Seeing (RED)

So unless you live under a rock or are an avid subscriber of AdBusters (in and of itself problematic), you will have certainly heard of the (RED) campaign. While it is essentially, and openly, a "business model" (promoted by a company called The Persuaders, no less!) it does have a manifesto, which you can read here. The (RED) people have joined up with such companies as Apple, the Gap, and Motorola to brand certain items as (RED), which means that when they are purchased some money will go towards buying retroviral drugs for Africans with HIV/AIDS. In the manifesto, the campaigns says the following:

(RED) is not a charity. It is simply a business model. You buy (RED) stuff. We get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills, stay alive, and continue to take care of their families and contribute socially and economically to their communities.

If they don't get the pills, they die. We don't want them to die. We want to give them the pills. And we can. And you can. It's easy.

All you have to do is upgrade your choice.

This is vaguely threatening language, and clearly designed to help consumers view their decision to spend $150 on a cell phone feel more like a philanthropic act. But there are more than a couple problems with this. First, this "we want to give them the pills, which is only possible if you consume more products" is patently false. It has been well-established by many health organizations that it wouldn't take much money to fight AIDS in poverty-stricken areas. What holds them back is partially lack of funding, but it's also proprietary medicines, price gouging from pharmaceutical companies, and the pull-back of funding for preventative programs which teach safer sex practices, abolished by the Bush clan. The reason why AIDS drugs never get any cheaper or widespread is because the populations who have AIDS are irrelevant to most of the world. Poor, largely female, African, uneducated. They count on aid groups to deliver medicines to them, because the real money for pharmaceutical companies lies in promoting and developing drugs that stop incontinence, boost virility, or lower the blood pressure of our obese population.

I don't doubt that there are researchers out there who spend their days searching for cures, or that promotion of statins is necessary to recoup R&D spending. But it goes far beyond that. There is certainly a profit-margin for those in the industry, which spreads to doctors, politicians, and shows it's consequences in the sad story of the millions of people, mostly childen, who die ever year from preventable diseases like dysentery and malaria. Why? Because why should anyone bother spending money to manufacture drugs that no one will be able to pay for?

Which brings me back to (RED). The idea has come under fire, particularly for the contrast between the amount of money spent marketing (RED) products and the amounts which they actually contribute to the cause. But, as they say again and again, they are not a charity. They are a business model. The problem is not the idea that one would pay money for something one wants and indirectly donate to a charity. This has been done for AIDS before, through the sales of bracelets and other jewelry, and I'm sure in other marketing ploys as well. But I think there is a difference. When you buy a silver AIDS bracelet, it's a simple silver bangle with a large AIDS ribbon on the side, signifying that this was a purchase with a point.

(RED) products are, in general, the color red, some are not. Some have catchy slogans promoting the idea and selling the cause, others just the logo. But all of them are simply one item in a brand's line which obstentially make the buyer more socially aware, more politically active. But does it? The (RED) manifesto says nothing about educating buyers about the AIDS crisis, or the real solutions and problems which face it. While putting up some Gap billboards which state the number of AIDS deaths per year may shock some, shocking someone into buying a t-shirt to soothe their conscience does nothing to promote either activism or philanthropy, only Gap's sales figures. The AIDS crisis is no secret, nor has it been for years. The issue is not that people are unaware, or that they need Bono and Oprah at the Apple store hawking iPods to goad them into action. The issue is that the problem is "over there," a place where there are so many problems that the genocide and massive rapes in Darfur barely made a blip on the American radar. People may say, well, what can I do? And certainly, there is plenty. But the answers require real thought, a true facing of the way that our values affect the rest of the world, and whether or not we care enough to change it.

There has been a lot of talk since the iPod's takeover of American ears that you see so many people wandering around, white earbuds in, socially tuned out. And whether it's white, black, or (RED), the metaphor stands- it's a band-aid solution, but not for AIDS in Africa. This marketing band-aid attempts to cover America's occasional guilt over consumption and ignorance, but like the iPod, it's best if you turn the music up and close your eyes.