with the nonprofits featured on your site? What is their feeling on the campaign?

Frankly, we’ve not contacted them. We are interested to gauge their reaction and hope they provide one. Keep in mind, we are taking on giants, and all the money and power are pretty much aligned on the other side of this issue. We are hoping for the best, but bracing for a potentially negative and even hostile or litigious response from the vested interests. We are warmed, however, by the citizen-level response we received so far.

----What are your goals for the site - volume of donations, etc?

1) To provide a means to give directly to charities without having to shop. We’ve set no specific goals for volume of donations, and in fact have no way to track actual donations resulting from our site.

2) To provoke discussion and change around cause-related marketing in order to refine and strengthen the model.

3) To encourage consumers to de-couple cause-related marketing (at least in terms of consumption) with charitable giving. Buying a $100 product is not the same as giving $100 to charity. Buy (LESS). Give more.

Thanks all for joining this conversation. I love the dialogue.

This is the sort of issue that sparks a ton of debate... which is partly why I liked the campaign and wanted to talk about it, particularly with this marketing audience.

To tell you the truth, I am of two minds about it, too... on the one hand, I completely support the Bono (RED) initiative because, as so many of you pointed out, he's raising awarness of a huge problem, he's offering up an incentive to donate, and he's making it painless to do so.

That being said, I also appreciate the BUY (LESS) initiative, because I do think it's a natural extension of the Bono program... it gives people a chance to think a little more deeply about the issue of AIDS in Africa and question, "Would I give without that incentive of a watch, or a phone, or a t-shirt? Why or why not? Is it about the T-shirt, or the people?"

I think it's an interesting take on the issue, in that BUY (LESS) asks us to examine our motives. At least, that's what it did for me.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that people who want to help causes will shop INSTEAD of giving to them (I donate to charity and I shop--surely I'm not an outlier). That's a huge assumption. Many may feel they need clothing or communications equipment and may then, once they've identified that need then make the choice to do some good through the purchase. If they don't have the need, many will save that money. We're not talking about people buying Ferrarri's we're talking MoTos and Gap T-shirts...so are we necessarily talking demographics flush with cash? Possibly another assumption.

Through causes like (Red) I can ALSO make a 'meaningful' purchase decision (be the decision to go with a green or charitable product). I fail to see how it's bad to do good through products that people are going to buy anyhow (and it's smart marketing since we're not asking people to change behaviors). Or, using the language of the ad, some of us do buy "crap" and give to charity, too.

Does anyone not know that AIDS is a big problem in Africa?

Here is, I think, the real question: what would generate more actual money for charity: the RED campaign, or Bono and the various companies running ads urging people to give (with great creative)?

There is something to be said for getting $ that weren't going to go to charity (as RED tries to do) but the lack of transparency is troubling. Will someone think, "I bought a RED iPod, I did my bit?" and pass over an opportunity to give that would help a charity much more?

Ann: I'm almost in agreement with your last point here. I'm a fan of (RED) because it shows very enlightened self-interest. I'm a fan of charitable giving, too.

Ben, I'm glad you weighed in -- I was actually about to hit your site and invite someone's participation when I double-checked to see if anyone already had.

I'm NOT a fan of (LESS).

You've found a way to attack another player in the non-profit world by being 'holier than thou'. Or, as I said earlier, 'snarkier than thou'.

How could you have delivered the message of "you don't have to buy... you just have to give", without attacking another group with good intentions? It isn't necessary to attack to get your point across. Instead of taking an adversarial stance, you could have stood on the shoulders of (RED) and benefited from their good work. Now you just look fringe and I doubt it will rebound to anyone's credit.

My opinion, of course. But it's a waste of effort and money when brands go into attack mode to make their point when using market momentum and awareness could have made the total result so much bigger.

Stephen: I don't see the BUY (LESS) program "snarkier than thou"... I see it as an alternative viewpoint and, again, a prod to look at the issue differently.

CK: I'm not sure most people are like you, but I admire your ethic, and I wish they were. I have no doubt you give more than your share.

And John -- "Will someone think, 'I bought a RED iPod, I did my bit?' and pass over an opportunity to give that would help a charity much more?" -- that's what I wonder, too. Thanks for your two pesos.

I have to say that I agree with Denny.

"We do not think that shopping, however, should ever be considered a legitimate substitute for charitable giving. Just Give." I find Davis's language to be elitist and dividing...not uniting (I'm a big fan of uniting).

To say to people "don't buy crap, just give" assumes that we don't give to charity (and further that we don't give a crap). That assumption is wrong enough of the time to at least test it out first. Did we do any market testing? Or are we just judging everyone to be apathetic? Where assumptions and judgments fly I say beware...or at least test.

Giving in as many possible ways (direct giving, through product purchases, through volunteering time) can only be good.

I don't like snarkiness either. But the word itself is wonderful.

Dear marketing friends, we were quite concerned with the negative aspects of BUY (LESS) and worked hard to make sure the underlying message was positive and constructive. The key players involved are all overwhelmingly positive personalities and fully recognize the many pitfalls of negativity. Yet, without the hook--without parodying the (RED) campaign as a means to garner viral success and to stimulate discussion--we didn’t feel we would have an impact.

A white paper on (RED) would go mostly un(READ). Sorry.

For all its celebrity backing and marketing might, (RED) leaves many people confused and full of nagging questions. Who benefits? How much money really reaches the cause? Is this intended as a substitute for charitable giving? Is feeling good about shopping a healthy emotional response to human suffering? Can we really consume our way to a cure?

Our biggest reason for plunging ahead despite the negative aspects, however, was our utter inability to get a straight answer—or really any substantive information at all--about what’s been spent on the (RED) campaign. That alone made us realize that discussion and reform was needed.

We can speculate whether buying cause-related products robs charities or not (and I posit that for the price of one Time Square billboard RED could fund research for a definitive answer) but the real issue is one of transparency. We deserve to know explicit accounting details if we are asked to favor one product over another because a portion of proceeds goes to charity.

If only fifty cents of my $28 tee shirt goes to help folks in Africa and the rest is paying for general advertising to drive overall store sales, rent, staff salaries, marketing consultants, CEO bonuses, et cetera, that knowledge might effect my purchasing decision. If marketers know that I can know, it might keep them a bit more determined to raise money for charity and not just bolster the brand and increase sales.

This group is composed of thought leaders, so let's think together on this. I stipulate an appreciation for Bono, the inherent spirit of RED, and every dime that finds its way to charity. Let's think to the future and consider ways to improve the cause-marketing model. I count on this group to offer ideas and solutions. Surely none of you think the current model is without flaw or weakness. We can do better.

Great post and dialogue here.

I'm not generally motivated to buy a product or service because a portion of my money goes to a charity. As someone said above, if I'm already planning to purchase and some money goes to a good cause, that's terrific. But I prefer to give directly to causes that move me.

And I'm not one to wear my charity on my sleeve -- or on my wrist. I'll donate, but I refuse to wear a bracelet, be it yellow or whatever. To me, they became more of a trendy fashion item than a meaningful statement of caring.

I'm probably not the typical consumer, though. If efforts like these bring more attention and some extra money to charities doing good, that's great.

What I think makes it seem "snarky" (what a fun word) is that they seem to be attacking the very brand they depend on for publicity. At the very least, it's bad form.

And savvy.

While I respect any broad advocacy on behalf of the issue, I think the strategy and assumptions are a bit off.

This was not a coordinated campaign among nonprofits and charity relief groups, but a "citizens" media campaign challenging *another* on behalf of groups doing such work-- without specifics on what those groups need/want most, simply the mantra "don't give there- give here."

Transperancy could've been handled better to greater effect with less disruption first with direct appeal on behalf of the groups listed (i.e. not receiving money?) to RED. Form 990s would not have revealed much at this early stage, but the dialog might have been more productive than this approach and boosted $$$ for these groups. Unless on principle they don't want to receive % of luxury products for their cause. I don't know- I haven't heard from *them*.

Folks have questioned the natural response to human suffering. Think for a moment about the natural response generated by a campaign that calls into a question your judgement via charitable choices, which borders on anti- consumption language in its call for accountability. Where else does $$$ come from?

It's almost as if the donors are being held to account for making a bad investment in a good cause, instead of a "bad group" (the LESS campaign's theme?).

Potentially tagged as "anti-consumer" groups in their other development and outreach efforts through no fault of their own, the groups affixed to the camapign may face negative publicity in the future.

Charity takes many forms, collective and individual, that can be stimulated and suppressed by any number of factors over a period of time. It is misguided, however, to suggest that one's decision to support a cause in one particular manner preempts additional or sustained activity on the same, or any cause.

Put another way: consumer purchases don't block issue awareness, in-country volunteerism, local fundraisng drives, clinic prevention support, etc.

Ryan: I really appreciate your input, looking forward to hearing more from you on other posts!

I'd like to address Ben's line of: "I count on this group to offer ideas and solutions."

Ben--I've emailed you (there is only 1 blind email at the site, fyi) and I've also tried to find a blog at your "buylesscrap.org" site and at those of your partners'. I can find nothing and have asked if I've missed it. If we're working to engage and create solutions, why is this the only forum I can find for this discussion? It runs counter-intuitive to the mission you state so I must be missing it, yes?

Regardless, I'm glad Ann gave us the forum by covering the issue. Also, if you go through all the comments above (and your approach amassed many!) you'll find several approaches and recommendations...from some of the smartest marketers around no less.

On that note, I really thank everyone for this insightful debate. It reconfirmed a lot for me. I will continue to give directly, buy meaningfully and push my clients to keep findng creative ways to give back.

Great post and comments. BuyLessCrap also contacted me. I interviewed them and RED, and here are their thoughts: http://www.nonprofitmarketingblog.com/comments/cause_related_marketing_seeing_red_and_pink/

VERY worth your while to read Katya's post as we hear from BOTH sides. Of Note is the RED partner contribution breakdown she lists:

o Gap: 50% of gross profits

o Emporio Armani: 40% of gross profit, on average

o Converse: 5% - 15% of net sales

o Motorola: $17 per handset

o Apple: $10 per iPod Nano

o American Express: 1% of monthly bill (UK Only)

The above is not chump change (and poor Gap is not doing so well right now on top of this). Thanks Katya, so glad to know of your blog now. You do your homework ;-).

Wow, what a discussion!

I confess that my first reaction when I saw "BuyLessCrap" was to laugh and cheer. I've been telling my mother that for years now!

My thanks to Katya for culling basic answers from (RED)--and for being so great to communicate with. Before I make a renewed call for genuine transparency, let's mull over the bare-bones information (RED) provided--it is excellent fodder for discussion.

Take a look at the list below and decide which ones make you most comfortable and which ones raise (RED) flags.

o Gap: 50% of gross profits

o Emporio Armani: 40% of gross profit, on average

o Converse: 5% - 15% of net sales

o Motorola: $17 per handset

o Apple: $10 per iPod Nano

o American Express: 1% of monthly bill (UK Only)

I much prefer concrete statements of donation. $10 for an iPod I understand. Amex's offer is great. "Gross profits" requires that much more information be provided--what specific expenses get paid before the business decides what's profit? And what if the venture just breaks even--does anything go to charity, despite all the spending and good will? Or what it if loses money--does the loss roll over quarter to quarter? So many questions.

Then we step into the great gray area. Why does Armani require the "on average" qualifier. What is so different about their accounting practices? Why does Converse need the leeway of 5 to 15 percent, and who decides on the final figure? Who is auditing statements of sales and profits?

On the road to reform, we can see plainly that the underlying donation structure of cause-related marketing makes a big difference. So I encourage this group to discuss what standards ought to exist and what practices should be discarded.

Now, onto the issue of greater transparency. I love a good charity, and with Bono, Oprah, and a cast of trustworthy stars asking for my help, I love (RED). Who wouldn't want to give to such a charity? But, as it says a few screens deep on joinred.com: (RED) is not a charity. It's a commercial initiative designed to create awareness and a sustainable flow of money from the private sector into the Global Fund to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa.

So (RED) is not a charity. It's a commercial initiative. (Raise your hand if you were well aware of that fact.) Do the rules of transparency we demand of a charity apply to a commercial initiative? Do we have the right to know salaries, bonuses, full compensation packages, and detailed expenditures? Would it raise any questions if the president of (RED) used to work for one of the organizations that now benefits from (RED) and seems to have negotiated one of the squishier "percentage of gross profits" forms of giving? Does the president still own stock in that company, and if so, would that present a conflict of interest?

Let me say clearly here that I have no substantive reason to question the integrity of (RED)'s president. My guess is that she is a highly talented and ethical person. But the question remains, what are we entitled to know and what standards exist for making that information available? (RED) is just a high profile example. I'd like to see such standards applied industry-wide.

Does anyone in this group at least see the value in asking such questions? Can you see how establishing rules and guidelines can actually improve and strengthen the cause-related marketing model? Our website buylesscrap.org hit a nerve. Many people are skeptical of the RED campaign and its ilk, and rightfully so. Let's throw back the curtains now and keep them open so consumers can have greater confidence in cause-related marketing endeavors.

The wisdom of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis holds true: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Press (RED) for some deeper answers, Katya.

I have three problems with WPI’s position. First, they make unwarranted assumptions, second, they questions marketers’ integrity and, third, they ignores some basic economics rules. WPI’s Ben Davis measures ROI on (RED) assumed advertising spending and declare it ridiculous! Now, I’m not familiar with fundraising, but I would think that 12 $ million in less than six months is a good start. What’s assumed here is that (RED) will maintain advertising spending at its launch levels throughout its life and that’s unwarranted.

When WPI declares that there is no assurance that any part of the contribution will reach the cause, because they’re based on cost accounting methods, they imply that marketers will scheme and obfuscate to give away the least amount possible. Responsible marketers wouldn’t do that. The risk of exposure is far too great and the damage to their brands would be catastrophic! Dishonest behavior costs careers and destroys brands.

The third error WPI makes is in associating (RED) and other cause related products with unnecessary consumption (notice the intentional use of the word “crap” in their URL). They overlook the fact that giving to charities is often a choice that comes with increased disposable income. For some people, the choice is between buying a needed piece of apparel (or hardware for that matter, because our needs are not so basic after all) or giving away its price. Not everybody can afford or want to engage in the kind of altruistic behavior WPI promotes. Some people, who would otherwise not give money to social causes, will buy (RED) products simply because they are trendy and constitute a badge of responsible behavior. But their money still goes to the cause.

If WPI wants to promote altruistic behavior, they should find another way than to undermine another effort. Framing a positive message would be a good start. Their request for greater accountability should also be addressed to all charities, irrespective of how they gather their funds. Otherwise, it only looks like another war on business launched by activists.

First, thanks to Ben for coming here and getting involved. This is one of the things I love about writing here, that so often we are able to bring up a new topic, and then have the source chime in to help us get their side of the story.

Having said that, I see two main marketing inconsistencies with the BuyLessCrap idea, which IMO are going to hold it back.

1 - It isn't fulfilling a need. Its positioning seems to be that RED isn't working, and that it has a better idea. But does the public believe this? I think the majority of the public feels good about the chance to see some of their money spent for everyday purchases, going to help fight AIDS in Africa. We can argue over percentages all we want, but in the end, people are still buying the same products, and now some of the money they spend on those products, is going to help others. They obviously see that as a very GOOD thing, and certainly not a problem that needs to be, or can be corrected by BuyLessCrap.

2 - BuyLessCrap doesn't seem to be following its own advice. It's entire thrust seems to be that instead of launching multi-million dollar marketing campaigns to encourage people to buy more stuff, wouldn't it be better to just give that money straight to charity?

But couldn't we say the same thing for BuyLessCrap? They are apparently spending a lot of money to say that RED is wrong, and they are right. But how can they be right, when they aren't giving that money to charity, but are instead spending it on marketing and advertising?

So to be honest, I don't see where Mr. Davis' initiative is fulfilling a real or perceived need, and I don't see where the 'cause' is holding itself up to the same standards that it demands of RED.

But either way, it's a great discussion.

As one of the organizers of BUY(LESS), I am thrilled that this discussion is flowing. My colleague Ben Davis speaks for all of us, but I wanted to comment on Mack Collier's assumption that we've spent "a lot of money on marketing and advertising." While we'll take the compliment that the campaign is top notch, the truth is, we've spent nothing. We've all donated our time to BUY(LESS). And, this campaign is entirely electronic--not one tree wasted on paper.

I echo Ben's sentiments that we love Bono, Oprah and the rest. We risked offending these icons by making a statement we believe in. Trust me, I searched my soul on this one. But, at the end of the day, I choose to believe that they would respect our intentions...just as we respect theirs.

We simply wanted to open a discusssion that ultimately supports a new approach...one that serves the cause and provides options and greater clarity to the donor.

I invite you to visit Trent Stamp's blog at:

http://trentstamp.blogspot.com/2007/03/red-is-new-pink.html

Trent is the president of Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.

Thanks to all.

Ben: I thank you for getting back to my email request. Because you reached out, I offer a few pieces of advice to help (as I was otherwise done with this debate, just take a look at how darn mouthy I’ve been!).

On opening the conversation: From your email, I hear you that a blog at your site might be polarizing with groups from all sides jumping in but, I tell you, launch one. In fact, in this day and age, never launch an advocacy effort (or a brand for that matter) without opening a feedback channel. That blind email is not enough. Advocacy efforts are about coalition-building and that “tell-a-friend” feature is no enough. In fact, besides money going directly to charities (instead of crap), what you’re really seeking—and the single greatest thing you can hope for from your campaign—is to OPEN the conversation. Open it, really.

On creative thinking: Where you said “ Red is a commercial initiative designed to create awareness and a sustainable flow of money from the private sector into the Global Fund to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa.” I see absolutely no problem in this. For that matter, I wish more commercial initiatives would be formed like this. The thinking to me is to (1) stimulate the economy while (2) increasing funds for a needed cause. Ben, this is creative thinking. It’s a win-win. Many have only thought of (1) without a thought to (2). Thinking both is exactly what I’m pushing my clients to do and I think it’s laudable and advancing. Remember, we need a healthy economy in order to give the money we do as a nation to causes. We need a healthy commercial sector. And that health can feed money to increase the health of other nations (and let’s not forget our own).

On guilt: While I’m sure many people could give more to charity and buy less stuff, the target for the (Red) campaign—AND yours—is the middle class…we are simply not talking the upper classes here (trust me they don’t shop Gap). And I think what annoys me about the messaging is that it’s a GUILT play. Ick. I personally have a problem with guilt plays…they’re tainted and low-brow. Further, they don’t work. And when they do? It’s short-term. That’s why green initiatives have had such a problem for 20 years and are just now coming into their own as they’re being packaged into the product with a much more pleasant message. I like what Denis (welcome to the convo, Denis!) said above with “framing a positive message”.

All of the above was offered to help—since you did reach out to me, Ben. Again I thank everyone as this has been a very beneficial debate for me.

2007 NAACP Charmans Award: Bono.

As frontman of Irish super group U2 and advocate for African relief efforts, Bono has inspired people across the world to unite through his music and humanitarian efforts. During his musical career with U2, his band has sold over 130 million albums and won numerous awards for their music, including 22 Grammys. Bono is also a passionate advocate in the fight against AIDS and extreme poverty in Africa.

"Bono has been an inspiration to many people around the world through his music and humanitarian efforts," said NAACP Board Chairman, Julian Bond. "We are delighted to honor him with this award in recognition of the differences he has made and to acknowledge his ongoing campaigning to actively engage Americans from all walks of life in the fight against extreme poverty and the global AIDS pandemic."

Bono's interest in Africa was ignited after he and his wife, Ali, spent a month working at a feeding camp in Ethiopia in 1985. In 1986, U2 headlined the Amnesty International Conspiracy of Hope Tour. In 1998, Bono became involved in the Jubilee campaign to "Drop the Debt" of the world's poorest nations. Four years later, he and Bobby Shriver created a new advocacy organization called DATA (Debt, AIDS,Trade in Africa).

In 2004, with leaders from 90 other anti-poverty organizations, Bono helped launch ONE: The Campaign to Make Poverty History, which today, includes 2.4 million members united in the fight against extreme poverty.

And in 2006, Bono and Bobby Shriver joined with international corporate leaders to launch Product (RED), a new organization that is raising awareness about the AIDS crisis in Africa and driving millions of dollars into the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

For his music and activism, Bono was awarded the Legion D'Honneur (2003) and jointly named Time magazine's Person of the Year (2005), along with Bill and Melinda Gates. In December 2006, it was announced that Bono will also be awarded an honorary British knighthood.

As frontman of Irish super group U2 and advocate for African relief efforts, Bono has inspired people across the world to unite through his music and humanitarian efforts. During his musical career with U2, his band has sold over 130 million albums and won numerous awards for their music, including 22 Grammys. Bono is also a passionate advocate in the fight against AIDS and extreme poverty in Africa.

"Bono has been an inspiration to many people around the world through his music and humanitarian efforts," said NAACP Board Chairman, Julian Bond. "We are delighted to honor him with this award in recognition of the differences he has made and to acknowledge his ongoing campaigning to actively engage Americans from all walks of life in the fight against extreme poverty and the global AIDS pandemic."

Bono's interest in Africa was ignited after he and his wife, Ali, spent a month working at a feeding camp in Ethiopia in 1985. In 1986, U2 headlined the Amnesty International Conspiracy of Hope Tour. In 1998, Bono became involved in the Jubilee campaign to "Drop the Debt" of the world's poorest nations. Four years later, he and Bobby Shriver created a new advocacy organization called DATA (Debt, AIDS,Trade in Africa).

In 2004, with leaders from 90 other anti-poverty organizations, Bono helped launch ONE: The Campaign to Make Poverty History, which today, includes 2.4 million members united in the fight against extreme poverty.

And in 2006, Bono and Bobby Shriver joined with international corporate leaders to launch Product (RED), a new organization that is raising awareness about the AIDS crisis in Africa and driving millions of dollars into the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

For his music and activism, Bono was awarded the Legion D'Honneur (2003) and jointly named Time magazine's Person of the Year (2005), along with Bill and Melinda Gates. In December 2006, it was announced that Bono will also be awarded an honorary British knighthood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDueMj7RlsU

"As one of the organizers of BUY(LESS), I am thrilled that this discussion is flowing. My colleague Ben Davis speaks for all of us, but I wanted to comment on Mack Collier's assumption that we've spent "a lot of money on marketing and advertising." While we'll take the compliment that the campaign is top notch, the truth is, we've spent nothing. We've all donated our time to BUY(LESS). And, this campaign is entirely electronic--not one tree wasted on paper."

Good for you, but would it have been better to have volunteered your time to attack RED, or to donate your time to charity? And since you are asking people if they are best serve charities by buying stuff, expect to have us question if YOUR time is being best spent.

Again, I am looking at this from a marketing and positioning point of view. Most people, IMO, think that RED is working. So to come out and say that it is not, is already a struggle, since you are butting against people's perception of what the truth is. You have to give us proof that RED isn't working. So far, I haven't seen it.

Second, you guys are claiming that everyone should stop buying stuff, and start giving to charity. By the same token, can't we also say that you guys should stop donating your time to attack RED, and instead donate that time to charity?

I still think there are some serious inconsistencies in your approach, and that's going to hold back your efforts.

Ben and Debra:

You've been good sports about commenting here and acknowledged that you're talking to 200K+ thought leaders through this forum, a handful of whom have commented.

I see a lot of support for your stated intentions of raising money and awareness but absolutely none for the way you went about it.

What thoughts do you have regarding how you move forwards, given this input?

Stay the course, retool, change direction, what?

Looks like we are winding down here. I'll trust that 37 comments on Ann's post on a site that seems to average fewer than ten per post is a sign that we're onto an emerging issue...and of Ann's skill in framing the issue. Thank you once more, Ann, and to everyone for participating.

I want to let the group know that BUY (LESS) will be the Debate Topic of the Month on BrandChannel.com starting tomorrow. If any of you join in, I ask that you help me steer the debate to the issue of transparency for all cause-related marketing efforts. As marketing professionals, that's the most productive and valuable issue you can address.

If there is any steam left in this group, I would ask that you dedicate it to answering one final question. I'll make it extra easy to weigh in. On a scale of 1 to ten, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and ten being "strongly agree," how do you feel about the following statement:

Cause-related marketing is a highly effective branding tool still in its infancy, and greater transparency and a set of guidelines ought to be adopted as a means of refining and strengthening the model so that a more consistent and assured revenue stream reaches featured causes, so that consumers can make more informed buying choices, and so that all involved can have greater confidence moving forward.

strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 strongly agree.

Ben: I meant what I said about opening the conversation...and that entails YOU answering our questions, not just giving us more. You gave us a 1-10 survey question? Denny asked you a very good question above. I'm amazed after the time and good thoughts shared here that you didn't answer it.

Also, I'm not sure if all posts seem to average 10 comments here or not but perhaps you should look at the VALUE of the comments (I'm seeing at least 3 paragraphs per comment). And you shouldn't ask people to steer a debate one way or the other; that's not an open conversation either, that's just the conversation that YOU want to have.

Advocacy is about engaging and uniting. Your last comment came across to me as highly pompous and thusly your coalition-building efforts hit me as just plain peculiar...and divisive.

Btw, we talk transparency and ethics a lot here (you'd know that if you were a reader).

Especially after the most recent response, I could not support the effort for a number of reasons. In the spirit of fair play, however, I did want to add something constructive-- not for the benefit of this campaign (enough feed for weekend, no?)-- but for other groups that may be watching it for lessons. Less "should'ves" or "musts" or a debate on merits; just insights gained from much trial and error by/through much past nonprofit activity after the buzz dies down.

Objectify Goal

There's a lot of things that appear to have equal weight within what appears to be your stated goal. Alone, I count charity accountability, scrutiny of RED, change in donor behavior, decreased consumption proportionate to increased giving, reduced role for cause-related marketing by nonprofits. Simply put, the main thing you seek is...?

Anticipate Outcomes

This will get me into trouble: I find SWOT analyses and "goals" and linear "objectives" to be boring, limiting in their usefulness, and just plain overkill for many groups. Sometimes more practical: list your concerns, rank and weight them, identify factors affecting them according to degree and locus of control you have over them. Then pose the universal effect of those concerns when taken to their logical conclusions as best as you can. In this manner, you not only prepare supporters for what lies ahead, but can better respond to critics well in advance before launching.

Snag Audience

Forget the website and buzz. Who exactly did you have all this fuss in mind for and why *really*? Is it the RED campaign, a certain type of potential or current donor whose behavior your seeking to change, a donor whose behavior your seeking to maintain, a group of charities, the beneficiaries in Africa, the general public, charity monitoring interests, or some others? I don't know, I'm confused, and I'm not sure who's being talked down to more-- the folks you're trying to woo or the folks you're trying to wean them from.

Strategize Clarity

Raising awareness, greater scrutiny, donor awareness, citizen dialog, better information, etc. would be great ends unto themselves, but they don't fit together well as articulated so far. Each response from Ben et. al appears to generate a new desired aim without specifics or something back in return and while I'm not worried for me, I'm worried for his potential supporters.

Each suggestion and critique that's come your way, you've accepted as "part of the plan" instead of asserting what your plan was. As new activity unfolds, there's a partial feeling that "this was part of the plan all along," and the buzz will be co-opted rather than asserted. Without revealing your hand, just stae your plan, man. Or state some stratatics or tactegery for the benefit of your potential supporters so they at least have some idea what to expect. Otherwise, it appears disorganized (not organic) at best, or feels disingenuous and manipulative at worst. Long-time practitioners would rightfully be skeptical after your buzz dies down about your long-term interest in raising awareness on the issues they address everyday.

It's not enough to be genuine, heartfelt, earnest, and sincere in your beliefs, passion, and execution-- who's to say those you're challenging aren't? What will you add in a constructive manner? Build bridges before, during, and after any campaign launch-- more than links-- if you haven't already.

Drop Jargon

"Accountability" and "transparency" are two of the words on my short peeve list.

Accountability for what, to whom, why, and on whose authority?

Transparency about what, in what amounts, to whom, and why? Lobbing terms like these out, without any definition or context as to what you mean by them, is confusing

No disrespect, but citing Charity Navigator isn't useful. If you're going to reference them, you need to reference the other major charity monitoring groups, BBB Giving Wise and American Institute of Philanthropy, especially since there is ongoing debate both within and outside the sector regarding each entity's methodology.

Most responsible approach: acknowledge the three and summarize the main issues of variance for donors courtesy of Stanford Social Innovation Review's solid 6/1/05 analysis (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_ratings_game/).

Always reference Guidestar, the big source of 990 data within the sector, and explain the actual significance within real context for donors. What will and won't it tell you.

Support Roles

If you want an organic effort, just say so upfront and provide easy mechanisms for doing so. You've got limited attention spans at best, and you'll be lucky to hold and retain it for a short while. What are you going to do with it? Say this part of an emerging/ongoing dialog and you're trying to figure it out as you move along but you need help and ideas?

Then provide a clear mechanism for engagement, disclosure of who/what you are, and a narrative arc-- if this is an organic effort-- that says " we're aware of a real issue, but from here it's wide open with your involvement. Where do we go next?"

Identify things people can, are, and should be doing to build on the work that's started-- as long as it fits with the vision. It's less constructive to support "anything goes let's see what sticks" approaches, especially after the fact. No need to go guerrilla if you've got a receptive audience to start with, depending upon who/what it is.

Analyze Approach

Consider three areas objectively and reflect upon how you feel pre- and post-launch:

(a) Guerrilla marketing can be a bear even when the lion's share of the work is brought to bear by another group. Are you crowing about piggybacked off RED's efforts when you didn't have to, carping that you had to, or vice-versa?

(b) How certain are you that your efforts compliment-- instead compete with attention, disrupt, or go unnoticed by-- other existing efforts (and not simply around AIDS in Africa)?

(c) How were the groups listed on the site-- each having its own significant cause-related marketing background or involvement-- selected, screened, or vetted? Were the risks of not notifying these groups-- and repercussions for other groups-- in advance of your efforts considered?

Shape Tone

Given the goal and audience, are you aiming for "conscience" or "gadfly"? Given your language and style at present, you're shifting too much positive emphasis to the very targets you're attempting to scrutinize, making your own work that much harder. Be consistent in your tone, unless rapprochement and direct dialog with the targets of your campaign (again, assuming they are targets) are an actual part of your strategy.

Kick Deference

From this point forward, knock off the "We like Bono/Oprah and respect RED but" statements". Whether they're true or not are unimportant. You're simply undercutting the "zing" of your message, appearing apologetic at times for what you're doing, other times insincere. You've fired off a pretty strong missile with an unmistakeable target, regardless of the reasons, why soften the blow?

Strip Innuendo

Saying that, while you're not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, but that you'd like a group to do something better than what it has, indirectly suggests that a group is indeed doing something wrong. This is "cover up is always worse than the crime" logic, which presupposes a crime in the first place. Problem is, you're language appears to accuse (a) RED, (b) RED's partners, and (c) donors themselves.

You could be more effectively by simply (a) leveling "charges" at the aforementioned groups, stating more clearly why what they're doing is wrong; and/or (b) delineating clearer sets of steps you'd like the individual group to do. The current language is simply too coy and cumbersome, and only serves to confuse.

Industry Perspective

Simply weighing the concern that your effort be afforded credibility and respect. I recall the RED launch and reviewed some of their info disclosed last fall. If they are a focal point, you would do well to review the corporate information filed in the UK and US, less so the media accounts and press releases. You can stockpile links in addition to those sources as well.

More effective: numbers on the state of the cause-related donations industry would bolster your concerns. Did you review analyses or material from groups such as the Association of Fundraising Professionals and Independent Sector, two leading nonprofit "infrastructure" groups that have accumulated suggested guidelines and stats from their members, as well as Guidestar and the National Association of Attorneys Generals?

Also questioning a frame of reference that omits links to Network for Good and other giving portals if you're trying to encourage direct giving alternatives over consumption in all/many/other forms. Or is the message simply give only to individual charities directly, no intermediaries at all?

Consider Alternatives

Whether you like it/agree or not, your campaign may be sending out this signal: "No charitable effort should ever sell anything to raise money but should only receive money from donors. All corporate contributions should receive greater scrutiny than any individual's. Conspicuous consumption bad."

Think not only about the style that appeals to you and those who agree with you, but those who might agree with you but possibly not think like you. Did you test the message and campaign out on others beforehand? Who?

Were there other potential barriers you weighed in developing your message-- assuming you were aiming for as wide an audience as possible? What messages/themes made the reject pile? Are there backup/follow up/alternative/supplementary messages at hand or in the queue?

Play Fair

Is/was dialog with RED part of your strategy, an objective, or goal? While this *might* get some of the attention of the powers that be, and while they definitely released their info (although I would argue they never withheld it from anyone so don't claim a victory where there's no to be had), did you attempted to reach them before launch to air your concerns? Had you raised your concerns with any charity watchdog groups that track such concerns? I only ask because it's in your best interest to attempt dialog with targets before launching a campaign such as yours, so that if/when you fail, any "blow-off" can be integrated into your messaging.

You're identifying a potential problem, and asking donors to be careful but not vigilant, without any consistency on the part of the charities, sector, or other industry actors as well. Donors may/may not know about those other industry actors, or even the structure or integrity of the Global Fund. Either way, its too much to digest and maintain for one organization. Luckily, you don't have to, because there are other groups actively working on those issues. Why aren't they and their work identified and acknowledged so that people can be educated?

More Facts

Your responses suggest a motivation on the part of "many/lots" of people and a "perceived" lack of of credible evidence. Why not simply quantify your numbers and pick apart "theirs"-- if indeed, RED is a focal point if not primary target? Why is there no data, even along the lines of that provided above, to support your claims and give your supporters something to take away after they visit your site and repeat/spread among their friends?

Note the things you don't stress, including increased volunteerism, or underlying economic and philosophical rationale for your arguments. Do you have more framework or foundation, apart from a feeling that "something is wrong" which can support your ambitions and arguments? You'll attract supporters on an emotional/visceral level anyway, no doubt, but you want as sound a basis as possible to minimize hole-poking from people whose livelihoods and decisionmaking your challenging if not attacking.

By overlooking/ignoring/not acknowledging the large and active body of effort within and outside the sector before yours, more than carefully chosen opinions with whom you might agree, you run the risk of coming across like a disconnected late arrival to the party without any credibility. Just because you may feel folks on the ground might not be aware of what's going on doesn't mean that they are-- you have no proof stated either way.

"Looks like we are winding down here. I'll trust that 37 comments on Ann's post on a site that seems to average fewer than ten per post is a sign that we're onto an emerging issue...and of Ann's skill in framing the issue. Thank you once more, Ann, and to everyone for participating."

30+ is the norm, not the exception for one of Ann's posts.

But CK makes a valid point: "Ben: I meant what I said about opening the conversation...and that entails YOU answering our questions, not just giving us more."

I agree with this. Twice I've mentioned the disconnect between LESS wanting to say that those behind RED should donate their time and money directly to charity, and LESS starting a campaign against RED, instead of devoting their own time and money directly to charity themselves.

Again, why the disconnect?

Just some observations from a fair distance...

I'm late into this debate, and much has been said--and repeated, with greater and greater vigor, it seems. It reminds of the old Armenian saying about "churning water in hopes of making butter." Neither side in this debate is likely to get the result it desires, simply because water is not milk--or, in this case, corporations are not charitable entities (or, nonprofits are not in the business of earning profits).

Attempting to convince corporate marketers about the virtues of buying less crap is like attempting to convince a slaveholder about the virtues of abolition (OK, a bit extreme, but I'm making a point)--it strikes at the heart of the marketer's identity, at his or her professional raison d'etre. No wonder that some folks here have been so unanimous and passionate (one might even say visceral) in their response. (Of course, the reverse is also true: Asking LESS to agree to RED is like asking the abolitionist to accept the virtues of slavery.)

No wonder that our logic as marketers is that "people are more apt to buy than to give, so what's wrong with tapping into that natural tendency." That's a self-serving logic. It's akin to, oh, anti-Semitic Old Europe arguing that Jews are naturally money-grubbing usurers, when in fact their laws so restricted what professions Jews could enter that money-lending was one of the few lucrative jobs available for them. (Or akin to the slaveholder, and his descendants, making the "observation" that blacks tend to have loose family values--when in fact for a couple of centuries they regularly tore apart black families, selling off children and fathers and mothers to the highest bidder.)

Similarly (yes, again a bit extreme), as marketers our job is to we make sure that our fellow citizens become consumers par excellence--and we employ a myriad tactics to make them so. To argue, then, that "people are more apt to buy than to give" is a bit self-serving. Hmm... I wonder what would happen if as much "marketing" went into convincing people to give...

What LESS is doing, essentially, is using "our" marketing tactics to get our fellow citizens to become less consumer and more altruistic giver. And we truly resent LESS for it: both for poaching in "our" territory and for using "our" methods.

To see such similarity in those we consider so "other" is disorienting--as is seeing that other treading in our stomping grounds. So much so, that we resort to whatever self-assuring "reasoning" we can to regain our bearings and feel ourselves back in familiar territory--large and in charge and occupying the moral high ground. Kind of like Israel (and its allies) arguing that before negotiations can take place with the Palestinians, they have to renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. That so very logical approach, however, somehow doesn't extend to Israel and her allies: They need not first renounce violence and accept Palestine's right to exist.

Similarly, it seems silly that, for example, we (snarkily) demand of LESS how in the face of our criticisms it should be reconsidering its strategy and tactics (and its "snarkiness"), but we are so hesitant to ask the same thing of RED when it comes to, say, transparency (is it really so heretical to consider that some corporations may not always be honest?).

This comment is getting a bit long, so I'll end it with this. Seems to me that RED and LESS are not so much mutually exclusive approaches (despite the extreme analogies I used to make my point) as they are different ways of seeing our world that must find a modus vivendi , because both have a place in society; not so much, as Ann originally pointed out, that they necessarily complement each other but that they naturally co-exist in the same ecosystem--and it's best for that ecosystem that they do so with as little friction as possible, though when they do come into contact some friction is inevitable. Kinda like science and religion, church and state, dog people and cat people...

Ryan: I swear your comment should be an article or post. Terrific and, moreover, thoughtful. I like thoughtful; I don't like divisive.

Mack: It seems (Less) is not listening and not open to addressing our questions/concerns. But by being open to this wonderful conversation I benefitted through the tremendous lessons, meeting new people and I might have even found the perfect book for an upcoming Book Club segment on cause marketing. So this was tremendously beneficial for me (and I'm sure for everyone else). Thanks to Ann for holding this.

Was busy this weekend, so just now catching up on this extraordinary discussion.

Ben, in the 1-10 question you pose, it starts with a basic erroneous statement. How can you say that cause-related marketing is in its infancy? Where have you been for the past 15 - 20 years?

I first heard the term cause-related marketing used by a fellow named Ira Brody, who was a consultant to non-profits including The Epilepsy Institute in NYC. That was back around 1980 or 1981 when he got my client L'eggs hosiery involved in a cause-related marketing program with the Epilepsy Institute.

I was involved working with L'eggs on other cause-related marketing programs including a tie-in with womens running - then in its infancy - and local non-profit groups in various communities, like the YWCA. That was in the mid-1980s.

Avon has been doing cause-related programs to support breast cancer for several years at least.

So... I can't respond to your 1-10 question because there's a basic fallacy in the first few words. Is it highly effective? Yes, it can be when it's done right. Should there be greater transparency?
Of course, why not?

Hi folks. We are listening and we are thrilled with the energy, passion and interest you've invested in BUY (LESS). All polish comes from friction.

We appreciate the sage advice offered to BUY (LESS) as a brand and are taking many of the comments to heart--we will modify our strategy and refine our message based on this valuable exchange. However, it was our hope that this group would focus not on us, but instead on the growing practice of cause-related marketing and how we might use our collective wisdom to strengthen and improve it. I confess to failure in holding your attention in this area. Yet, I'm an optimist and trust that a kernel of awareness is fermenting. In a perfect world, marketing leaders would be ask tough questions of themselves rather than wait for tough questions to arrive. The positive consumer-side reaction to BUY (LESS) is an indication that such questions are on the way. When it comes to donated money, transparency is only frightening to those with something to hide.

We are happy to answer any and all questions. For the sake of clarity--and for the benefit of our readers--please pose just one question at a time and keep it short and simple. It's very difficult to respond in detail to long posts. I will do my best to provide straightforward and concise answers.

Hi David,

Welcome aboard. It's great to have someone with your experience join the conversation. I'm sure you've seen the good and the bad and can speak with some authority about areas were improvement might be warranted. Saying it's good when it's done right implies there are times when it's not.

Infancy is a subjective term. I strike it. How does this work for you?

"Cause-related marketing has proven itself as a highly effective branding tool and we are likely to see many more businesses and charities employ it. As such, greater transparency..."

BTW: I very much appreciate your matter-of-fact acceptance of the value of greater transparency. I'm not sure why that's been such a hard sell in this forum.

Wow - I am away from the site for a couple of days and look what I missed! I just posted my take on the campaign on my blog, but I'll summarize here.

While I am sympathetic to both the (RED) and the LESS campaigns' goals, I think there is a big piece being overlooked here. AIDS and poverty in Africa are not issues that can be solved by money alone. There is major political and social change that has to happen before even millions of dollars can do anything besides put a band-aid on the problem.

(RED) is missing a huge opportunity to make the purchase of one of their products just the first step in getting involved in bringing about change. Awareness of the problem is important, but not sufficient. Bono's ONE campaign does go to the next step of getting people involved in political advocacy, and a lot more could be done to tie the two campaigns together. Using social media, along with their major assets of music, celebrities, and cool brands, the two campaigns could together make an inc(RED)ible difference.

From today's Ad Age...

http://adage.com/article?article_id=115287

Wow!
CK, Ryan, Mack, Nedra, Ann, Love the conversation and the questions.

Ben, You have managed to turn me off to your campaign completely. I think this discussion should end and not give you anymore airtime.

I give to charities based on my heart, not based on condescending attack advertising.

Tammy,

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think this is an important discussion that should continue, because the question for both nonprofits and their potential corporate partners of whether cause marketing is the best way to bring about change (and burnish their brands) is one that is coming to the fore. Because of its visibility, (RED) will be used by many to determine the value of cause marketing, for better or worse.

And while donating to charities based on our hearts is a normal and admirable human response, we also need to remember to use our heads to evaluate whether a given charity would use our money wisely and is the best organization to address the problem we want to help.

All:

Take a look at Project RED's website for the following. I'll just post the full text of CEO Bobby Shriver's very articulate response to the Ad Age sense(LESS) article here:

* * * * * * * *
Letter to the Editor
Advertising Age

Dear Mr. Bloom,

I want to clarify a number of issues from the article on March 4th by your writer Mya Frazier "Costly RED Campaign Reaps Meager $18 million."

It has been a year since the launch of (PRODUCT) RED in the UK – a brand launch designed to get people used to the idea of an entirely new ‘fund raising” model; a brand launch that entered the market slowly with a small product offering at the time. It was designed to build over time. It built up to a full product offering and launch in the US on October 13th, 2006. So we’ve been in business really for only five months.

Your article says that $18 million and soon to be $25 million (when we have completed our most recent accounting) is a "meager" amount. It's five times the amount given to the Global Fund by the private sector in four years.

Second, your writer suggested that the $25 million is meager compared to the marketing money spent. Because (RED) is explicitly NOT a charity, we encourage our partners to go about their business including their marketing. This sells the products; the products generate the $25 million.

In addition, this marketing would have been spent anyway, on other product lines. It never would have been (nor will it ever be) given to the Global Fund. We were able to divert existing marketing dollars for (RED). The companies have erected signs in stores and billboards across America saying that AIDS in Africa is a serious global problem. What is the value of that communication? Your writer never tells us. A phenomenal benefit is that Gap, Apple, Sprint and other sales people are meeting Americans and explaining that 5,500 Africans dying daily of AIDS is preventable. What is the value of this?

The only substantial point in your article is the notion that people will stop contributing to charity because they’ve purchased (RED) products. There is actual data showing that when people become aware of crises, they give more money rather than less. Your writer doesn’t mention that data. We believe (RED) will lead to more rather than less giving.

(RED) is one of the choices people can make to fight the biggest healthcare crisis in human history.

Yours,
Bobby Shriver
CEO
(RED)

* * * * * *

I'm with him. If raising $25 million in five months (which at $0.38 per day would add another year to the lives of 180,000 people) is "meager", let's count that as a pretty good first step.

Keep us appraised of how much (LESS) raises.

Nedra, I respectfully agree with you. I think this discussion is important.

I find the tone of Mr. Davis to be counter-productive to the conversation.

Of course, I use my mind when giving to charities. I don't have any RED stuff, but that doesn't mean I think its motives and results are bad.

I tend to give directly to a charity and eliminate the middleman.

I'm personally all for cause related marketing even after reading the adage article.

Halleluia! Mr. Bobby Shriver
Amen!

Late to the conversation also. Very interesting discussion. I'd like to add this story. Over xmas my niece, a college junior, and I went shopping. She bought a RED Gap shirt. Why? The shirt was 'cool' .. many of her friends had them and oh yes, it was kinda nice to donate to a cause. The cause was an after thought. A nice to have *but* it made her feel good to know that she was doing good. Her purchase resulted in a donation that would have never occured.

Let's bring this back to (one of) the target audiences of one of the major retailers of the RED project - the Gap. Teens and college students who I doubt could afford to make a significant donation. "Buying a $100 product is not the same as giving $100 to charity," Davis said.

No, Mr. Davis it is not. But there are additional benefits: awareness is raised, a younger demographic has the opportunity to contribute to a cause, the nonprofit receives donations that they would not have gotten. And maybe just maybe when this demo is in the work force they'll remember that "feel good feeling."

Great post and discussion Ann and readers, and I’d like to throw one new idea into the ring, for your thoughts. I'm not sure I'm convinced either that people who want to help causes will shop rather than fork over the dollars. We do like to donate to charity that donates to needs though – and we get duped more than many would like to believe.

Perhaps that was a mere assumption as people suggested, but not so any more - as figures began to appear about what was going where on every dollar we gave. Many may feel they need closer to the needs – and in a way we can see a need met. I see the problem is one of connection between the giver and the needs. This reaction places more cortisol into the brain – a chemical that is not conducive to giving or help others.
I also agree that through causes like (Red) we can make more meaningful purchases that will impact a green or charitable product. As to asking people to change behaviors – it’s often best done by suggesting ways to use your brain in new ways. For instance people can learn to buy and still give to charity too, simply by trying it out once as a starter. That’s because we now know the human brain literally is shaped by the things we do in a day. Nuff said to an interesting exchange! Thanks for the chance to weigh in.

"Buying a $100 product is not the same as giving $100 to charity." Well, of course it isn't. But how many average people would actually donate $100 to charity?

It's a win-win situation for The Global Fund, as well as for the companies involved in the (RED) campaign. Like CK said, people are already going to buy cell phones & clothes. So why not find an opportunity there to contribute to AIDS charities?

I also agree with Toby - awareness is raised & a younger demographic gets to make donations which otherwise, would not be made.

It pays to be realistic, even as one tries to alleviate the problem of AIDS in Africa. Taking advantage of Bono's reputation & the popularity of products such as the iPod Nano & GAP apparel is a smart & viable alternative to simply encouraging people to give.

I work at GAP and half of the profits from any project RED product goes to the foundation and we are encouraged to explain what is involved and who benefits. As a consumer I can honestly (and unashamadly) say that I would never donate money to charity. But, and I know how shallow I may seem, I would buy a tee or jeans or a coat or something which is material whilst knowing that someone benefitted. And if there are are people who will just buy it because it is fashionable and not care even as much as me, then at least some people somewhere will benefit! Plus I have read so many people discussing the amount it has cost to advertise. GAP and Motorola as well as most of the other companies have covered the advertising costs which do not come out of the profits made by RED products.