Just over a year ago, Irish rock star and generally superior human being Bono announced the Red campaign, which seeks to combine consumerism and altruism. In just over a year the branded products from companies such as Dell, Gap, Apple, Motorola and Hallmark have raised over twenty-two million dollars to fight the spread of AIDS in Rwanda. Though donations in the tens of millions would seem like a staggering success, stones are being thrown about the amount of money being spent on publicity. In a March article, Advertising Age said that involved companies spent over a hundred million dollars on publicity and donated only eighteen million to the cause. Red counters that the companies spent fifty million and donated twenty-five, which still isn’t a very good figure for a charitable organization.

Red has come under fire from many different angles. Ben Davis has created a parody video called Buy (Less) that is encouraging consumers to instead give money directly to nonprofits in Africa, while Northwestern professor Brook Baker scoffs at the idea that “something as important as HIV-AIDS is supported by Christmas shoppers.” Though the donation margin for Red is less than other charities, what critics are missing is that it isn’t really a charity. People who give to nonprofit organizations aren’t suddenly going to quit and do their giving by buying a cell phone. The purpose of Red is to reach the multitude of people who give nothing to charity and give others an opportunity to have a little less guilt about that new iPod. Even though its margin of giving is less than that of other charities, Red has already pledged more to fight AIDS than the nations of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Switzerland. Trying to stop American consumerism is a losing battle; that Red can at least channel some of these billions to a good cause is something to be applauded rather than criticized. [New York Times]