Call us cynics, but we thought that Will.i.am Barack Obama video had all the appeal and sincerity of a Gap (RED) ad. But then we watched the John McCain version, we got the point.
We own a Product (RED) iPod Nano. It is shiny, and the red goes really well with a Nike Dri-FIT tee we wear to the gym a lot. We bought the RED iPod out of pure vanity, not to support HIV-positive children in Africa. Hopefully that pisses off Bono, because that was our secondary goal. He’s just so smug about his philanthropy.
The U2 fontman’s Product RED, which has enlisted corporate support from the likes of Dell, Motorola, Apple, and Armani, is, like any charity, deserving of accolades. Up to a point.
As with all philanthropic endeavors, many of the dollars coming in – in this case, from the sale of consumer goods – goes to overhead, and whatever is left over might wind up in the hands of the needy.
So despites the tens of thousands of RED products sold, a grand total of “just” $22 million $59 million has found its way to Africa so far. Okay, not exactly small change: In Rwanda, reports the NYT, contributions of $22 million have helped fund “33 testing and treatment centers, supplied medicine for more than 6,000 women to keep them from transmitting H.I.V. to their babies, and financed counseling and testing for thousands more patients.”
But in March ‘07, AdAge reported RED companies spent $100 million in advertising, which yielded only $18 million for the charity. (RED countered by saying it spent $50 million on advertising, generating $25 million for the charity. Critics have called AdAge’s report based mostly on conjecture, and we might have to agree with them.)
So how does all this money change hands? And is all the effort even worth it?
CONTINUED »