BUGGE(RED)?

I've had mixed feelings about Bono's (RED) campaign for quite some time--while I think that huge corporations can impact social change in ways that individuals cannot (like Starbucks' switch to rBGH-free dairy last year), the (RED) campaign actually encourages individuals to fight AIDS by buying red tee-shirts and other crappy pap from the GAP (who we all remember has a questionable record when it comes to human rights anyhoo) and other big bizes with questionable ethics. And while I think that Americans needed a huge reminder that AIDS is still out there, and the (RED) campaign has certainly accomplished that, I think that it has also 1. served as an enormously powerful PR tool for all of the corporations involved and 2. enabled soccer moms and frat boys across the country to feel self-satisfied and activist-y, when really, they are just...consumers.

So imagine how pleased I was to see this article in today's Times, even if it did link to each of those corporations, and also linked to Bono and the Superbowl, but didn't link to the Global Fund, the international aid organization that distributes the money raised by the campaign. (To be fair, they just don't link the way bloggers do, to actual websites, but rather, to their own stock market pages.) However, they did cite a controversial article published in Ad Age (subscription required, or I'd have linked it) last March, that said that as of that time, (RED) had raised only $18 million, but had spent $100 million on advertising. (RED execs later argued those totals at $25 and $50 million, respectively.)

If it were an "eco-friendly" endeavor, I'd call it corporate "greenwashing" but I guess it's more appropriate to call this whole campaign...wait for it..."redwashing."

Another note about the article--while I applaud the Times for publishing this story, I think they could've done better--they open by quoting health workers who credit the campaign with the building of hospitals, and the increased funding that has allowed them to focus on research and supply beds for people who come there seeking treatment. But as they later point out, the campaign contributes a mere 2% of the Global Fund's funds...which actually hasn't increased the amount of money spent on aid in this arena, but rather, allowed the Fund to shift funding to other areas. I'm not saying that the donations haven't made a difference, or that the Times were wrong in covering that side of the story, but I know that a lot of people scan articles and often don't click through to the second page, where they mention detractors like Ben Davis, who encourages philanthropic individuals to Buy (Less) and donate directly to AIDS service organizations, and Brook Baker, chairman of Health GAP, who asks:

"'Do we really want something as important as H.I.V.-AIDS to be funded by holiday shoppers?'"

which is a pretty good question.

All in all, kudos to the Times, w/whom I've got a little love/hate thing going--this piece was better that this confusing piece of thinly-veiled pro-cloning shit yesterday...

Anyway. Two more things about the (RED) campaign--last summer, Mr. Man and I saw some guy in P-town, walking around with a "HAMME(RED)" tshirt on, which we agreed, was pretty fucking funny. And also, I saw Bono once, back in the day, when I was 14 and U2 was touring with the Pixies, and not to hate on the short guys, but minus the shoe lifts and tricky camera angles, he can't be more than 5 foot 4.

Say it with me now...POSER!!!!