Making RED work
Following on from two recent articles on Product RED – one for, one against – Will Horwitz, a campaigner who spent the summer in South Africa lobbying the government to review its irresponsible strategy on AIDS, attempts to find some middle ground.
Left wing activists have a tendency, perhaps a compulsion, to wallow in the certainty of despair. It is far easier to condemn than to consider, and it is far easier to dismiss than to develop.
If you saw The Constant Gardner you may have been impressed by the scenery, but I was disappointed by the assumption that all the ills of the world can be laid at the feet of a few guilty men, who we can pillory and set aside.
However, it is the opposite assumption, that nobody is to blame, which disappoints me most about Product RED – Bono’s innovative attempt to make AIDS charity commercially viable. Since it is important not to dismiss, I hope what follows is an effective argument for improvement.
The advertising blitz a few months ago was based on the idea that buying a RED t-shirt or mobile phone contributes towards the provision of AIDS drugs for those who cannot afford them, predominantly in Sub-Saharan Africa. These life-saving drugs are urgently needed, and any initiative which seeks to provide them cannot be dismissed out of hand.
But neither can any initiative be automatically welcomed, and Product RED certainly should not give way to unthinking acceptance. It attempts to provide a model of business which makes charity economically viable. The added publicity of a RED product is supposed to more than cover the cost to the business of the donation they make to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. We are all winners: the consumer gets a product, the business makes a profit and the dying AIDS patients get their drugs.
If you saw The Constant Gardner you may have been impressed by the scenery, but I was disappointed by the assumption that all the ills of the world can be laid at the feet of a few guilty men, who we can pillory and set aside.
However, it is the opposite assumption, that nobody is to blame, which disappoints me most about Product RED – Bono’s innovative attempt to make AIDS charity commercially viable. Since it is important not to dismiss, I hope what follows is an effective argument for improvement.
The advertising blitz a few months ago was based on the idea that buying a RED t-shirt or mobile phone contributes towards the provision of AIDS drugs for those who cannot afford them, predominantly in Sub-Saharan Africa. These life-saving drugs are urgently needed, and any initiative which seeks to provide them cannot be dismissed out of hand.
But neither can any initiative be automatically welcomed, and Product RED certainly should not give way to unthinking acceptance. It attempts to provide a model of business which makes charity economically viable. The added publicity of a RED product is supposed to more than cover the cost to the business of the donation they make to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. We are all winners: the consumer gets a product, the business makes a profit and the dying AIDS patients get their drugs.
No solution
But this explicit acceptance of the status quo is, I think, where Product RED fails most spectacularly – it paints of a rosy picture of a world where no one is to blame. It suggests that it is OK for rich white westerners to keep consuming, for western owned businesses to keep making profits, and for poor black people to continue struggling with AIDS and the multitude of other problems they encounter. RED markets itself as revolutionary, but in fact it is the opposite.
It entrenches the system – the system which condemns those in poor countries to a life of poverty while giving more to those who already have it.
This effect is compounded by the advertising campaign that surrounds Product RED. The advertising is explicitly racial (white people's money helping black people's illnesses), but more significantly it sets out to give the impression that by buying a RED product the consumer is doing something special, something beneficial to society.
Academic Ester Lim called it 'Absolution by consumption' – easing your conscience by buying a new mobile phone. There is nothing special about allowing a company to make more profit, however well it is packaged, and however much they give to charity.
It entrenches the system – the system which condemns those in poor countries to a life of poverty while giving more to those who already have it.
This effect is compounded by the advertising campaign that surrounds Product RED. The advertising is explicitly racial (white people's money helping black people's illnesses), but more significantly it sets out to give the impression that by buying a RED product the consumer is doing something special, something beneficial to society.
Academic Ester Lim called it 'Absolution by consumption' – easing your conscience by buying a new mobile phone. There is nothing special about allowing a company to make more profit, however well it is packaged, and however much they give to charity.
A less glamorous option
I am not arguing for anarchist revolution or the end of capitalism – I value achievable change over idealism. However, I think there are far more valuable contributions that business can make to the fight against AIDS and poverty more generally – contributions which would perhaps (although not necessarily) yield less glamorous publicity but more constructive outcomes.
Most notably, a company's first duty should surely be to those who work for it and its suppliers. Instead of reluctantly struggling to stay one step ahead of human rights campaigners over employee conditions in developing countries, I would like to see a company proudly declare that it is struggling for the best possible conditions for its employees: an advertising campaign along these lines based on substantial and verifiable progress could prompt competitors to implement similarly beneficial programmes themselves.
This approach would help to address the poverty which underpins many of the problems our conscience prods us to consider. As a start, it is essential that the companies involved in Product RED have comprehensive and industry-leading HIV and AIDS workplace programmes in place in their factories around the world, and that they require similar programmes from all their suppliers.
Most notably, a company's first duty should surely be to those who work for it and its suppliers. Instead of reluctantly struggling to stay one step ahead of human rights campaigners over employee conditions in developing countries, I would like to see a company proudly declare that it is struggling for the best possible conditions for its employees: an advertising campaign along these lines based on substantial and verifiable progress could prompt competitors to implement similarly beneficial programmes themselves.
This approach would help to address the poverty which underpins many of the problems our conscience prods us to consider. As a start, it is essential that the companies involved in Product RED have comprehensive and industry-leading HIV and AIDS workplace programmes in place in their factories around the world, and that they require similar programmes from all their suppliers.
Make it political
Secondly, a public fundraising campaign for the Global Fund which ignores the role of government is a tragic lost opportunity. Much of the reason why the Global Fund so desperately needs business support is that it is chronically underfunded by the governments whose idea it was in the first place.
Someone buying a RED product would be an ideal person to write to government challenging their funding record. Therefore RED products must include a campaign card to sign and send, or a draft letter to the Prime Minister, or perhaps something more innovative. It must include information about the Global Fund, and some other ideas of what people can do to help. We cannot escape the fact that AIDS funding is a political issue: not acknowledging this is a betrayal of the people who need the drugs.
I would love to see product RED live up to its potential as a significant source of income for the Global Fund. However, this growth must be accompanied by changes. Its advertising must not give the impression that we can achieve 'absolution by consumption' and it must adopt an explicitly political message to muffle its saccharine 'we are all winners' image.
Product RED is not worthy of a typical left wing knee-jerk dismissal, but it must change. If it does not, then however much money it raises it will still be a disappointment, because it can achieve much more.
Someone buying a RED product would be an ideal person to write to government challenging their funding record. Therefore RED products must include a campaign card to sign and send, or a draft letter to the Prime Minister, or perhaps something more innovative. It must include information about the Global Fund, and some other ideas of what people can do to help. We cannot escape the fact that AIDS funding is a political issue: not acknowledging this is a betrayal of the people who need the drugs.
I would love to see product RED live up to its potential as a significant source of income for the Global Fund. However, this growth must be accompanied by changes. Its advertising must not give the impression that we can achieve 'absolution by consumption' and it must adopt an explicitly political message to muffle its saccharine 'we are all winners' image.
Product RED is not worthy of a typical left wing knee-jerk dismissal, but it must change. If it does not, then however much money it raises it will still be a disappointment, because it can achieve much more.
What do you think
Read 'Flying the RED flag' - in favour of RED here.
Read 'Seeing RED' - against RED here.
And have your say on the Pressureworks exchange here
Read 'Seeing RED' - against RED here.
And have your say on the Pressureworks exchange here
 |
|
|
Terms & Conditions © Christian Aid 2007