There's been a lot of discussion and criticism about campaigns such as the RED campaign, one such brought about by a RED campaign advert at the end of Djimon Honsou's reading of BinyavangaWainaina's How not to Write About Africa. It has been said for example that they have spent $ 80 million on actual programs on the ground in select African countries contrasted with over $ 100 million in advertising. Further, their campaigns are said to have had little effect on the actual policies of the companies behind the RED products, the GAP for example is said to be running a sweatshop in Lesotho, the very country some of is beneficial programmes are based.
Why then would a well-meaning person not skip this and similar campaigns entirely and give the donations directly to the needy at the grassroots? Are these campaigns good for humanity in the long run, or do they merely serve short term corporatist goals? The primary benefit of campaigns such as these is that they get at a market segment that may not at all care for these issues otherwise. It aims to cleverly position itself where it takes advantage of consumerist urges, and makes it easier for both the consumer and the company he is buying from to make an otherwise unlikely donation to a worthy cause. Notice that it is heavily brand based, and not on brands like the Coop, or John Lewis but on Apple, Motorola, Starbucks and AMEX. Notice too that it is celebrities making these pitches.
It is a long philosophical debate about whether using selfish consumption (some would call it waste even) is an appropriate way at promoting empathy and community among human beings but we can be sure that many of the recipients of warm clothing, an education or clean water will be blind to the motivations or enticements that got them the benefits these red dollars will buy. In the long term, this is my deduction and I admit I've no research to back this up, people who give in this way as kids, will likely find other ways to show they care when they grow up. A classic case of 'get them young'.
This is especially important when you consider that this is the most impressionable market segment and in an environment where political parties inclined to denying structural disadvantage,promoting isolationistic policies and decrying charitable giving as encouraging sloth and dependence dominate; the likes of RED, LiveAid, EndPovertyNow, etc are more useful even in their odiousness for keeping the message alive than anything else.
In times when empathy is dead, and where we hardly ever care about human suffering such campaigns manage to inveigle charitable giving out of otherwise obdurate pockets.
In closing, let me say that it seems unfair to expect a consumer-product-dependent charity campaign to have a low advertising spend. Of course RED will be heavily front-loaded, part of its ad budget would have been spent by the GAP or Apple or Motorola on advertising anyway, but its tail may well be long and happy, especially as its spreads out its benefits to other charitable causes, both local and international.
This is an appropriately discriminating campaign, those who would normally give will persist as they would. This particular crusade aims to tap into those pockets that would not otherwise be inclined to actsof generosity, the cool kids, the me-firsters. It aims at making giving cool and a central part of pop-culture.
Next time there's a music concert in Uhuru Park for 'doing good', I could be one of those noble entrepreneurs who's managed to trick Safaricom or Unilever into sponsoring it, and you should be proud of me.
All
submissions to Imagine Diaries/Blogs, unlike other articles, are neither
edited nor reviewed by our editors before they appear on Kenya Imagine.
It has been said for example that they have spent $ 80 million on actual programs on the ground in select African countries contrasted with over $ 100 million in advertising. Further, their campaigns are said to have had little effect on the actual policies of the companies behind the RED products, the GAP for example is said to be running a sweatshop in Lesotho, the very country some of is beneficial programmes are based.
Well? Should we look the other way because we have new philanthropists?
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Well? Should we look the other way because we have new philanthropists?