Ti(red) Excuse for Corporate Philanthropy

How much would it cost Apple to hire celebrities of the caliber of Oprah Winfrey and Bono to endorse its products in a commercial?

The question came to mind as I watched Bono talking to Michael Holmes about his latest philanthropic venture on CNN International. Fresh off announcing Product Red on The Oprah Winfrey Show, Bono was gushing about all the companies that had become “red” and holding up samples of their products. CNNI devoted two entire segments to the interview.

Companies like Gap, Armani, Converse and Apple are producing (red) branded merchandize and promising to donate a portion of the proceeds for each (red) product sold to the UN-backed Global Fund to purchase antiretroviral drugs for AIDS patients in Africa. Motorola even has an exclusive wireless partnership deal with the project. For every (red) handset sold, Motorola donates an undisclosed sum to the Global Fund.

Product Red has an excellent pitchman. Unlike some other stars who use their charitable activities to promote their celebrity, Bono seems genuinely interested in the issues he champions. I personally like Bono. For a rock star he seems a decent fellow, despite being afflicted with the dreadful single-name virus. Part of me wanted to be as excited about the project as he appeared to be. But something about the idea didn’t sit well with me.

I don’t doubt that Bono really cares about getting antiretroviral medicine to people who need it. But I have little hope that the newly “red” companies are motivated by altruism. But then, that’s stated clearly in red and white in the Product Red Manifesto.

“(Red) is not a charity,” the document says, “It is simply a business model.”

An unscientific survey proves it is a very profitable business model. Not long after Bono’s announcement on Oprah, my sister tells me, she went to Gap in search of their Product Red tee-shirt. They were sold out. She inquired about when the next shipment was due to arrive in store and returned on that day. She shelled out $28 for a short-sleeved, red cotton tee-shirt with “inspi(red)” printed across the front.

My sister likes to shop. But she insists she wouldn’t ordinarily spend that kind of money on a Gap tee-shirt. In fact, she couldn’t remember the last time she shopped at Gap before the (red) tee-shirt expedition.

When I relayed the story to my other sister, she told me that she herself had her eye on another Bono-linked tee-shirt. This one sports the word “one” in reference to U2’s hit song with a humanitarian message. The One Campaign combats AIDS and promotes trade in Africa.

With the holiday season upon us, conscientious Santas like my sisters are lining up to buy (red) gifts for their loved ones happy in the knowledge that they will be giving two gifts at once. Of the $200 dollars shoppers will hand over for a shiny (red) ipod, Apple donates ten bucks to the Fund.

It is ten dollars well invested.

I go back to my original question. What would a company like Apple pay for such effusive praise from the likes of Bono? The U2 frontman and fair trade campaigner was actually displaying the products on Oprah, CNN and in countless other media events. On top of the incomparable advertisement, being seen to support a worthy cause builds immeasurable goodwill for the company that extends beyond the (red) products to the entire Apple brand, all for a paltry 5 percent of the ipod’s retail price.

Still, you could argue that it’s better than companies that do nothing to redress the AIDS crisis. But is it really? Basically, the "red" companies are telling us that they know people are dying of AIDS because they lack the drugs they need to fight the disease, that they have the money to buy the drugs and that they won’t take action unless we first buy their overpriced products. The money for the drugs is coming from the consumers, and the companies are racking up sales while polishing their reputations.

Enter the calls for a boycott. Groups like Sh(red) are attacking Product Red for embracing the capitalist paradigm that leads to such inequity in the first place. Critics accuse affiliated companies of exploiting the AIDS pandemic to make a buck. They have a point. And if the goal is to raise as much money as possible to fight AIDS, I can’t see the benefit of exclusive deals like the one Motorola enjoys.

Whether they are (red), blue or black, people will continue to buy ipods. If a person wants to spend $200 on a personal music system, I’d just as soon have them buy the blood-colored one and hope that some of the money finds its way to where it’s needed. For those who are really interested in fighting AIDS and improving the world, I’d advise they bypass the middleman. Buy a (recycled) ipod from craigslist and donate the savings directly to the Global Fund or a charity of their choosing.

Bono and Oprah are blessed with wealth and cursed with conscience. They’ve made the mistake of becoming informed to a point where anyone with an ounce of empathy would be uncomfortable with his or her teeming bank account. I don’t begrudge them whatever they need to do to sleep easier at night knowing how other people live. Unfortunately, this project probably does more to boost American Express and Armani's share prices than to boost hopes of abating the ravages of AIDS in Africa.

get more information:

The Global Fund

CDC AIDS Factsheet

UNAIDS

The One Campaign

Product Red

Sh(red)

tags: Product Red, The One Campaign, Global Fund, Charity, AIDS, HIV, Bono, Africa, Sh(red), corporate philanthropy

U.S. Voters Slower Than Brits, But Finally Arrive at Same Conclusion

On a cool day under fair skies, droves of voters resolved to send a clear message that they disapproved of their leader’s policies on Iraq. Though the head of government was not in jeopardy of losing his position, the rank and file of his party would be purged from the legislature, making it impossible for the party, accustomed to power, to carry on ignoring the concerns of the electorate.

I was in London when Tony Blair’s Labour Party suffered a bloody nose in the UK parliamentary elections of May 2005. But of course this scenario just as well describes how things played out on Election Day here in New York and across the United States. Only in New York the sky was gray and threatening rain.

Partly on the strength of his approval ratings, Mr. Blair forged ahead in Iraq, scorning the cautionary advice of some members of his own party and the vocal dissent of the majority of the British public. Voters felt left out of the decision-making process and determined to voice their ire. Yet they weren’t inspired by the opposition Tories, the conservative party that offered no opposition to Mr. Blair’s Iraq policy. Deserving or not, the Tories benefited from the anti-Labour backlash. So did smaller parties who offered stiffer resistance on Iraq but didn’t stand a chance of amassing a majority. The Liberal Democrats picked up seats as did the newly-formed Respect Party coalition, led by the polemical George Galloway, an ex-Labour member whose only platform issue seemed to be his abhorrence for the Iraq War.

In Britain the parliamentary elections determine who heads the government. Voters elect their districts’ Members of Parliament, and the leader of the party in the majority becomes (or remains) Prime Minister. Although many Brits would have cheered Mr. Blair’s eviction from Downing Street, the Tory leader, Michael Howard, was an even more dismal prospect. And he supported the war. Voters decided to leave Labour in power but teach Mr. Blair a lesson.

When the dust settled, Mr. Blair retained his office but with a much reduced majority. It did more than just give the Prime Minister an education in humility. It also put an end to the days when Mr. Blair could count on his party’s massive majority to push legislation through parliament virtually uncontested. He would now have to worry over the support of individual Labour MPs and even lobby support from other parties. In other words, he’d have to seek backing, almost ask permission, before acting. Call it checks and balances.

In the beginning, Americans were generally more supportive of the War than the British who largely opposed the policy of preemptive strike even before the first bursts of “Shock and Awe.” Perhaps that’s why it’s taken longer for Americans to serve up their punishment. Timing and the differences in the two countries’ political systems could have something to do with it as well.

American voters first had an opportunity to pass judgment on Mr. Bush’s presidency in the 2004 elections. But this was only a year and a half into the war, and many still held out hope for a positive outcome. September 11 was fresher in the mind, and the public wanted to believe that the war in Iraq was making them safer somehow. The specter of weapons of mass destruction remained. And alas, the Democrats didn’t offer an attractive alternative either in policy or politicians. John Kerry failed to articulate a clear vision. Nor did he inspire strong passions. Voters require at least one of the two.

After his 2004 victory, President Bush declared that he had earned political capital in that election, adding that he intended to spend it. After the inconclusive election that put him in the Oval Office in the first place, he felt vindicated to have been elected again, with a majority of the vote this time. He indulged in a little swagger.

Mr. Bush likes to divide people into two camps, those “with” him and those “against.” At some point, it seems he decided that the people who are with him are the only people who matter. Like Mr. Blair, he began to take power for granted.

Two years later Americans have made it clear that they’ve had enough, and they’ve taken it out on Republican candidates for national and state offices. As with Mr. Blair in the UK election, being affiliated with President Bush was a liability at the ballot box. Try as they may to distance themselves from their party’s leader, Republicans were voted out largely for their GOP membership.

President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” took back the White House for the Republicans in 2000 just as Prime Minister Blair’s “New Labour” brought his party in from the wilderness in 1997. But in politics, you are only as popular as the last election says you are. Because of Iraq, both men will finish out their terms as lame ducks, with many in their parties anxiously awaiting their departures.

Republicans would do well now to heed the Labour Party’s present troubles. Even after the parliamentary elections, Labour remained the strongest party in Britain. The Tories were seen as the butt of all jokes and deemed completely unelectable in the foreseeable future. A year after the vote, it is Labour that is in disarray, and the Conservatives are tipped to take power in the next general election. But Labour has until 2009 or 2010 to try to erase the memories of their mistakes. The Republicans have just two short years.

tags: 2006 election, Congress, George W. Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Tony Blair, Labour, Tories, politics,Iraq War