(Red) Campaign Uncove(red)

Have you wonde(red) what those crazy parentheses are doing litte(red) all over the place? I have. But, if you're like me, you're probably too busy working to spend time researching marketing ploys.

Apparently it's all part of the (Red) Campaign popularized by Bono and others to raise money for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. The published results of the Global Fund's overall efforts are encouraging and show an emphasis on treatment, as opposed to prevention. The (Red) Campaign also publishes some of the results of the Global Fund. Given their Principles and Approach, it appears that the Global Fund does a lot of good work around the world.

Now, the Capitalist League is very cautious when it comes to all things "Red." And while I think the goal of the campaign is noble and the receiving charity does some good work, I thought it would be worthwhile to investigate the (Red) Campaign further. The "Manifesto" of the (Red) Campaign states the following:

"All things being equal. They are not.

As first world consumers, we have tremendous power. What we collectively choose to buy, or not to buy, can change the course of life and history on this planet.

(Red) is that simple an idea. And that powerful. Now, you have a choice. There are (Red) credit cards, (red) phones, (red) shoes, (red) fashion brands, and no, this does not mean they are all red in color, although some are.

If you buy a (Red) product or sign up for a (Red) service, at no cost to you, a (red) company will give some of its profits to buy and distribute anti-retroviral medicine to our brothers and sisters dying of AIDS in Africa.

We believe that when consumers are offered this choice, and the products meet their needs, they will choose (Red). And when they choose (Red) over non-(Red), then more brands will choose to become (Red) because it will make good business sense to do so, and more lives will be saved.

(Red) is not a charity. It is simply a business model. You buy (Red) stuff, we get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills, stay alive, and continue to take care of their families and contribute socially and economically to their communities.

If they don't get the pills, they die. We don't want them to die. We want to give them the pills. And we can. And you can. And it's easy."

I do have to applaud Bono and others for their creativity. The idea of their campaign, which makes it easier to "donate" money, is admirable. It's good that the campaign is based on voluntary participation by businesses, as opposed to government taxes. I hope, however, that such charity will be accepted graciously, and not become expected or demanded.

Yet, there are several things about this campaign that concern me. First is the attempt to make us healthy, rich Americans feel guilty if we do not go along with this campaign. Now, guilt is an emotion and emotional people do not make rational decisions. We are being encouraged to purchase these (Red) products on an emotional basis, not on a rational basis. And, rational actors are needed for capitalism to work. Thus, the campaign is being promoted in an inherently non-capitalistic way. The (Red) Campaign could appeal to our values. Or, the (Red) Campaign could explain how helping people to become self-sufficient also allows them to become better consumers (and producers). Instead, an emotional appeal has been made by Bono and others. It gives people a chance to "feel good," when they themselves have not actually done anything different. This guilt-mongering does not speak well for the campaign.

Secondly, it is not the consumer who is donating money. It is the business selling the (Red) products who donates a portion of their profits. What incentives are there for businesses to participate in this campaign? Currently, good PR. But considering the poor marketing of the (Red) Campaign so far, I am not so sure how cost effective this PR is. The campaign believes that if enough people are on board, more businesses will become involved in order to tap into that market. This is a business model similar to Fair Trade Coffee or Organic Foods. However, in this case, the quality of a (Red) product or the process of production are not different from non-(Red) products. It is more like the Box Tops for Education program. In reality, the program is charity from corporations, the amount of which is based on public support. All I am saying is that I question the honesty of this campaign's marketing and the effectiveness of their business model.

Well, according to a story in Advertising Age, the (Red) Campaign has not been effective. Up to $100 million has been spent on the campaign and only $18 million has been raised worldwide. That is a loss of $82 million! I would call that a colossal failure.

I can think of two reasons why this campaign has failed. Either no one wants to pay more for their clothes, phones, etc... Or the campaign was so ambiguous in its marketing that no one knew what it was.

Personally, I fell into both of those categories. I saw some really cool boxers at the Gap that had "Admi(red)" written on them. Since they appeared at the same time as Valentine's Day, I thought it was part of a seasonal line. I was ready to buy them, but they cost $20! Well, I have been known to splurge, but not to that degree. Looking back, knowing more about the campaign, I still don't think I would have bought it.

The campaign's opponents make an interesting point:

"The campaign's inherent appeal to conspicuous consumption has spurred a parody by a group of San Francisco designers and artists, who take issue with Bono's rallying cry. 'Shopping is not a solution. Buy less. Give more,' is the message at buylesscrap.org, which encourages people to give directly to the Global Fund.

'The Red campaign proposes consumption as the cure to the world's evils,' said Ben Davis, creative director at Word Pictures Ideas, co-creator of the site. 'Can't we just focus on the real solution -- giving money?'"

Frankly, I have to agree. People purchasing (Red) products feel good about themselves, when they haven't really done anything. It's all a play on the public's guilt and other emotions and is not based on capitalistic principles. Because of that, the (Red) Campaign must control public attitudes in order to the business model to work. That's the part I find sinister. People wishing to feel like they are making a difference in the world should donate directly to charities, without changing their purchasing habits. That's the capitalist way... eliminate the middleman.