give and take
if you haven't heard/read yet, Bono and Bobby Shriver (Ahnold's bro-in-law, and yes I realize that's Oprah in the above photo) have devised a way to help raise money to purchase medicine for African AIDS victims. a worthy cause indeed, and there's no doubt celebrity can lend a hand when fundraising.
but I kind of have a problem with their method. and after reading this intriguing, if not too well-edited, piece by Michael Medved I think I know why.
an overview of how (RED) {yes it belongs in those parentheses for some reason} works:
you buy a special product from select participating companies and they then donate some of the profits to help buy the meds. it's basically that simple, but if you'd like to read the pretentious version, head on over to the (RED) site and read their manifesto.
okay, let me first just say that I am ALL for charitable contributions, and I do recognize that it often takes some enticement for people to think about and follow through on the donation. PBS tote bags, Jerry Lewis telethons, and those little American flag toothpicks are great examples.
but this is a bit different. it seems to me that these products are supposed to be status symbols, neon signs shouting 'hey, look, I'm talking on a red phone/wearing a silly shirt/paying with a red credit card. I'm helping people!'
also, not all of the companies are sending all of the markup on to the charity. Medved points out the price difference on several items from Gap in particular that mean the company is making more profit off of the (RED) items than a normal non-AIDS-fighting version. this is not true for all of the retailers mind you, as Apple is donating $10 from each red iPod nano purchase, while that product costs the same as its differently-colored 4 GB brethren. in many cases the consumer would be better off donating directly to the cause instead of employing and feeding the corporate middleman.
Medved also points out that some of the ad campaigns for the products are a bit risque. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, so I think suggestive advertising is not only sending the wrong message, but is irresponsible.
in my opinion, if you want to donate to charity you should be doing it for selfless reasons. you shouldn't require a badge to show other people how good of a person you really are, and the same should go for the companies making the products. all of the money spent on advertising and marketing this stuff could have gone directly to those in need, and don't get me started on the time and gas wasted on trips to the mall to buy it. this campaign is too sales-driven for me and its presentation is borderline obnoxious. the message they're sending is that shopping and excess save lives. it has already become more about stuff than what money is going to.
okay, I realize I was rambling but I feel pretty strongly about this. and who decided on red anyway? pink and yellow were taken?
I'm anxious to hear/read what any of you have to say. please comment below or contact me privately if you prefer and let me know.
dg
posted by David @ 11:50 PM
1 Comments:
Nevermind also that The Gap has been cited with numerous worker rights, human rights, and sweatshop labor violations, all within the past two years, and Apple is under constant attack for their involvement with sweatshop labor (though they are "trying").
So, in addition to purchasing (RED) products, one is likely supporting sweatshop labor as well. AIDS awareness goes up, sweatshop labor goes up. People don't see the correlation because people aren't aware and don't research what they buy.
However, I think an important point to make is that we are a materialistic society. We are also an extremely fashion-centered and label-oriented society. As such, what better way to break through to the masses than with a material? And not just any material, but a line of clothing, or the creme de la creme of portable music technology?
A similar movement took place in the 50s and 60s. The American people were stuck. They were closed-minded and naive. But at the same time they were aching for change and on the brink of something huge. Meditation and the philosophy of attaining higher levels of consciousness had been around for thousands of years in SouthEast Asia, but that wouldn't fly in America, because you can't see it and feel it and touch it. We are as materialistic as they come. And that's when Timothy Leary brought LSD to the forefront of pop culture and totally revolutioned our minds, thought, music, notions of sexuality, and notions of ourselves. LSD expanded people's consciousness. The only way to get through to, and change, the mindset of our materialistic culture was through a material.
SO, that all being said, no, (RED) is not a perfect campaign. I agree, David, with what you wrote. But I also think that this is just a piece of the beginning of yet another large-scale expansion of American and First-World consciousness. We'll watch it play out, see how it affects us, and we'll probably watch it die and other campaigns spring up in its place until something truly holds. I believe we are on the verge of monumental social change, and this is merely one of the events that are playing a role.
But I still won't purchase any (RED) stuff.
Post a Comment
<< Home