Red is the New Pink
In light of the news that the people behind the RED campaign have spent somewhere north of $100 million to raise about one-tenth of that for charity, here's a site I can really get behind.
Their basic argument, (which is one we've made for a long time, albeit without semi-naked people to illustrate our point) is that shopping is not an effective or efficient way to give to charity. And they're right.
The fact that the RED campaign will never recoup anywhere near as much in charitable proceeds as they spend in marketing the campaign is a huge concern. In the end, all they're really doing is raising awareness and if that doesn't lead to their customers choosing to be more benevolent and philanthropic, it's simply an exercise in futility. It just lets customers and corporations feel good about themselves, without doing much for the intended recipients of the aid.
If, however, by making charity cool, you create a new generation of young people who are more inclined to help the less fortunate than my generation was, you will have done something amazing. I just worry that the teens who buy the products will think that their philanthropic commitment to the less fortunate ends when they leave the store. The RED campaign can be a good start, or it can be a colossal waste of money, and it all depends on whether this edgy, innovative campaign inspires young people to be better citizens, or just gives them an excuse to feel good about themselves while they buy an overpriced item they don't really need.
Sadly, I suspect it will be the latter, and frankly, I don't imagine it will be even close.
Their basic argument, (which is one we've made for a long time, albeit without semi-naked people to illustrate our point) is that shopping is not an effective or efficient way to give to charity. And they're right.
The fact that the RED campaign will never recoup anywhere near as much in charitable proceeds as they spend in marketing the campaign is a huge concern. In the end, all they're really doing is raising awareness and if that doesn't lead to their customers choosing to be more benevolent and philanthropic, it's simply an exercise in futility. It just lets customers and corporations feel good about themselves, without doing much for the intended recipients of the aid.
If, however, by making charity cool, you create a new generation of young people who are more inclined to help the less fortunate than my generation was, you will have done something amazing. I just worry that the teens who buy the products will think that their philanthropic commitment to the less fortunate ends when they leave the store. The RED campaign can be a good start, or it can be a colossal waste of money, and it all depends on whether this edgy, innovative campaign inspires young people to be better citizens, or just gives them an excuse to feel good about themselves while they buy an overpriced item they don't really need.
Sadly, I suspect it will be the latter, and frankly, I don't imagine it will be even close.
Labels: Buy (LESS), Gap, Red Cross, The Global Fund
posted by Trent Stamp at 1:23 PM
11 Comments:
Great post and a great point.
Corporate alignment with nonprofits helps their bottom line and it brings awareness to nonprofit causes. Are young people suddenly going to start volunteering and giving in masses? No. Is it a step in the right direction? Absolutely. The fact that millions were spent and only a fraction of it will go to charity is irrelevant, because the point of the campaign wasn't meant to purely benefit charity, but also corporations as well. The money would have been spent on advertising and marketing either way, at least now charties get awareness out of it. Shopping is not an effective way to give to charity, obviously. But the point of shopping is not to benefit charity, so there's no reason it should be effective. If, however, by buying something a charity benefits, that's great. Why we insist on living in a vacuum and believing that corporations should be figuring out ways to maximize their effect to the community is ridiculous. That's our job. Theirs is to provide goods and services. They have their own goals and pursuits, the same as we do. The RED campaign helps us both out, which is a good thing.
(RED) as an acquisition mailing?
The FACT any teen wants to actually help, is big in itself, so I consider these projects a great start. If we want teens to get more active in giving, then parents need to start influencing them early on, and need to do more themselves. But these websites do help.
Thanks for the link Trent.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a portion of the proceeds from ALL the useless crap we buy in consumption-obsessed America went to well-respected charities? Imagine how much these charities would raise; after all, the cosmetics industry in America alone makes billions of dollars a year (and I'm the first to admit that most cosmetics are crap, even though I buy them like a madwoman).
But, the world apparently doesn't work this way. ::sigh:: What a shame.
The way to get more corporations to profit-share with charities is to make it clear to them that this is a great selling point. Frequent businesses and products that really do give, and buy less from those that don't. And do your homework; some businesses (cough*Walmart*cough) advertise as if they give hordes of money away even though they don't.
Still, spending ten times as much on advertising as you bring in as donations is hardly a good plan, even if you're folding it into the advertising budget. I'd question that too.
I see both hope and despair in the blending of corps and NGOs but I always have hope in youth. Sure, most may care less but those that care are inspiring. To wit, Futurebuilders.org, a small group of SF bay area teens, did a compiliation CD, sold them for $8 and are donating to our org. They released it on Feb 18th and just thru word of mouth (and net) sold CD's. They presented us with $574 at a recent event. And they ID's us thru CN, so bonus.
Many great points on this topic. Corporate alignment with nonprofits if done properly could bring benefits to all involved. If giving became part of a normal course of business with part of the proceeds from sales going directly to well run and effective charities, imagine the good that could be done.
I'm not grasping the basis for the claim that "RED" has spent $100 million. Reading what is linked above seems to just show somebody _speculating_ that they "must have incurred" a lot more than their $1 million in direct costs. Unless I'm completely missing something, the $100 million is just somebody's wild-ass guess backed up by zero facts. So describing it as "news" seems a bit inconsistent with the caliber of evidence-driven analysis that makes Charity Navigator so valuable.
OK poking around a bit I at least got clarity on the debate. Advertising Age ran an article guessing that (RED)'s marketing costs must be something like $100 million; the campaign has thus far raised $18 million. However the campaign's chief, without disputing that estimate, says the $100 million was all budgeted costs, i.e. was to be spent anyway on the same billboards to sell the same products regardless of (RED).
http://www.joinred.com/ad_age.asp
If true (we have only his word on it as far as I can see) then the only actual new costs of the (RED) campaign are something less than $2 million, on which $18 million is a nice return for the cause. The accusation which was the subject of this post appears to be, at this point, only that: an accusation.
Charities can get a portion back for all the purchases people are making. My company just started a website where people choose a groups to support, do their everyday online shopping and their group gets a donation. We have contracted with over 250 big online merchants. We are looking for charities that want to be listed. www.BackMe.org Check it out.
Post a Comment
<< Home