Product(Red)

Posted by Katie on February 11 at 1:56 PM


The point of the campaign is to support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in Africa by donating a portion of the sales to the cause. Although corporate partners have donated more than $59 million to the charity, The Chronicle of Philanthropy references a New York Times article, which says not everyone is happy with the campaign. 

“Some critics of this consumer-driven approach say that there is too little transparency and that efforts like Red are crowding out traditional philanthropic activity. Ben Davis, of San Francisco, who created a Red parody online known as “Buy(Less),” thinks that people should give directly to nonprofits that support AIDS programs in Africa. “Increased consumption in America can’t be the only way to solve Africa’s problem,” Mr. Davis said. Others wonder whether the campaign is more concerned with advertising than with supporting programs in Africa” (The Chronicle of Philanthropy).

I know that I don’t own anything that is (Red). It just doesn’t appeal to me because I am a person that would rather give directly to the charity also. However, if I saw a piece from this line that I really liked I wouldn’t be opposed to buying it. Overall I think this campaign is a great idea because it has helped raise awareness and it reaches a younger audience that might not otherwise make a contribution. What could have been a short-lived fundraiser has evolved into a brand of it’s own and I think that’s kind of cool. But, should there be a more distinct line between advertising and fundraising? 

Topics: branding, philanthropy        SHARE: