[Oversoul]

Despite having big names like Oprah, Bono and Giorgio Armani rooting for the cause, the (RED) campaign has been turned out to be well, a complete failure. According web reports, despite having blown close to $100 million in advertising, marketing and branding, (RED) has only raised $18 million in funds for Africa.

Bad news about (RED) - Styledash

Sad, but seriously what's wrong with this picture? How can the campaign have spent $100 million even with the amount of free publicity Product (RED) received (see Oprah)? As for the returns, understandable given that the companies supporting the cause only contribute a small percentage of the sale to Africa. I highly doubt companies like GAP, Apple, and Motorola are hurting like (RED). I just hope the $18 million actually makes it to Africa instead of going towards recouping "costs."

[Jawbone54]

This is why I don't jump on bandwagons like (RED).

[Chuckit]

I once read an interview with Angelina Jolie where she was talking about trying to organize some charity event, and it pretty much wound up the same way. So she decided just to donate the money in the future and not waste it trying to convince people to help when they don't want to. I think that's a smart approach: If you want to donate money, just donate money! Don't wait for some trendy thing like (RED) to come along.

[BlueSky]

They used the wrong color.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you want to donate money, just donate money! Don't wait for some trendy thing like (RED) to come along.

QFT.

Of course, what a lot of people want though is to be seen to be donating money. And having a red iPod allows them to do this. That way they can trot off to their dinner parties and say "hey, look, I'm cooler than you because I donated to this". Sort of generates a social (and political) pressure for people to engage in the "keeping up with the Jonses".

[Troll]

How old is the brand? Like a year old right. Bit premature to be writing it off I think.

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by Troll 

How old is the brand? Like a year old right. Bit premature to be writing it off I think.

Yeap, according to wikipedia.

I don't mind owning one of those Product (RED) items. I will still purchase a red color iPod nano.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I once read an interview with Angelina Jolie where she was talking about trying to organize some charity event, and it pretty much wound up the same way. So she decided just to donate the money in the future and not waste it trying to convince people to help when they don't want to. I think that's a smart approach: If you want to donate money, just donate money! Don't wait for some trendy thing like (RED) to come along.

If you're going to give money, give directly. Don't wear it on your chest as T-shirt and act like you've saved the world.

[mitchell_pgh]

Most non-profits fail... nobody should be surprised that this didn't do so well. IMHO, it tried to follow the LIVESTRONG approach, but just didn't take off in the same way. IMHO, the LIVESTRONG campaign was a success because it was so simple.

Give me $1 and I'll give you a 10¢ piece of rubber that's a fashion accessory.

[KeriVit]

Actually the money spent on advertising was not spent by product RED. It was spent by the Gap, Converse, etc. Also, there is a certain amount that was intended for advertising. It has absolutely nothing to do with the money raised. 18 million dollars is a TON of money when it comes to AIDS in Africa. And it's money they wouldn't have had.

[mac128k-1984]

These celebrity causes usually start off with tons of fanfare but usually end up the same way.

I'm not against what its trying to do, but that doesn't mean I go and look for a (red) product.

[Gossamer]

From the link:

[Correction: Consulting company in charge of (RED) contacted me to let me know that this was erroneous info. Apologies for the mistake. Guess you can't trust everything you read on the internet.... AM]

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

18 million dollars sounds like a TON of money when it comes to AIDS in Africa. And it's money they wouldn't have had.

Fixed.

What are they going to do with it, though? We could be spending money on medicines that are often ineffective, and not on the African AIDS epidemic's biggest culprit - a lack of education.

Education is the way to stop AIDS in Africa, and it's going to take a LOT more than $16,000,000 for that.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

From the link:

Well...

Don't we all look foolish.

[ort888]

Here's a response from a friend of mine who is an international business professor...

Yeah, this is the perfect storm in terms of post guaranteed to make me fly off the handle and over respond. 1) It is brand management and advertising, the topic of my dissertation and one of my areas of expertise. 2) It is about Africa my "pet" cause (and don't forget the U2 link), and 3) It is something I read in Advertising Age (the source of the article Aaron links) weeks ago and already have had conversations with others about. So, not wanting to be a total jackass, I politely point out the following:

1) By any standard the RED campaign has been a success. It has raised $25 million dollars (not $18) since their hard launch in October, five months ago, which is 5 times the amount of money the Global Fund raised from private sources over the last FOUR years.

2) This wasn't Global Fund money. The $100 million dollars spent by Gap, Sprint, and others came from their existing marketing budgets. It was under no situation going to have been given to the Global Fund or other philanthropic entitities. This is not a charity. These companies decided that it was in their best interest, probably solely from a business perspective, to spend part of their marketing budget on this campaign. So, it isn't a $100 million investment for $25 million return -- that isn't how businesses look at this. Who knows how much the actual businesses have made? -- this is just the contribution to the Africa aid organization.

3) This means that the RED campaign got businesses to spend $100 million educating consumers about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. This has lead to an increase in awareness which has increased giving to all Africa related charities. Brian may not be able to buy a RED anvil, but he can give to a charity.

4) The reason this article generated discussion in my academic circle is that it was a remarkably shitty article for what is a generally good journal -- Advertising Age. Advertising executives, brand managers, and marketing profs like me all know that measure the return on investment for advertising is difficult and that it is incredibly inappropriate to measure that return after 5 months. Building a new brand takes time -- I just lectured on that in class thirty minutes ago. A newbie marketing major knows this. The return on the RED campaign will continue in the coming years and that is the perspective the article should have taken.

5) The money earned from the RED campaign is not small. It has already paid for 26,000 AIDs victims in Rwanda and Swaziland to get medicine (reminding everyone that 38.8% of the adult population in Swaziland has HIV).

6) To sum up, the RED campaign got companies to spend $100 million of their own money increasing awareness for the crisis in Africa and generated $25 million in donations to the Global Fund all while building a global brand solely focused on getting consumers to spend for Africa. It has been an incredible success.

That is my two cents. Hope that wasn't too agressive. I tried to be restrained in my retort.

[mitchell_pgh]

[Correction: Consulting company in charge of (RED) contacted me to let me know that this was erroneous info. Apologies for the mistake. Guess you can't trust everything you read on the internet.... AM]

They should have put the correction at the top of the article in (RED)

[KeriVit]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Fixed.

What are they going to do with it, though? We could be spending money on medicines that are often ineffective, and not on the African AIDS epidemic's biggest culprit - a lack of education.

Education is the way to stop AIDS in Africa, and it's going to take a LOT more than $16,000,000 for that.

It's not education. What? Teach them to use a condom? That has absolutely nothing to do with the AIDS epidemic. It's their living conditions. It's the fact that the disease is rampant.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

It's not education. What? Teach them to use a condom? That has absolutely nothing to do with the AIDS epidemic. It's their living conditions. It's the fact that the disease is rampant.

But if there's a plethora of misinformation out there about AIDS, do we combat it by giving people medicine? Of course not. What if everyone in the US believed the cure for someone shooting you in the knee is to shoot someone else in the knee? Would the solution be to treat the busted kneecaps, or to inform people that that doesn't work?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

It's not education. What? Teach them to use a condom? That has absolutely nothing to do with the AIDS epidemic. It's their living conditions. It's the fact that the disease is rampant.

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

But if there's a plethora of misinformation out there about AIDS, do we combat it by giving people medicine? Of course not. What if everyone in the US believed the cure for someone shooting you in the knee is to shoot someone else in the knee? Would the solution be to treat the busted kneecaps, or to inform people that that doesn't work?

Gossamer got to it before I could.

It was only a few weeks ago in these forums that we talked about how misinformed and uneducated they are concerning AIDS. I know one African leader is claiming that they have found a cure for AIDS (and clearly don't), and many people there are still under the impression that you'll be cured if you have sex with a virgin, which has caused countless rapes (according to stories I've read - remember the vaginal teeth thread?).

My best friend's family lives in Tanzania and works with the people there. They've traveled across Africa, and they agree that the number one problem in fighting AIDS is that they cannot contain it, because they either don't understand the disease or they think that a condom is guaranteed protection against it.

The medicine that we pay for by and large only prolongs the inevitable for the victims; it doesn't cure them. We should focus on educating them, so that they don't get it in the first place.

[Steve Bosell]

Typical, a $90 dollar PR campaign to tell the world that Bono is curing AIDS and saving the world. The sad thing is that people actually believe it.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Steve Bosell 

Typical, a $90 dollar PR campaign to tell the world that Bono is curing AIDS and saving the world. The sad thing is that people actually believe it.

Next time, at least PRETEND you read the thread.

You're wrong.

(Typical? Your call.)

[The Godfather]

If you don't like (RED), give to the Bill-Melinda Foundation. It's always been there, and you get a unconspicuous ethereal badge for your donation.

It'd be ideal if an agnostic missionary group were to teach the blacks in Africa about monogamy and condoms, without trying to convert their religion.

[macintologist]

I would recommend NOT donating any money to African causes.

Africa needs to be left alone. African governments need a good 300-400 years to develop a state capacity comperable to that of Western governments. The West was given hundreds of years to develop. Constantly pouring money into African creates a disincentive for African governments to develop their own political institutions and state capacity.

[KeriVit]

I'll admit my lack of info on the education phase in Africa. But, you're statement seems a bit awkward.

I guess I am more worried about what leaving them alone has done in Darfur.

[macintologist]

It's a basic economic principle. People (in this case, governments) respond to incentives.

Throwing money at Africa destroys that incentive to develop their own functional state capacity.

[Cold Warrior]

If people need an incentive to develop that capacity, then they have already failed.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

It'd be ideal if an agnostic missionary group were to teach the blacks in Africa about monogamy and condoms, without trying to convert their religion.

It would be nice if they tested that out on the AA's here in the US first.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I would recommend NOT donating any money to African causes.

Africa needs to be left alone. African governments need a good 300-400 years to develop a state capacity comperable to that of Western governments. The West was given hundreds of years to develop. Constantly pouring money into African creates a disincentive for African governments to develop their own political institutions and state capacity.

I'll be the first to note that Africa was at that point 3000-4000 years ago, but systematically destroyed by Europeans once those had caught up a few thousand years later.

So while your point of view is certainly a valid one, the argument you use to justify it is necessarily - and effectively - countered by the fact that we "the West" might be obliged to rebuild what we destroyed.

And while simply throwing money at them isn't useful, anything done there that IS useful still requires money - such as the anti-AIDS-campaigning done by Product (RED).

It doesn't breed helpless complacency or entitlement attitude by defeating the "teach a man to fish" principle, either. On the contrary: It tackles both "keep the man alive" and "teach his children how not to die" aspects.

[paul w]

Africa does not exist in a void. We in the west have enormous ties to Africa, all kinds of investment. The continent has lots of wealth that we're not exactly going to turn our backs on. And of course it's typically ignorant to lump the fifty odd diverse countries of Africa all together. People who say we should simply leave Africa alone are quite simply clueless.

One cannot hermetically seal a continent, problems in Africa have a way of reaching us. And the aid DOES work. Individual lives are saved every day. On the whole the problem is complex, and the reason for it remaining lies more in the governments than the actual will and ability of its people. But there is actually loads of good, efficient sustainable development occuring.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

Actually the money spent on advertising was not spent by product RED. It was spent by the Gap, Converse, etc. Also, there is a certain amount that was intended for advertising. It has absolutely nothing to do with the money raised. 18 million dollars is a TON of money when it comes to AIDS in Africa. And it's money they wouldn't have had.

$18M is alot of money ... $100M is alot more.

[PB2K]

However I don't totally agree with initiatives like RED and OLPC, still I am happy people organize things for others. The intention is great, if you want to complain, initiate something yourself. If it's not your money going thru the drain here you should keep your opinion to yourself.

[macintologist]

I am absolutely opposed to governments stealing money from its people and sending it to other countries.

Voluntary initiatives like RED, on the other hand, are completely harmless and I encourage people who care about these issues to cut their own check rather than forcing others to do so.

[PB2K]

Micro-loans are the best initiative I have seen so far, it gives poor people a chance to build a good future and an lternative to domestic loansharks.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I am absolutely opposed to governments stealing money from its people and sending it to other countries.

Foreign aid for most countries is designed to serve the national interests. For some, it props up its public image; for others, it makes the recipient nation (or head of state, who steals it) more amenable to the policies or needs of the donor. Mostly its a mix.

[paul w]

There's also the point that wars, outbreaks of disease and health crises tend to effect us indirectly eventually be it by hindering the flow of resources, damaging investment, creating circumstances ripe for outbreak of disease, streams of refugees which can put pressure on an entire region.

And yeah, we benefit in other ways. The US has in more than one occasion turned a blind eye to the certain governments' actions or lack thereof in exchange for having what is sometimes a rather discreet military presence.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

It might have made good money, but judging by the number of parody shirts I have seen lately "BO(RED)", "HAMME(RED)", I'd say the effectiveness is weakened.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I am absolutely opposed to governments stealing money from its people and sending it to other countries.

Are you also against the government stealing money from its people and using it on roads and primary education? I mean, I don't even use most roads, and I don't use elementary schools at all, so why should I have to pay for them?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn 

It might have made good money, but judging by the number of parody shirts I have seen lately "BO(RED)", "HAMME(RED)", I'd say the effectiveness is weakened.

If I'm not mistaken, the HAMME(RED) shirt is an official GAP shirt, along with DESI(RED) and a few others.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you also against the government stealing money from its people and using it on roads and primary education? I mean, I don't even use most roads, and I don't use elementary schools at all, so why should I have to pay for them?

Taxes are only acceptable when EVERYONE is taxed and EVERYONE is a direct beneficiary. This can only be done by user fees and excise taxes.

Roads are paid for by gas and car taxes. Police should be paid for by criminals who commit the crimes in the first place (raid their savings account). As crimes go down, funding for police goes down so police aren't around unnecesarily busting kids for stupid things like throwing snowballs. Education should absolutely be privately funded. Fire stations should be funded by some sort of home insurance tax or other narrowly-tailored tax.

[Kerrigan]

This reminds me of that FairTrade scheme which ended up hurting the world's poorest coffee producers, but which let greasy haired, weekend activist, college students feel better about their caramel lattes.

Of course, the trendiest expression of activism is awareness of global warming. All one has to do is say that he is concerned with impending global meltdown, and his peers will think him an enlightened, benevolent "healer" of the world.

I give props to the real activists, the ones who chain themselves to animal testing labs or who live in trees for months on end. At least they draw attention to their causes rather than to themselves.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Roads are paid for by gas and car taxes. Police should be paid for by criminals who commit the crimes in the first place (raid their savings account). As crimes go down, funding for police goes down so police aren't around unnecesarily busting kids for stupid things like throwing snowballs.

Brilliant plan. This also ensures that if the rich are smart enough to wait for the system to break down before committing fraud and other crimes, the poor will also pretty soon be able to commit petty crimes for survival completely unhindered (since there would be no funding for the police from *their* savings accounts - if they had one, they wouldn't be stealing).

Of course, we'd still have crackheads shooting tourists over ten dollars in cash, as well, and no funding for police action, but I'm sure that problem can be solved just as easily in your world.

Do go on.

[macintologist]

It is easily solved. It's called an armed citizenry.

[Goldfinger]

yeehaw!

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

If I'm not mistaken, the HAMME(RED) shirt is an official GAP shirt, along with DESI(RED) and a few others.

So you are right about hamme(red) and bo(red), googlenated. That is an odd choice for a (RED) shirt, if you ask me.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

It is easily solved. It's called an armed anarchy.

Fix0r3d.™

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

It is easily solved. It's called an armed citizenry.

If you want to live in that sort of uncivilized anarchy (no education, no accompanying benefits from education such as medicine and technology, no civil services, no law enforcement beyond people killing each other when they're pissed off), there are animal-filled jungles all over the world that would surely welcome you.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

animal-filled

This thread needs more muskrat