EMPOWE(RED) Consumers?

A year ago Christmas, I received a frenzied phone call from my mother desperately requesting my counsel on prospective gifts for my siblings. After hashing out the likelihood of my brother ever cashing in on piano lessons (his desire to be Ben Folds would indubitably pass with the holidays), my younger sister was next on the docket. The item in question: the latest iPod to grace the market. The issue: color. Now, not to sound overtly apathetic, but did I really care whether my sis toted around an iPod in a lovely crimson or cerulean blue? Not particularly, no, but my mom was torn. When she envisioned my sister jogging about, blue (a sportier hue?) jumped to the forefront of her mind; however, if she went with red the proceeds would in some way shape or form benefit an unidentified people, in an ambiguous way, somewhere in the vast continent of Africa. "You know, that thing that Bono is doing". And, thus, I was somewhat informally introduced to the cause marketing campaign (Product)RED.

Spearheaded in part by “that Bono”, the (RED) campaign has since taken off. If you have yet to see those Gap ads with the latest pop culture man of the minute (any John Mayer fans?) donning a t-shirt that reads "ADMI(RED)" or something of the sort, please crawl out from under that rock. With the likes of Motorola, Hallmark, Gap, and many more, the campaign’s high visibility is indisputable and its reach almost unavoidable. Basically at it's core, the (RED) business model ensures that a percentage of proceeds from certain purchases (I bring to your attention the aforementioned iPod) from affiliated corporate giants will be earmarked for the non-profit The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. So, as for the great iPod conundrum, the choice seemed obvious: choose red, purchase loot as planned, and donate to a good cause, to boot. Well, as a NY Times piece recently articulated, opinions on the overall benefits have DIFFE(RED).

To avoid reiterating the entire article, critiques center mainly around the disproportionate company spending on advertising versus the issue at hand, their emphasis on self promotion and the threat of subsituting and crowding out traditional philanthropy. Purchasing a good that you already intended to buy and inadvertently donating to a charity is by no means philanthropy, nor is it intending systemic change – but as just one of many avenues to address an issue (in this case AIDS awareness and prevention) does it have to?

In early high school I was the proud owner of the 1999 CD “No Boundaries”, compiled by Epic Records to raise money for and publicize (in addition to themselves) conflicts in Kosovo. I hadn’t the foggiest what exactly was going on, but I was well aware that Eddie Vedder would soon be crooning to the tune of “Last Kiss”. In turn, part of the album revenues from my purchase went to organizations aiding refugees. Likewise, it’s hard to imagine the adolescent hanging out at the CambridgeSide Galleria donning the “HAMME(RED)” t-shirt as the next great champion for The Global Fund. But, even if you haven’t gained a lifelong supporter, you didn’t lose one either.

With or without its tie to (RED), Gap will continue to market classy casual attire, and consumers will continue to snatch it up. Now, with this affiliation, these very same t-shirt seeking shoppers will encounter something they might not have otherwise addressed, financially or philanthropically. The influx of red cellphones, clothing, and iPods are mere by-products of the (RED) campaign’s overall success in convening wealthy corporations and impact driven non-profits, disseminating information about the issue at hand, and increasing AIDS education, prevention, counseling and treatment in Africa. With the open acknowledgment that (RED) is a business strategy not a solution, let's just hope these consumers, at the very least, find themselves INSPI(RED).