Bottom Line for (Red)

An article by the NY Times picks up on the continued discussion about how effective the (RED) AIDs charity really is and whether its partners advertising really benefits the charity.

Just over a year ago, the rock star Bono started Red, a campaign that combined consumerism and altruism. Since then, consumers have generated more than $22 million to fight H.I.V. and AIDS in Rwanda by buying iPods, T-shirts, watches, cologne and most recently — as anyone who watched the Super Bowl knows — laptops, with all of them branded “(Product)RED.”… detractors say Red has fallen short. They criticize a lack of transparency at the company and its partners over how much they make from Red products, and whether they spend more money on Africa or advertising.

…But Red has taken the merger of marketing and philanthropy to new levels, becoming one of the largest consumer-based income-generating initiatives by the private sector for an international humanitarian cause.

“I hate begging for money,” [co-founder] Mr. Shriver said. “In most cases when you go and ask for a corporate donation, they’ll cut you a check and that’s it. We wanted something that was more sustainable.”

But that argument has not impressed some activists and bloggers, who say the primary beneficiaries of cause-marketing campaigns are businesses.

Ben Davis of San Francisco, who created a Red parody online that says “Buy(Less),” is encouraging consumers to give more directly to nonprofits that support AIDS programs in Africa.

“I just think that increased consumption in America can’t be the only way to solve Africa’s problem,” Mr. Davis said.

Bottom Line for (Red) – New York Times