Charity goes trendy in bad taste

By Ericka Andersen

The Red Campaign, created by Bono and Bobby Shriver, “to empower consumers to shop and do good at the same time,” is founded on a deceptive strategy that the San Francisco Chronicle calls, “a giant red conspiracy to coax dollars out of capitalists to fight AIDS in Africa.” Gluttonous corporations profit in the name of charity as they jack up Red product prices and disguise indulgence with compassion.

Small portions of Red income bring medicine, education, and testing to AIDS sufferers in Africa. Extravagant consumerism is the inspiration behind this altruistic method. It bears an inconsistent charitable message that, according to conservative radio personality Michael Medved, “is a distraction from the issues that matter where people could make a real difference.”

GAP, Armani, Converse, Motorola, American Express, and Apple comprise the participating companies and skeptics should be wary of publicity and sales-induced motives. For example, the Red ipod, marketed at $199, donates only $10 to the campaign per purchase. GAP’s original plain, red tank top sold for $14.50, but is now $28.

If individuals are charity-minded, donate the extra $14 directly to a charity that doesn’t filter the change through their paychecks. According to Medved’s web site, Motorola spokesman Ron Garriquez admitted to the New York Times that, “I don’t believe its giving up profit, what I believe it is, is making more profit.”

Red’s tagline is this: “As first world consumers, we have tremendous power. What we collectively choose to buy or not to buy can change the course of life and history on this planet.” So much self-importance seems opposite the principle of donation.

Celebrity propaganda and marketing schemes, featuring superstars from Kate Moss to Chris Rock, are part of Bono’s humanitarian brilliance. A pioneer for Africa for years, he knows material possessions are fuel for his goals. This is compassion distilled, fitted for comfort. It bodes well with Time Magazines recent, “person of the year”: You.

Red surrenders to a necessary irony here: help someone else by pampering yourself. The concept is drenched in good intention, but misses the point. Says Meved on his Oct. 13 radio broadcast, “I only wish it might be possible to provide that help without the overdose of manipulation, guilt-tripping and fatuity involved in the current campaign.”

But Red speaks to the intentional public, and “what is evident to Bono [and Red developers] is that America has always consumed voraciously and frivolously. It seems to me that he has found a great way to allow Africa to benefit from this fact,” writes one blogger.

Manipulation is the key.

Red essentially declares that if you don’t participate, Africans will die by that choice. The shameless self-promotion attached is humility plucked from kindness, as the distinctive red color places focus on the giver, not the receiver

"…Not everybody has the time to be an activist or put on their marching boots. '" said Bono in an Oct.13 (replayed Dec.18) taping of “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” But it’s not necessary to identify with one extreme or the other. There is plenty of space in between to pluck down a dollar here and there, without a prompt, or the promise of something in return.

If buying these brands, yes, buy Red, but don’t stop there.