Bono and (RED) Come Under Attack

“I was of a feeling it was out of control. I had the opinion it was out of control.”

These are lyrics from a U2 song aptly titled “Out of Control.” But they could just as easily be used to describe band frontman Bono’s sentiments regarding Advertising Age’s coverage earlier this month of the (Red) Campaign to benefit The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The article (available here) carried the headline, “Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million.”

Ad Age leveled charges that Gap (GPS), Motorola (MOT), and Apple (AAPL) have spent a collective $100 million marketing Red while only contributing $18 million to the AIDS cause in Africa.

 

Bono, of course, has expressed outrage at what he sees as unfair coverage. And others involved with the (RED) cause have shot back as well – you can see their responses here. They claim that the total raised was actually $25,000,000.

I have been watching the situation and it looked as though it was going to die down, but all around the internet people are expressing outrage, either at (RED)…“I am ange(red)”, or at its detractors…“Unless the critics are doing more to end AIDS than Bono and the RED campaign, they should just shut up and support those who are trying to change the world.”

My view is that Advertising Age was not wrong in raising concerns (and besides the money donated issue, they raised some valid ones) but you have to consider the net effect. I can promise you this – the way the world works, the $100 million that was allegedly spent on ads was not going to find its way to Africa.

Maybe one of these vast corporations was going to spend it on a corporate retreat or just simply sit on that cash. But more likely, it came out of their existing advertising budgets.

The (RED) blog also states some good points about the $25,000,000 contributed:

• It’s five times the amount the Global Fund received from private companies in the previous four years.
• It's even more money than is given each year by committed donor countries like Denmark ($23 million), Australia ($13 million), Belgium ($10 million), and many others.
• Most importantly, it's enough to buy medicine for about 160,000 Africans with AIDS for a year.

Aside from the monetary contribution, (RED) has brought the conversation surrounding AIDS in Africa and what we can do about it to the forefront, and that has its own value. I think (RED) is part of a positive movement towards consumers using their purchasing power to make companies contribute. The campaign certainly has its shortcomings and potential problems but it’s a step in the right direction. In the end, something is certainly better the nothing. And I guarantee you that anyone waiting in line for lifesaving medicine would wholeheartedly agree.

All that said, I am interested in hearing other thoughts and opinions on the matter.

Please see conditions of use for important legal disclosures and information relevant to this post.

Comments

[Todd]

I agree that the (RED) campaign and companies in general should look to do more, but it is hard to argue against it. Pretty striking that the effort has generated more than some major industrialized nations! Maybe if the companies generate extra revenue because of this campaign, they should look to give more.

I'd also like it if they (I guess by "they" I mean GAP) would can all of the celebrity heavy advertising. What, because a movie star cares and an olympic speedskater and a half-naked model cares, I should? GAP should give people a little more credit.

This is a huge problem and people should care on their own and if possible with their own wallets. But the (RED) effort seems to be a good solution -- let's hope it is only the first of many.