Apparently the Red Campaign has spent an estimated $100 million on advertising but has only raised $18 million for the Global Fund.
The rhetoric coming in response is that the campaign is inherently frontloaded with costs. Launching (RED) is basically a massive branding campaign that has to convince consumers to buy Red products to help fight AIDS.
The hope was that celebrity standard bearing / cheerleading would make the Red products trendy. Everyone would buy these must-have items and everyone wins: the retailers get shoppers, the brand owners get recognition and sales, the consumers get products, and the celebrities pat themselves on the back for using their fame for a good cause.
The problem with (RED), as I see it, is that consumers are not as naive or shallow as the Red campaign inherently assumes. Helping through consumerism doesn’t feel right. We like it when the products we buy also support good causes but as a side effect rather than a prime motivator. As consumers, we know that the brands involved are getting their cut whether it be direct profits or building brand awareness and goodwill. Yes, the Red Campaign is an exercising in branding for the celebrities, the product manufacturers, and the campaign itself.
A few things they could have done differently with the Red Campaign:
- A donation component rather than purely consumption focus
- Celebrities matching donations from the public
- Viral / grassroots campaigns of (RED) products instead of Madison Ave. advertising
The Buy (Less) Crap site, by contrast, encourages people to donate directly to causes instead of “helping” through consuming.
(Source: http://adage.com/article?article_id=115287)
BTW, at a conference I heard a marketer for Ganong Chocolate describe how they increased brand recognition and sales by putting a pink ribbon on candy boxes and donating a portion of proceeds to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. The effort gives the brand a boost and probably helps consumers decide what to buy in the store. The company does not claim to be altruistic in its campaign. I think that is a real qualitative difference.
Hmm. What about the economic impact of the source of the goods? In the case of the Gap shirts, they are made in Africa using fair trade/labour practices. Like buying Fair Trade Coffee in my mind. Can’t say the same for all the other (red) products, I guess.
I have had similar discussions with friends, that it would be more beneficial to give directly causes. However, I think many people are weary of constant pleas for money/aid, seen on TV and in print. It’s very easy to tune them out, change the channel. Also, I think perhaps the (RED) campaign isn’t aimed primarily at Generous Joe Canadian. I think it is aimed more at folks who don’t have charitable giving on their radar…
http://tianadiehl.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E5467A351249C13E!745.entry#trackback
Derek you’re right when you say ” when the products we buy also support good causes but as a side effect rather than a prime motivator” and Ganong Chocolates is a prime example for me. I’ve always bought their chocolates and for me seeing the pink ribbon meant I’m buying what I was going to buy anyways but as a bonus the company is letting me support a good cause. I never thought that they would be doing it just to increase sales but that’s just me being naive about marketing, plus I know management at Ganong’s does have a close interest in that campaign.
At Christmas I bought my wife an iPod and I saw the Red campaign ads. I opted to just buy a silver nano from the Apple Canada store instead as I really wasn’t taken in to splurge for a red one. I would have had better feelings about myself and of Apple if they had just said they would be donating part of the price for each iPod sold in December to Aids research.