An interesting response to the ubiquitous (RED) campaign kicked off yesterday in San Francisco. The BUY (LESS) campaign–with its tagline “Shopping Is Not a Solution” and the pointed domain name of BuyLessCrap–is spearheaded by words pictures ideas (WPI) and Romantic Static as a direct dis of corporate cause marketing efforts, but particularly Project (RED).
(RED) launched in the fall of 2006 by Bono (and others) to engage the private sector in the fight against AIDS in Africa by chanelling funds from the sale of (RED) products to the Global Fund .
Specially produced (RED) products include Gap T-shirts and hoodies, Motorola phones, Armani watches, iPods and Converse sneakers.
“BUY (LESS) rejects the notion that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering, and it provides a more meaningful option–GIVE MORE,” its organizers said in a press release. “The organizers–openly question the efficacy of expensive and wasteful corporate retail cause marketing approaches like the (RED) campaign.”
WPI founder Ben Davis says his big beef is that the donations aren’t transparent: “When donations are based on percentages of profit and the accounting methods are not transparent, you can spend $100 on a (RED) product with the notion that you’re helping to save lives in Africa–but there is no assurance that any of that $100 will actually reach the cause. Not one (RED) cent.”
Media reports claim that (RED) has raised close to $12 million for The Global Fund so far, Davis said. But the ad dollars spent to publicize the campaign haven’t been released. “To spend what must amount to more than $100 million dollars on advertising to raise a tenth of that for charity seems a hollow investment,” Davis said in an email.
In his view, it makes more sense to skip the T-shirt (he calls it “de-coupling”) and donate directly to the charity. The BUY (LESS) site provides direct Web links to charitable organizations, including The Global Fund.
“Buying a $100 product is not the same as giving $100 to charity,” Davis said.
My own take is that the (RED) campaign has fulfilled a mission by bringing to the forefront the severity of the AIDS problem in Africa. It’s gotten the message across to people who aren’t necessarily tuned in to social problems, but nevertheless can’t help but notice the (RED) T-shirts in the Gap windows on a trip to the mall.
But that said, 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.
To that end, cause-related marketing like the (RED) campaign has a place in charitable giving–in other words, both play a role.
For the record, Davis doesn’t necessarily disagree:
“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,” he said.
“We do not think that shopping, however, should ever be considered a legitimate substitute for charitable giving. Just Give.”
Related posts:
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.