Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million ~Ad Age
Gap's
Red campaign isn't doing so (red) hot. $100 million in marketing costs only led to $18 million actually going to the
Global Fund. The Ad Age article uses a sharply negative headline on what is otherwise a balanced presentation to show that some are concerned about the cost to benefit ratio.
As a nonprofit professional, I tend to agree with the guys at
buylesscrap who think we should encourage direct giving rather than consumption. However, that "meager" $18 million is a whole heck of a lot more than the $13 million they received from the private sector last year. With a budget of around $1 billion, Global Fund receives 99% of its funds from governmental organizations. Any addition to that tiny 1% from corporations and everyday folk is good, right?
The guys at buylesscrap.org don't think so. They promote charitable giving rather than buying crap we don't need. Of course, they're right in so many ways. In theory, all people should give directly. In theory, communism is a great idea. But we've seen how that works in practice. The fact is that many of the people who bought red items would not have dropped $10 into a jar at the counter. Sadly, so many people need motivation to give that consumerism is the only way to draw them out.
So perhaps throwing Bono out there to motivate goodness isn't such a horrible thing. If someone is going to go buy a shirt anyway, they are more likely to pay extra for a charitable shirt than they are to forgo the shirt altogether and make a direct donation. Sad, but true. Yes, we should give up the junk we buy, but most people aren't ready for that. So let's take some baby steps and get a corporation to donate a portion of the products we buy for them. Not a horrible idea.
It could work, and I think it would have worked a lot better if the public really understood the problem. The marketing campaign has really focused on tying the project in with Bono and creating a buzz around the "everybody is doing it-even so and so celebrity" idea. It might have been nice if a portion of that $100 million marketing campaign actually demonstrated the good work of the Global Fund and the need for support. This might be one area where corporations could have used the nonprofit field to come in and show them how to pull those heart strings.
As for that cost to benefit ratio, the Ad Age article is doing a little propaganda of their own.
The $100 million was funded by Gap, Apple, Motorola, and others. This result in some amount of income for each of these companies, PLUS $18 million to the Global Fund. Ad Age is assuming some standard to compare this against, but this is a fairly new idea in the large corporate world and thus doesn't really have a standard to meet. Even if the income for the companies is lower than $100 million, that loss is on the part of the companies and could really be considered an in-kind donation to the Global Fund.
So give it a rest, naysayers. We can't really judge how well it's doing yet. This could be the start of a great movement. Paired with the absurdly large philanthropic gifts from major CEOs as of late, this could be the beginning of something bigger than we ever thought.
Maybe, just maybe, consumerism could save the world.
Crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.
I never knew thee
