*Update: There’s a response by an insider on the NY Daily News*
*Link to an opinion published over a year ago when (red) launched by Jagdish Bhagwati, a professor at Columbia who is also on the advisory team to Kofi Annan’s Africa council.*

AdAge published “Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million” two days ago and dozens of comments have already flowed in on AdAge - the majority of which are negative towards the (red) campaign. *(red) responds to AdAge article*

Here’s what the article basically pointed out:

• The (red) campaign has raised $18mm worldwide since launching about a year ago
• Some experts estimate that almost $100mm has been spent promoting red through Gap, Motorola, and other (red) partners
• (red) is a brand - not a non-profit - which was created by a for-profit company with the expectation that partners licensing the (red) trademark would have to give certain % of profits to the Global Fund.
• Private donations to the Global Fund are a small portion of their total funding sources (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave $650mm alone).
• Mark Rosenman, a non-profit activist and public-service professor, summarizes the concerns: “There is a broadening concern that business is taking on the patina of philanthropy and crowding out philanthropic activity and even substituting for it,” he said. “It benefits the for-profit partners much more than the charitable causes.”

Major Themes from the Comments (mostly from professional Marketers):

• Products were “outrageously” overpriced. Many comments noted that a poorly made t-shirt was marked up signficantly benefiting the retailer more than the charity.
• Money could’ve been given directly to the charity instead of being spent on marketing.
• There is skepticism about the true intentions of the companies involved with the (red) campaign.

Personal Opinion

The (red) campaign is an extremely dividing issue but I think it’s important I share my thoughts even if I’m going to get flack. I personally think that the (red) campaign is the wrong way to approach the problems in Africa as pointed out in the Financial Times commentary above. Live 8 and countless efforts to tackle issues in Africa have proven to be futile in many ways due to corruption and focus on care instead of cure and prevention. Anti-viral drugs will help those currently affected but will do little to help those who may be infected in the future. Money would be more effectively spent on prevention and cure.

Let’s read the (red) manifesto:

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. THEY ARE NOT.

AS 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) PHONES, (RED) SHOES, (RED) MP3 PLAYER, (RED) FASHION BRANDS.
AND NO, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALL RED IN COLOR, ALTHOUGH SOME ARE.

IF YOU BUY A (RED) PRODUCT, AT NO COST TO YOU
A (RED) COMPANY WILL GIVE UP TO HALF THEIR PROFITS TO BUY AND DISTRIBUTE
ANTI-RETROVIAL 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 CHOSE (RED) OVER NON-(RED), THEN MORE BRANDS WILL 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 IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

IF THEY DON’T GET THE PILLS, THEY DIE.
WE WANT THEM TO LIVE.
WE WANT TO GIVE THEM THE PILLS.
AND WE CAN. AND YOU CAN. AND IT’S EASY.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS UPGRADE YOUR CHOICE.

WHAT WE COLLECTIVELY CHOOSE TO BUY OR NOT TO BUY,
CAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF LIFE AND HISTORY ON THIS PLANET.

I think this is a bit too grand of a statement. (red) chooses to focus on simple solutions to complex problems and boils the choice down to a “if you buy it, everything will be alright” type of mentality. What the quote should say is : “What we collectively choose to ignore or not learn about WILL change the course of life and history on this planet”. People need to learn about the issues in Africa that creates the conditions we are trying to fight. Poverty, high HIV/AIDs infection rates, these are not natural disasters. They are here because of polticial, social, and cultural institutions that have failed to combat growing poverty and death in Africa. But these issues would be too complicated for their audience so (red) instead chooses to focus on consumerism as the solution.

IF YOU BUY A (RED) PRODUCT, AT NO COST TO YOU
A (RED) COMPANY WILL GIVE UP TO HALF THEIR PROFITS TO BUY AND DISTRIBUTE
ANTI-RETROVIAL MEDICINE TO OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS DYING OF AIDS IN AFRICA.

There is a cost to you the consumer. As most people know, some (red) products (especially from GAP) are priced with a premium. It’s one thing for a company to offer half their existing profit margins to a charity and another thing to price it up exponentially in order to make more money for themselves. After watching the Oprah show on this, I really did go out to GAP and look at (red) products but I couldn’t afford them. A jeans jacket for over $200 (and it wasn’t even made in Africa as Oprah implied many of the products were). I looked at some t-shirt that had obviously shoddy construction which were priced in the $30+ range. I did find a few products made in South Africa but the majority was made in China.

(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 IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

IF THEY DON’T GET THE PILLS, THEY DIE.
WE WANT THEM TO LIVE.
WE WANT TO GIVE THEM THE PILLS.
AND WE CAN. AND YOU CAN. AND IT’S EASY.

Ahhh how simple it is. We buy stuff, someone gets money, people get pills, people live. No one would be against making sure people live. But is it truly that EASY as (red) implies? No, it’s not. You’re trying to put band-aids on gaping wounds. The problems are more akin to someone hitting you over the head with a bat as medics are trying to stop the bleeding. STOP THE PERSON HITTING YOU WITH THE BAT FIRST. If you don’t educate people about what’s truly causing problems, then we’ll end up in the same place we were 10, 20 years ago. Africa has actually gotten worse as a continent in the last 20 years while almost all other continents & countries have grown richer and have raised living standards.

People like the (red) campaign because many people do care and they want to give in whatever way possible. I applaud their intent. There’s just better ways to help. Give money directly. Lobby your congressman, your senator, the president to do something about corruption, about genocide, about HIV/AIDs deniers in Africa. Take the $100mm spent and use it for prevention public health education instead where we will really make a difference.