- The folks at Twitter are using the site’s popularity to spread awareness: Today the home page is red and the hashtag “#red” turns all Tweets red! Today I’m using it on every tweet!
- Google’s homepage has a link to the (RED) website and 8 other resources for AIDS info/involvement.
- (RED) appears to be advertising heavily on Facebook today and is encouraging people to share this video and change profile pictures to a provided (RED) icon. I changed my Facebook and Twitter pictures to something red today.
- Besides the obvious Facebook ad, did Twitter charge (RED)? I’m imagning Google’s home page link was free since it is not tied exclusively to (RED). The link goes to a Google.org page with (RED)’s website and 8 others.
- If Google and Twitter did charge, then how much? How does this figure compare to television advertising to reach the same number of people? Are web impressions worth more because the viewer can quickly and efficiently become involved?
Understanding (RED)
I think it is also important to understand exactly what (RED) is. Here’s what I’ve gathered after taking a look at (RED)’s FAQ’s page: (RED) is not a non-profit organization, charity, or government-sponsored program. (RED) is a “business model created to raise awareness and money for the Global Fund by teaming up with the world’s most iconic brands.” Founded by Bono and Bobby Shriver in 2002, (RED) is now a partnership of 10 brands: American Express, Apple, Bugaboo, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, Gap, Hallmark, Nike, and Starbucks. These companies send a portion of profits gathered from (RED) branded products to The Global Fund. I’m sure you’re wondering — So, what exactly is The Global Fund? The Global Fund is “an international financing institution that invests the world’s money to save lives,” partciularily among people suffering from AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malria. The Global Fund receives money from governments and governmental organizations like the EU, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, (RED), and other sources (click here for an .xls of everyone who gives), and redistributes it to I’m imagning other organizations through grants (As its name suggests, The Global Fund is a financing mechanism — not a hands-0n, “ground-level” organization.)
So essentially, the buzz today will A) Spread awareness about AIDS, (which is awesome), and B) Make curious people like me wonder exactly what (RED) is. On one hand, I see the (RED) partners as companies being socially responsible (CSR) and responding to consumers’ new interest in supporting a friendlier, more sustainable planet. On the other hand, I feel like there’s a question of ethics — should these 10 brands be riding on the wave of buzz that World AIDS Day creates? This day was created for people — sufferers of HIV/AIDS, not for-profit companies. Even so, Apple, Nike, and the 8 others are [indirectly] contributing to causes that help people living with the disease. (RED) branded products support The Global Fund and are all things that people would already buy anyway. Shouldn’t they be rewarded for being involved?
Still, it’s hard to ignore the fact that World Aids Day is on Dec 1. How might things be different if World Aids Day was on Dec 26? These brands are arguably exploiting the charitable/giving feelings we associate with the holiday season. Through (RED), they’re giving consumers who are either lonely, allegedly “too busy to give,” or simply searching for an excuse to not feel selfish while indulging in a $5 Starbucks gingerbread latte a way to give back to the world. Suddenly the reasons for wanting a prodcut extend beyond its specific novelty, features/benefits, price/value, and other items we usually associate with what drives us to buy something. Is it wrong to create want for a product becaues it helps alleviate HIV/AIDS in Africa? Are the lines between CSR and traditional holiday marketing too blured? Watch this Starbucks commercial from last year to see what I mean:
*Note: Personally, I like (RED). I already liked GAP, Apple, and Starbucks before (RED) and will probably like these brands for as long as they make products I enjoy. However, I wanted the (RED) iPod Nano more than any other Nano because of its fantastic bright red color. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not. And I don’t for one second think buying a (RED) branded product is a substitute for AIDS volunteering, activism, direct donations, or any other sort of progressive action. Supporting CSR is one thing, being a responsible world citizen oneself is quite another.
