cool

I think it works, to a limited degree, and wish to know its impact.

Posted by: letumubique99 on October 24th, 2008.

consumerism to combat ignorance

This basic question was posed to me and i have agree, it makes little sense insofar as education + awareness goes... did it raise $, sure... but that's only a bandaid on this global issue.

Posted by: pdalencour on April 28th, 2007.

Sprint + ( RED ) = joke

Only problem I have is with Sprint and the Ron Livington spot. The campaign requires a serious attitude and his flippant style undermines the ( RED ) message.

Posted by: makethelogobigger on February 15th, 2007.

i'm so glad they picked red...

my yellow lance armstrong bracelet clashes with my clothes.

Posted by: joshhertz on December 6th, 2006.

Branding needs work

Theres something dot-com-ish about picking a primary color to use as branding, and it's sort of boring, the art direction. That said, it's an interesting way to sell peace of mind to people who don't have the time to get involved. I'd have branded it to look more like a timeless world conscious thing like recycling, instead of smart marketing partnerships.

Posted by: ammansabet on October 31st, 2006.

thank you cubes

optimism is the way to go. we need to be reminded that the guilt associated with money in our judeo-christian educated minds is an equal disease sometimes. money is energy, and it can be a healing energy, not just some dirty exchange.
open up routes for opposites to dialogue (opposites such as American Express and a starving ill uber-anti-consumer in Africa), open up your mind to allowing money to flow in different directions, not just towards corporate profit, but from corporations back into the non-corporate needs of real people. i'm not saying i understand we are far from reaching that model, or new world order, but it does give me hope when something like this hits the mainstream, it's just a sign, if anything else.

Posted by: on October 30th, 2006.

Hrmmm

Works great for selling products, and remember that it would be difficult to raise as much money in an advertising campaign that wasn't based on coolness. Is exploiting this ok? I say yes.

Posted by: Gesh on October 28th, 2006.

Your brand in pink!

Wasn't it only last month that Campbells cans went pink for breast cancer awareness?

Huge sales growth, like 40% or something. Simple and effective. I thought red was for the American Heart Association, though -- and D.A.R.E.

Posted by: KennyRood on October 24th, 2006.

Deal with the Devil

First off, let's be clear on what is actually being done in Africa with our monies: the African nations are receiving a supply of anti-retrovirus pills to help sustain their immune systems when dealing with HIV. This is, by no means, a cure. We are not curing HIV. We're letting these people live longer--which is noble--but they will eventually succumb to this virus like everyone else.
What annoys me about this ad campaign is they still make you want to believe you are helping to find a cure by just being a consumer. Wrong. If you want to help find a cure for AIDS and ultimately HIV, donate money to an AIDS research foundation.
Everyone on this thread talks about the future. Well, the future should focus on the cure, not sustaining the life of the diseased. It's unfortunate that these people contracted HIV, but until we find a cure, they will eventually perish in a horrible, painful fashion all the same.

This ad makes you feel guilty for the wrong reasons, and that's why it's ineffective communication.

Posted by: jswindle on October 24th, 2006.

women in this campaign

I guess I'm a little stuck on the ad with a female model mostly naked, doing yoga and wearing a (RED) shirt. Must we still focus on these narrow, sexist body concepts? Even though they're trying to do good, they are still selling women's bodies as commodified objects.

Posted by: imisslincoln on October 19th, 2006.

YES!

i can see some people get the point and somem dont. eventually we can all be awakend to this tremendous power that we can only harness together and which can enable us to make this a better world. and all it is asked of us is not to act like a mindless consumer.
we are all one.

Posted by: monoalex81 on October 19th, 2006.

rcairns for president.

like that thinking.
GMDavis, funny metting and so true.

Posted by: cubes on October 18th, 2006.

Red Politics

Imaging a Red Branded Political campaign, re-establishing commitments to the Millennium Development Goals (in which, AIDs is a main player) and to put it to the top of the agenda. Unlikely.

Economics and globalisation is our only known solution to end poverty and AIDs. Charities paying fund raisers can net money. Sweat shops can start developing countries. The solution isn't basic logic, it's logic over time.

Sleep at night? As long is the marketing can lead better educate people about changes needed and not simply create a pop fad.

We need 0.67% of everyone in the rich worlds income to end poverty. Government and public philanthropy does not provide this. People will buy ipods anyway. Using consumerism will help.

Posted by: rcairns on October 18th, 2006.

well said, GMDavis

if that's the way it works, well, then that's the way it works. but at least, it works.

Posted by: bigjeff on October 18th, 2006.

Picture the meeting...

You're sitting around a flipchart in a brainstorm and the acount exec pipes up; "I know, let's get all the big phone operators to get together and donate a percentage of each bill to AIDS charities. We'll get a huge celebrity involved and then link up to other, really cool brands, like Armani or Gap..." All the 'senior' people in the room smirk at each other, move on and end up doing a 'collect the tokens' promotion in the newspaper.

Be as cynical as you like, this is one of the most impressive marketing campaigns in history.

Don't wring your hands about buying an ipod, we're all going to buy one, this campaign is about buying a (Red) one instead of a U2 one. Genius.

Posted by: GMDavis on October 18th, 2006.

works but still.....

I see the ads in the gap store....what is the communication really? If you buy something red than you are a good person? Consumerism seems an odd fit...., use less, give more....it will only work if it is in the interest of business....having a hard time reconciling the ideas...the image of doing something good as opposed to actually doing something good.

Posted by: smokes on October 17th, 2006.

a bit perverse, i'll admit, but...

i see avisualperson's point; the idea of people contributing to something while treating themselves to an ipod nano (an essentially useless item for survival) certainly has a pretty perverse irony to it.

on the other hand, it maybe pays to recognize that people are pretty much selfish creatures, and the fact is, even though we ought to probably all give that $200 to someone who can help someone else, we all know we're going to give it to apple. so, with this scheme, it kind of recognizes that some people are maybe going to buy this crap anyway, so if we can convince the companies to give some of it away, why not?

Posted by: gravitycollapse on October 16th, 2006.

Creating a Mark

It seems that this could catch on and become a social haring, people can see you walking down the street with you red iPod or other stuff, very armstrong braclet.

Posted by: jamacdonald on October 16th, 2006.

Time will tell

As always.
But remember the RED campaign is not raising money for research, is raising money for distribution of drugs that are already there, which cost 40 cents, and there are a surplus of them. The issue today is all economics, and the distribution of goods is the veins of it all. Poverty, and hunger (in a little rock suspended in space) due to lack of distribution of food or clean and sustainable energy, is just a violation of Human rights. And this campaign ( my point of view) is starting to tackle the economics to the heart.
One other important point, the 2006 Nobel peace prize, Muhammad Yunus, Founder of Grameen Bank, inventor of Micro lending … Coincidence? I don’t think so.

But then again time will tell.

Posted by: cubes on October 15th, 2006.

fishing = pharma research?

if we were talking about sustainable agriculture and clean water practices, that's one thing. but if we're talking about research for the greatest health crisis in the world right now well I'd be hard-pressed to find out how to empower people to create a vaccine. this is not a campaign to raise safe-sex and safe-practice awareness, its a campaign to raise money to distribute drug treatments. that is purely an economic equation, not a social one. surely this issue can be replaced with any other but the idea that goodwill requires economic incentive seems flawed to me, and somewhat suspect. as to whose responsibility is to make these generous donations, well, how about looking at who is able to? And so The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is able to do those things, and kudos to them, and not Microsoft. And Ted Turner is able to and various others. But for other companies to earn some goodwill with a percentage of profits? I'm still a skeptic.

Posted by: avisualperson on October 15th, 2006.

Give them fish.

That is the old model that apparently avisualperson is describing.
Aids is today’s issue, tomorrow another will rise. Capital society will live (in my opinion) for at least a century more; therefore changing the economic world order is what is needed, not just solving the present crisis. Very nearsighted to believe that selling the entire holding company of GAP will solve the issue. And why is gap responsible for this crisis, why not you commit your year’s salary to contribute to aids?
It is time that we start to really understand sustainability and stop the old status quo ironic thinking.
Lets teach the world to fish,

Posted by: cubes on October 15th, 2006.

hurrah, hur-friggin'-rah

so some companies decide that the rest of the world is important; wonder how many GAP stores there are in Nairobi or how many Emporio Armani watches are floating around the souther Niger region. If anyone (by anyone I don't mean individuals but multi-million dollar companies) wanted to make a real difference in the fight against AIDS, sustainable or not, please don't rely on consumer guilt in order to buy products and put a percentage towards drug distribution, but make a one-time meaningful donation to provide accelerated research for a mass-delivery vaccination system as well as cure. It does not exist yet, this system, but whats a few hundred million to a company? no one needs the fight against AIDS to be sustainable, it should be short as possible (say, 20 years) and then, upon eradication, will cease to exist. A 20-year commitment then, is nothing, for an issue like this.

Posted by: avisualperson on October 15th, 2006.

Thanks Bono, thanks.

Finally, this marks the official establishment of the global sustainability movement, and the transition from Environmentalism.
It is a happy moment; I am sure that much controversy will follow. From green/blue-washing (this one I doubt) to companies taking advantage of a synergy to make more money. But the for the rest of us, the obsessive optimists, this will only unite the two currents that for years where going against each other.
Remember people, sustainability means that this has to be big business for the companies involved, and hopefully it will be, why we accept so easy big business for porn, arms and cigarettes, and we are eskeptics when is to save the world?
Here is to ending this fricking disease, and here is to the crazy ones who believe they can!

Posted by: cubes on October 13th, 2006.