definitely not Aishwarya

It's funny. I saw the same thing while out walking last week. Desi Red. Oh no, I thought, not another left-leaning gang of South Asians, pinko communists, mutter, mutter.

Then I saw Inspi (Red). What's an Inspi? Confusion became bewilderment when I came upon Steven Spielberg with a shirt that said Hono (Red). Hono? I'd thought the accepted term was "Jewish."

Then everything clicked into place. Ah, I see. And it was all rather worse than I had Fea (Red). These weren't pinkos at all. They were the usual capitalist wing-nuts.

Ennis! I was going to email you about this over the weekend. I was walking by the GAP and saw the same tee in the window and got such a kick out of the whole DESI connection - I too figured they had not intended for that "koinkydink"... I emailed the GAP and told them. I haven't heard anything back, but will let you know if I do. While I was at it, I actually did buy myself a tee (and wore it on Diwali). Although I don't often buy into such promotional campaigns, this one struck a chord with me, particularly since these tees are made from African cotton.

The products in the (RED) campaign are not marked up. Theyre the same price as others, but the companies give a % of the profit to charity.
The red ipod mini is 199$, same as all the other colors, except 10% of 199$ goes to charity in this case.

rax - the ipod is the only one I would consider getting. Does anybody know if the other goods are marked up? In any case, if the donation is simply a portion of the profits, it's not clear whether very much money ends up going to charity.

You figure that these campaigns are designed to have a three fold effect. Most obviously, they're supposed to raise money for a particular cause. Second, they are trying to raise awareness for a particular cause. Third, they are intended to try to convince the public that mult-national corporations actually do have a heart. I guess you can say any donation is better than nothing, so this campaign meets the first goal. However, I'm not sure that it does anything to raise awarness. I mean, just given the confusion described in the comments above, it seems like the ad agency that came up with the logo is just being too cute by half. As for the third goal, it'll take a lot more than a bunch of t-shirts before the Gap earns my respect.

Oh no, I thought, not another left-leaning gang of South Asians, pinko communists, mutter, mutter.

Just to be clear, ToastyKen knows very well the diff btwn Ash and Cruz, I think he was just guessing who the Gap would choose for the nonexistent multicultural series, being unable to really look at the face. ;)

I am on SM so much these days I am prolly gonna get FI(RED)

i for one think that this campaign is a great idea. a lot of young people either don't know or worse, don't care about the plights of other countries, and instead of depending on them to seek out information and a way to contribute, the charity comes to them. these shirts are bound to become a style statement that every girl is going to want to get her hands on, and things like the red iPod, a color they've never had before, will be in high demand this holiday season. so many people out there lament over the materialism that has taken over the youth, but this campaign isn't trying to fight the society's trends (even if the trends are not what we want them to be), it uses the trends to their advantage. i think it's a win-win situation.

I think the Red campaign is great, its been a huge success in Europe in terms of raising money, and more importantly raising awareness of AIDS. I agree, i rarely trust the corporate "giving" pr campaigns, but I think Bono, as well as American Express are sincere in this one. This, along with the work Clinton is doing with his Global Inititive is vital to bring attention to the abysmal record of western powers in combating AIDS in Africa. Even if it happens to be tied into a consumer buying strategy, at the end of the day, I feel its still better than nothing.

Even if it happens to be tied into a consumer buying strategy, at the end of the day, I feel its still better than nothing.

I find that strategies that have to be defended with the idea "it's better than nothing" are often worse than nothing. If you doubt it, give a nickel to a homeless man and see what reaction you get.

We've got such a damaged sense of charity, actually. We think everything can be fun. We think we can buy a pile of poorly-manufactured overpriced crap we don't need and, hey, we can also "save Africa" at the same time.

Well, AIDS is not fun, and this Gap campaign will do a lot more for you wardrobe (and even then, let's be frank, not that much) and for the company's ego (and their bottom-line), than it will to fight AIDS.

But how about changing the awful profit-seeking pharmaceutical policies that deny affordable medication to the millions that need it? What about the simple fact that drug companies intent on making a killing (pardon the pun) is what stands between very many people and the therapies that could save their lives?

Well, that critique is not possible because too many of us are sold on the idea that buying stuff (our end of things) and making profit (the company's priority, whether it be Gap or Merck) is the only possible approach to this kind of problem.

"Something is better than nothing," so we can buy the shirt and go home feeling we've done "something." And, our egos salved, the real something that needs to be done will perpetually remain undone.

Yes, I came across all pinko and RED on that one, but bear with me here. The GAP abused me when I was young.

Mind the Gap.

What happened, Mr. K, did you work there?

Well, that critique is not possible because too many of us are sold on the idea that buying stuff (our end of things) and making profit (the company's priority, whether it be Gap or Merck) is the only possible approach to this kind of problem.

Beautifully said, Mr. K

What happened, Mr. K, did you work there?

Well, yes.

But, more than that, it was that, in the early 90s, I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by khakis, preppy faux stonewash, dragging themselves through the tepid malls looking for 100% brushed-cotton.

I'd like a t-shirt that says: Desi(rable). Or maybe, Desi(rabble). Or both: "Desirable Desi Rabble". That's a sepia motto.

Did anyone else laugh themselves silly in Team America, when the hero is performing in a musical based on 'Rent', and they sing that song called 'Everyone has Aids! Aidsaidsaidsaidsaids!'?

That made me laugh so much.

God Bless YouTube

Everyone Has Aids!

Ah yes, another scam involving bo(red) self absorbed celebrities trying to be "socially aware".

Now I feel bad, I didn’t even make the desi connection when I saw the ad. I suck at being brown.
In my defense, I did read about Bono's quest earlier, so I was familiar with the concept. Personally, you will never get me spending a cent on any charity that 'claims' to help people in Africa. I don’t know what villages they target, but I am from Africa, and I have traveled extensively all over Africa, and the people that I see hardly ever get any help. There are villages of just children because all parents/adults have died of aids. The truth is they have a few targeted and highly visible villages and these are the ones that get help not the most destitute. Find some organization that will send books and canned good that you buy to Africa, maybe it will reach the hands of the needy. I am sorry I get a little hyped when it comes to my motherland (motherland cos it is where my mum lives) :)

I'm about to step out and get demolished in a few minutes, but #12 made my Monday a little less unbearable. I heart The Kobayashi Bottom Line.

Good old liberal guilt to get us Inspi(red). Few of us have the will to physically help someone suffering from poverty, cancer, AIDS, or whatever calamity the rubber bracelet on our hand benefits. In the end it's probably not beating oneself up over whether one is doing enough.

At the same time don't dislocate your shoulder from patting yourself on the back for sporting you One T-shirt ($60 at Nordstroms) to benefit AIDS in Africa while running in the Susan G Koman Race for the cure in your Pink Warriors by Ford dog-tags and LiveStrong bracelet, listening to your Red iPod and drinking your Ethos water.

The truth is painful and ignorance about the plight of the world is bliss at times. We do what we can....

To steal from the Power of One "Even a waterfall begins with a single drop of water." or to paraphrase from Bull Durham "An ant by himself can do dick, but you get a whole bunch of them together and they'll build you a cathedral."

Medved is an idiotic Republican neocon gaandu. He and Dinesh D'Souza need to go off in a corner and put their heads up each others' bums.

Sorry, Ennis... I know what you're saying about the typical corporate "charity" machine, but it's hard to take anything that someone like Medved says seriously, especially when it comes to AIDS relief programs. What's his cynical neocon alternative: the Almighty Business World should just milk profit out of the consumer audience without giving back or creating awareness campaigns? When you boil it down, any act of "charity" by an individual/corporation with wealth can be criticized a hypocritical act. A lot of "charity" geared toward the "developing" world can be viewed cynically as a no-win situation or an all-or-nothing proposition: but we're enmired in a "bling bling economy" as Gautam Malkani would say, and maybe (*maybe*) every little bit of awareness helps (even as we're decked out in our latest designer Red iPod).

Note to CinamonRani: a professor once pointed out to me that drives for canned goods and books to Africa often spend more money on postage to get things over there that could better be spent on the ground if you just make a monetary donation to a "good" (i.e., well managed) NGO. (and I've also lived in Africa)

Mr Kobayashi, without large profits drug companies would have no incentive to help develop new therapies or channel billions of dollars into research...

Me type too fast leave out words No proof read arrgh

"There is such a thing as good grief. Just ask Charlie Brown"
- Michael Scott

This is going to sound bad but when I first saw all the posters....Steven Spielberg, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Garner, MJ Blige, Cristy Turlington, Dakota Fanning, Chris Rock, Don Chedele...etc all I could think was WTF...Gap Inc is not doing well financially, how the hell are they paying all these people?

I don't necessarily know as far as a "message" how effective this is. The so called "role models" they are trying to show do not appeal to the average shopper at Gap.

Mr Kobayashi, without large profits drug companies would have no incentive to help develop new therapies or channel billions of dollars into research

Essactly.

New therapies that will "pay for themselves." Research that will generate more profits. If you don't fit that story-line, sucks to be you, sucka.

just because people are celebrities, doesn't mean they're automatically self-absorbed and are just doing the "socially aware" act for their image. just like people, you have celebrities that do it for the attention, celebrities that want to make a difference, celebrities trying to do their job, etc. even if you may not agree with the methods of the red campaign, we shouldn't pass judgement on its supporters. (for all i know, maybe they all are doing it for their image, but that's all speculation and they should get the benefit of the doubt.)

yea, the pharmaceutical system is messed up. and for every village in africa they show on tv that they're helping, they're probably at least five that need it more. but the "something is better than nothing" statement does have merit. sm attracts many articulate, intelligent, socially conscious people, who if they want to help those in need, will look into charities and social activist groups that may be able to use 100% of the money and services they can provide. but the society as a whole isn't like that. is that a bad thing? yea, i would say so. do i want to see that change? you bet i do. but it's not going to change overnight, and it needs to be done in baby steps. as someone having been in the spotlight in the entertainment industry, i think bono gets that. making hip looking shirts will bring the people in. i grew up with friends that knew about the horrors going on all over the world, and it truly saddened them, but they were consumers first. my best friend, now a deeply devoted and involved activist for darfur, only got involved after seeing her favorite hollywood actor wearing a shirt about darfur on an awards show. she looks back and is embarrassed that she was so shallow then, but she says that if she hadn't seen someone considered the "it" guy bringing attention to his cause, she never would have gotten involved in the first place. i think that this is bono's ultimate dream, and a campaign like red can (and i think will) have the desi(red) effect on the public.

"Inspi" stands for "Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propulsion Institute"
"Hono" is a Taiwan-based exporter of golf equipment

So this is how I spent my lunch break.. Apologies if i've bothe"red" anyone.. hehe

Yes, GAP is not doing well financially in the last 6 years. Look at the last two months, there is an up tick of 10-15% in the stock price possible after the campaign started.

Mr Kobayashi, without large profits drug companies would have no incentive to help develop new therapies or channel billions of dollars into research...

...that goes towards making more drugs only for people that can afford them (i.e. NOT Africans dying of AIDS). But Mr Kobayashi already said that. No one's arguing the economics on this. Fine, find your profit incentive. But leave Africa (or wahtever other Third World continent/country you come up with) out of it. Africa is merely a PR campaign, and every time it is used to pull on people's heartstrings, it takes away a little bit of Africa's dignity and gives back nothing for the objectification. Drugs going to Africa is always in the news, but the technicalities of intellectual property rights and private agreements are such that the large quantities available to African AIDS patients still have to be purchased, and at prices that are simply out of the question for the vast majority.

My point is, the only reason many of these drugs even exist, is (to a significant extent) based on the current model of research/development. If it was not for that, would there still be drugs to (theoretically) send to Africa (free or otherwise)? If you tamper with that model (and don't replace it with something else that produces results) then fine, you have the drugs you have right now, but what about future innovations and breakthroughs?

but what about future innovations and breakthroughs?

If the present innovations aren't doing jack for you, why would you be fussed about future innovations? You think the fellow dying in Ahmedabad or in Johannesburg is worried about better therapies in some theoretical future? That fellow wants access to the drugs that have already been made, at a price that isn't going to put his whole village into indentured servitude just to keep him alive for another few years (before inflation makes the cost totally prohibitive, and he departs this world for the next one).

Also, do you know how many drug patents are given out each year in the US? Several dozen. Do you know how many of those represent, chemically speaking, genuinely new pathways? Two or three. Per year.

The rest of it is, "Oh let's take this little carbon molecule off from here, so that we can call it a new drug." Pure marketing. It's all tylenol. But it's being sold as tylenol with super-boosters, tylenol with a pink velvet hat, kulfi-flavored tylenol with wings. And it's all the same drug, but if you don't change the packaging and pricing, your profits will flatten out.

It's such a corrupt industry it's comical. The whole capitalist model, whether of drugs, or of clothes, encourages and thrives on that kind of dissembling. And, as Shruti says, that's as it is. It's the system we're in, and there's no point pissing against the wind. But they should, at the least, leave hypocritical "charity" talk out of it, and not use the suffering of others to boost their visibility further.

The (RED) campaign will definitely raise awareness. Awareness, that is, of GAP.

So do we just accept the current standard "tamperproof" pharma profit margin as part of the only successful model of R&D without criticizing it? What margin makes the enterprise worthwhile? 40%? 20%? 7%? Plenty of business models in other industries find it possible to be competitive and lucrative to operate with much slimmer margins.

I am just sick of the pharma (and insurance, while we're at it) industries claiming that the whole system would crumble and we'd be treating maladies with nothing but roots and herbs if we demand that they cut their margins. From a business perspective, if you can dupe people into believing that it's impossible and unviable otherwise, why wouldn't you try to maintain your margin at the highest possible rate for as long as possible? I'm not saying that everyone connected with pharma is evil; I'm sure many people are motivated by a desire to help treat disease. I'm just tired of the same old mantra.

Kusala (comment 24) a valid point but you need to contact your professor and let him know that many airlines and courier companies have volunteered to courier many goods to key centers in Africa. Its not only Bono that does good work. I am sure a Google search would find you charities that work in collaboration with these companies. An example would be when I was helping build a water pump in a village in Venda and we needed some equipment that had already been purchased for us by an anonymous benefactor in London, British Airways and its local branch Comair made sure we had it in 3 days, free of charge. And I am all for sending funds for NGO’s, my brother works for one in Malawi and they do great work, just make sure you do your research.
Oh and you will find Kusala that there are quite a few Africans on this blog, some more zealous than others, but all very proudly African. What you say KenyanDesi?

you have the drugs you have right now, but what about future innovations and breakthroughs?

Right. But still not for poor people.

Anyway, innovations and breakthroughs are easy. All it takes is some good ol' fashioned biopiracy and suffocating a few scores of South American indigenous tribes into extinction and Magic Johnson will live forever. That's why we should protest the logging industry and support liberal environmentalism. I mean, come on people, we need those forests. Can we get a t-shirt for that?

for the record, the red campaign is not just gap's. apple, motorola and armani exchange are also participating. if people are going to bash the campaign, don't just pick on one company.

But they should, at the least, leave hypocritical "charity" talk out of it, and not use the suffering of others to boost their visibility further.

Agree 100%. Kusala (#35) also makes some good points.

Mr Kobayashi, without large profits drug companies would have no incentive to help develop new therapies or channel billions of dollars into research...

this is not technically true... there is actually alot of interest from 'big' pharma in developing drugs for neglected diseases, even in the absence of huge profits... it's just that there is less interest in developing AIDS, malaria, and pneumococal vaccines compared to diabetes, heart disease, cholesterol, etc drugs. It's unfair to say that there is no interest. Plus, there are alot of initiatives going on right now examining new financing mechnanisms, including AMCs, patent transfers, and other ideas that are looking to correct some of the market 'failures.' There are a ton of PDPs out there trying to bridge the gap between public and private procurement and development.

In regards to this current (Red) campaign, I have mixed feelings. I've seen alot of people coming out and vilifying it, but many of them are the same people who haven't lifted a finger to try and do anything substantive to alleviate poverty and suffering in the developing world (many of my friends included), giving excuses about having to pay the mortgage, or not having the personal fortitude to go live in a mud hut. I guess I'm in the camp of "something is better than nothing". My understanding of the (red) campaign was that it was an attempt to create alternative funding streams, in addition to the traditional one-off donations that most people give. In that regard, I think it's successful in diversifying the funding base for nonprofits and development organizations.

Laying this at the feet of 'big pharma' for wanting profits as a default excuse doesn't do justice to the complexity of the issue. Pharma companies are businesses, which at the end of the day exist to make money. They are publicly traded companies that answer to the open markets and their shareholders.

Will those of you complaining about pharma profits purchase their shares and invest in a company that isn't growing anymore because they set a profit 'ceiling' to allow expensive drugs to hit the developing world at cheaper prices? Instead of government subsidies or donations to NGOs, you'll be paying the company directly giving them resources to innovate. It is money being re-routed, but money nonetheless.

Don't get me wrong, businesses practice several techniques to rig the field in their benefit, which is unethical many times. Pharma isn't immune to that and things done in the name of quick profits are despicable. But the facts remain that drug development IS expensive, developed world where R&D money exists, is where many new drugs are created.

PBS had an EXCELLENT series on health/medicine/diseases/government programs that was focused on the developing world. Throwing cheap medicine (cure) at societies that lack the infrastructure, educated professionals, and associated framework in health/medicine hasn't proven all that successful.

Take a basic disease such as Malaria. It is a readily curable disease. However, places where most people DIE from malaria are getting medicines from governments/NGOs, but the ability to consistently deliver the medical services, keeping up with the dosage is a MAJOR problem. This results in the medicine, which was effective for the local population, becoming ineffective due to bug resistence. A similar case was highlighted in Peru for Tuberculosis. Not enough medical care personnel to follow up on people (which the government gave drugs to for free), or the ability to deliver stronger medicines when the dynamic changes (bug resistence). With super bugs around, the future becomes a tougher fight since readily available and effective medicine works no longer.

For those afflicted with HIV/AIDS, the task becomes even more daunting. The program showed Botswana's approach of dealing with this. It was a multipronged approach that stressed prevention (for the case of HIV), EDUCATION, and set up a system for follow on care, etc.

Solutions that work in the devloped world, producing the greatest change aren't necessarily the ones that have the most immediate impact in the developing world. One has only so many resources and focus needs to be given where one can have the greatest impact.

The malaria part of the program revealed that simple mosiquto nets with a repellent impregnated in it was far more effective at reducing malaria cases (which reduces the strain on the system and allows infrastructure to grow at a reasonable rate). Wasn't a recent study on DDT done to show that WITHIN the home, when used, it did not pose a threat.

Education is FUNdamental. As cold as it sounds, reducing the HIV infection rates is far more important for these societies (sub-saharan Africa, South Africa, Botswana, Eastern Europe, etc). Condoms, clean needles, drugs preventing transmission to children (from infected parents) is critical. ALL of this require LOCAL GOVERNMENTS to be stronger and more educated.

There was an old post on SM here awhile ago about simpler therapy solutions, which is another way to go (drug cocktail vs one pill to bite).

Gujudude, thanks for bringing added nuance to the discussion. I agree with you on many points, especially the question of infrastructure in poor countries. Don't have much time now, just wanted to acknowledge that.

My main point, though, isn't that charity is ever easy or uncomplicated, but that the assumptions behind the current and altogether too popular capitalist model--as very nicely summarised in your first paragraph--should be questioned and tortured at every opportunity.

(I did see the PBS series you mention, and thought it excellent).

eh, Mr. Kobayashi, I think your response was a bit canned, in terms of not actually looking into what orgs and people associated with campaign RED such as Bono, the Global Fund (UN), Jeff Sachs & Millennium Project, A. Jolie and soon Madonna are actually doing and the actual numbers and strategies involved in this campaign.

Yes, it’s very easy for you to hate on GAP, Motorola, Bono, and such, and compare them to big pharma. But at the end of the day, is your critique of them improving the situation. Should your blanket criticism be applied to all corporate charity ventures?

Spend some time, look into actual details or RED and similar orgs. Then perhaps spend some time thinking of ways to improve them, or hold them responsible to their missions and promises. Time better spent then just blanket criticism

I can understand some of the anti-pharma feelings floating here as I too shared them for a while... but upon learning more about the practical current realities I must say that my initial opinions were naive.

First of all, in terms of the percentage of Gap profits (or any fundraising for that matter) actually reaching villages in Africa... it will never be 100%!... simply due to practical reasons. No matter what the organization that is fundraising or which organization it is going to. Let’s assume that 100% of the proceeds are donated to a NGO in Africa (let's assume it's legit and non-corrupt), some of the money will be used for administrative purposes... as a necessity. Printing posters to let people know of clinic sites/timings to get free testing and meds... making billboards or highly visible banners, for example. These are simple things that are required on site... but they will cost money. So to immediately dismiss any charities/ fundraisers is a little naïve. Some will be worse than others in terms of overhead charges (money that does come out of donations), but it will almost never be avoided.

From my (limited) exposure to overseas work and stuff I have heard first hand from those who are working in Africa (Nairobi, Lilongwe-Malawi)... money is not usually wasted when in the hands of NGOs and community based centres... most of them care about the work and are sincere. The problems, when they occur, are mostly with government affiliated organizations/centers... one would think they are more regulated but they are not. That is where people get away with stealing free drugs or novel rapid testing kits etc, because they happen to know ‘someone’ (who ultimately gets a share of the money made from selling stolen products)... a bit oversimplified, to illustrate a point.
Example: a friend of mine was in charge of sending a large shipment of accurate rapid-testing kits to Nairobi when she worked with a small pharma/R&D company. The kits were signed for when delivered and then promptly disappeared with no one to admit to receiving them. A few days later some HIV testing kits from Nairobi showed up on e-bay.

I have also know from personal contacts in pharmaceutical companies (in Ontario, Canada anyway), that a fair amount of free drugs are sent routinely to reliable orgs... local (reliable) orgs and international ones like Doctors without borders. On the other hand I have also heard stories where DWB has given ARVs to people that were false positive (did not actually have HIV) because they were using crappy (maybe old, maybe a bad generic brand, maybe expired?) testing kits... shit happens, sometimes wrong people get blamed. People get frustrated, bridges are burned, work sometimes stops or is stalled.

My point is: ground reality is different from what may appear at first glance. Not all pharmaceutical companies are bad. And I do think there is a big difference between the smaller and the bigger pharmas, and in the way they are operated in Canada vs in the US.

In terms of pharmaceutical companies and trade/ intellectual property rights (TRIPS) I will try to mention more later. Gotto run!

eh, Mr. Kobayashi, I think your response was a bit canned, in terms of not actually looking into what orgs and people associated with campaign RED such as Bono, the Global Fund (UN), Jeff Sachs & Millennium Project, A. Jolie and soon Madonna are actually doing and the actual numbers and strategies involved in this campaign.

Really, Vik? I'm not actually looking into what they are doing? Are you sure? In any case (whatever critique I might have of them) I don't believe I talked about Bono or Sachs. I actually have a lot of respect for on-the-ground NGOs. Massive respect. What I've been talking about is corporate heart-string-tugging strategies. Like the freakin' GAP. Very much a fox and henhouse situation.

But since we're on the subject...Angelina Jolie? Madonna? Gwyneth Paltrow? Don't make me laugh! I think most Western donors are egotistical bastards who can't tell their heads from their asses. And I know this for sure because I'm one such egotistical bastard myself. But at least I'm not plastering myself on the front as the savior of Africa.

Don't believe the hype!

She doesn't look a thing like Aishwarya.

My main point, though, isn't that charity is ever easy or uncomplicated, but that the assumptions behind the current and altogether too popular capitalist model--as very nicely summarised in your first paragraph--should be questioned and tortured at every opportunity.

Mr. K:

To me this isn't much about capitalism vs socialism, as it is looking at a unique problem (with its own constraints) first then trying to get a solution. Using our pre-defined ideas of what is a problem and browbeating people over it (pharma companies or big corporations doing charity) diverts attention from the more mundane, but far more effective forms of charity/help.

I agree with the idea that big companies, actors, and politicians raising awareness through sexy campaigns collecting money is quick and seductive, but not necessarily the most effective (though a step in the right direction). People get tired of handing out money, when said people promise it will change things, yet nothing happens. The support work, health care professionals, basic understanding of hygiene and medicine, uncorrupt governments, etc - all is taken for granted by people here. Providing cheap medicine is great, but it is a quick way for people in the west to 'do away' with a problem requiring far more (not just in charity, but political, diplomatic, and other tools). As the poster said above, local corrupt governments are a significant problem. If your own people won't do the right thing, it is really hard for outsiders to make much of a dent.

Ugh, this campaign makes me Ti(Red). And also Bo(Red).

I think most Western donors are egotistical bastards who can't tell their heads from their asses.

I think some are egotistical bastards. Most people simply don't know enough to make a good decision. Lets not shit on everything and anything western and paint with a broad brush. Most are decent people looking to do the right thing.

I agree with the idea that big companies, actors, and politicians raising awareness through sexy campaigns collecting money is quick and seductive, but not necessarily the most effective (though a step in the right direction).

Id' say it's a step in the wrong direction. We'll have agree to disagree.

It's like saying "Oh colonialism was onderful, it taught us to iron our clothes." Or, "Shell Oil is doing wonderful work since they built a one-room clinic for the villagers." It's utter bullshit, actually. Because the whole enterprise is rotten, and the do-goodism only serves to mask that.

(Also "socialism" isn't the only response to someone who questions the current configuration of capitalist societies. I despise socialism far more than I do this form of capitalism.)

And now, I really must go.

Damn, Mr. K! I was hoping to see if this would turn into an actual discussion of alternatives to capitalism for paths to social prosperity, which I have been dying to dive into lately. But I'm afraid I'll awaken the midget zombies...

you guys see jamon! jamon!? cruz' has some brown entrerrosca.

Gujudude:

To me this isn't much about capitalism vs socialism, as it is looking at a unique problem (with its own constraints) first then trying to get a solution.

I agree with you that it does not help to reduce a problem to socialist/capitalist slogans. One does generally end up with a lot of sloganeering and little progress. But at the same time, stating the constraints for a problem itself involves a statement of one's worldview. For example, one might say that the large profit margins of pharma companies cannot be tampered with, and should be taken as a constraint, and people who do not see market freedom as sacronsact will disagree. So in the end, it ends up as the same old argument of competing philosophies/worldviews.

It is possible to bring about small changes working inside a system, but to bring about significant changes, it is often important to rethink one's assumptions/constraints (I hope I do not sound like a Marxist revolutionary because I am not :) ) .

A couple of notes:

- As far as I know, there are no markups for (PRODUCT) RED merchandise; merely no discounts. There was an critique I read about American Express's version arguing that you can typically get a card with 2-5% cashback, but the AmEx (RED) card has no cashback and only donates 1-2% to charity (of which they probably get a bunch back as a tax break), and so they're effectively making money on this deal.

The way I see it, though, this campaign is not for people who already donate to charity. It's to reach out to people who do NOT already donate to charity. And if the participating companies actually make money doing this, well, that just provides the incentive for them to continue the program, right? And in the end, the charity does get money, so everyone wins, no?

The only morally ambiguous part of this that I see is if the marketing and profit gain for the company through this program is significantly disproportionate to the amount of money they end up giving to charity.

Can anybody else contribute to the factual question of whether these goods cost extra? If I'm wrong, I'll happily change the post ... Medved could well be wrong, and the NYT may not have fact checked his assertion.

Sakshi:

Constraints exist everywhere. Knowing what you have to work with and understanding the system/'game' is the beginning to maneuvering through/around it successfully. To win or succeed, understanding the rules (I'm using this loosely) is crucial.

So in the end, it ends up as the same old argument of competing philosophies/worldviews.

Everything in life is, but when people with different ideas recognize the pragmatic realities before their own world view, things work better. Lofty ideals are great, so is cool theory. How does that translates into practical and effective solutions is a different world.

How does subsidizing expensive HIV cocktail medication even work when the professionals, government, and support structure doesn't even EXIST to deliver the necessary long term care effectively. That is recongizing a constraint - logistics and human resources. Having cheap medicine won't hurt, but it isn't the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Lack of fundamental development and education is, particularly for healthcare.

I really don't want to get into an argument of the merits of economic systems here. That isn't my intention. It doesn't really matter how the local population is organized in terms of healthcare, just that they are organized, educated, and honest. Much of the work needed to be done is over there, not here. A combination of ideas (some capitalist, some social, some religious, etc.) dialed for the particular problem is needed. The dosage of each 'system' competely depends upon the deck of cards you're handed. Being dynamic and flexible is the key here rather than using a shotgun, one size fits all, routine.

Can anybody else contribute to the factual question of whether these goods cost extra? If I'm wrong, I'll happily change the post ... Medved could well be wrong, and the NYT may not have fact checked his assertion.

some of the companies are rebranding existing products (and keeping the prices the same like the i-pod), and other companies are launching new 'limited edition' products (armani, the gap), so there is no historical price point to compare them to. The Gap is donating 50% of the profits to the Global Fund, so that means that yes, they are profiting from the (Red) product launch. So while they can drastically mark up prices to retain profit, marking up the price increases the donation since it's a percentage contribution, rather than a fixed amount going to TGF.

Can anybody else contribute to the factual question of whether these goods cost extra?

my detailed analysis :P tells me yes, the red stuff costs more
regular jeans in various styles (for women) -> $30-$60
the (RED) jean -> $150

Education is FUNdamental. As cold as it sounds, reducing the HIV infection rates is far more important for these societies (sub-saharan Africa, South Africa, Botswana, Eastern Europe, etc). Condoms, clean needles, drugs preventing transmission to children (from infected parents) is critical. ALL of this require LOCAL GOVERNMENTS to be stronger and more educated.

I hear you GujuDude. Education is a fundamental, yes, but I think even before that there needs to be an acknowledgement that AIDS is an epidemic. Some African governments still haven't done this. If the govs don't do it, the health care systems and, I think most importantly, the societies in a cultural sense, will never be able to properly address it. Culturally, it's associated with sexual deviance. Many communities that are completely aware of the fact that their people have AIDS skirt the issue by denying it, calling it by other names or simply shunning those who are actually "out". If The Gap can make a t-shirt that advocates direct action to pressure governments to prioritize AIDS, I might not be so critical.

And this is on a bit of a tangent, but previous educational campaigns have had serious ethical responsibility issues. These include implementing programs that are more about population control than health care (all the condoms and sterilization options in the world but very little culturally sensitive sex education or relief for the actual affliction); the [further] disempowerment of women of the Third World in both the public and private spheres (by shifting the responisibility of communal health from corporations, govs, patriarchy and misogyny onto the women themselves - blaming the victim); and proselytizing (white Jesus?), among other things... Just saying we should be wary of these things as we promote education.

sumiti:

First of all, in terms of the percentage of Gap profits (or any fundraising for that matter) actually reaching villages in Africa... it will never be 100%!... simply due to practical reasons. No matter what the organization that is fundraising or which organization it is going to. Let’s assume that 100% of the proceeds are donated to a NGO in Africa (let's assume it's legit and non-corrupt), some of the money will be used for administrative purposes... as a necessity. Printing posters to let people know of clinic sites/timings to get free testing and meds... making billboards or highly visible banners, for example. These are simple things that are required on site... but they will cost money. So to immediately dismiss any charities/ fundraisers is a little naïve. Some will be worse than others in terms of overhead charges (money that does come out of donations), but it will almost never be avoided.

I understand the point about administrative costs and the costs of awareness campaigns. I also understand that some companies and NGOs come pretty close to what they're cracked up to be. But The Gap is not one of them, even if they "raise awareness". I see the difference between a good and bad institution being a matter of size, business ethics and national base (I believe you also indicated something to this effect). None of those considerations put The Gap in a favorable light; hence, when I see this particular campaign, TheBullshitRadar goes off.

Fully understanding that they will both have to attend to administrative fees, if I had to choose between The Gap and a local NGO that is aiming for the same kind of awareness, I'm going to choose the local NGO. It's not a sexy answer, but I think that if people really want to make the right decision about supporting a certain institution's campaign, then they'll have to do some pretty thorough research on their own. And that's the problem.

i completely agree with ToastyKen. this campaign is for the people that don't donate to charities, whatever their reasons may be. this is for the college age kids that are so wrapped up in their classes and social lives that they don't think about life outside their own; the soccer moms so busy trying to schedule their kids' lives and their own, etc. they see some cool looking shirts and gadgets on oprah or on a billboard, go into the store and buy one. and i think that a good amount will read the little blurb on a t-shirt's tag, or visit the red campaign's website.

mr kobayashi, i don't know if i would compare this to colonialism. i'll agree that the red campaign may not financially be the most effective way to get money from people to medicines/treatments in africa. but it's getting money from people that aren't traditionally involved in charity, along with people already interested in the cause, and it's bringing exposure on a hollywood level. as a teenager not too long ago, i remember whose messages were heard and listened to by my peers and whose weren't in the world. bono is being smart and savvy by knowing how to reach the masses. that said, i may not bash this campaign and actually have a lot of praise for it, but i completely understand where you're coming from and i think that people like bono would wish that everyone could think like that, but understands that they don't and therefore the red campaign.

Summary of what I've learned today

Gap and the pharamceutical companies are bad.

Education is FUNdamental (not to be confused with the artist Fun-Da-Mental).

Withdrawing in disgust is not the same as apathy. Keep pushing the boulder up the hill, eh Mr K?

Bad bullfighters get Go(Red).

I think I am too ti(red) to carefully follow this thread. But that Penelope is no Aishwarya.

Keep pushing the boulder up the hill, eh Mr K?

Mr. K just doesn't like to see Big Pharma dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix.

Can anybody else contribute to the factual question of whether these goods cost extra? If I'm wrong, I'll happily change the post ... Medved could well be wrong, and the NYT may not have fact checked his assertion.

Coming from a PD & QC background I absolutely refuse to believe that these products cost more. I went thru all the Red product at the Gap over the weekend and I'm just not convinced it's better made or made of better fabric.

Mr. K, you are right on.

"What I've been talking about is corporate heart-string-tugging strategies."

Yea, there's even a term for it: Cause-related marketing. Consumers feel virtous, companies rake in the moolah.

i haven't read all of the comments..but this month is also the pink month promoting breast cancer awareness.. from campbells soup cans turned pink to delta airlines painting a plane pink and serving pink lemonade on their flights...being a cancer doctor i get excited about companies promoting awareness and such... however, a great eye opening news piece last week on abc news put's it all into perspective in which i think this (red) campaign gap is trying to promote is in truth going to go to...the bottom line of business is to make a buck..

yes it will maybe promote awareness..but as others above have said before.. it will cause the consumer to buy something to appease their conscience...

from that news piece:

In 2004, 3M, the company that makes Post-it Notes, budgeted $500,000 to unveil its pink campaign by hanging what it touted to be the world's largest pink ribbon in New York's Times Square.

The campaign definitely captured publicity and profits. By mid October, the company's sales had reportedly exceeded expectations by 80 percent.

"These pink ribbon campaigns often mean much more to the corporate bottom line than they do to people living with breast cancer," said Barbara Brenner, the executive director of Breast Cancer Action, a national organization committed to helping those living with the disease.

campbells soup cans:

The soupmaker expects to donate $250,000 from its campaign to the cause, which is roughly 3œ cents per pink can sold.

yoplait yogurt:

Yoplait is repeating its program, which encourages customers to mail back yogurt lids to help the cause, and will donate 10 cents to breast cancer causes for every lid received. But advocates point out you would have to eat three cups of yogurt a day for four months just to raise $36 to fight breast cancer

in the end.. it's a little deceiving...when a lot of people (including myself) go bright eyed and bushy tailed into trying to buy pink products or other things to help a cause...

who is right who is wrong? dunno...
it's just being aware of the bigger picture..
as coffee scoop said above.. it's cause related marketing...and in the end... cha ching... companies win.... ding ding ding!

Chickie thanx for posting it. I'm watching "Why I wore Red Lipstick to my Mastactomy" on Lifetime right now. I'm distributing the pink bands to the whole department tomorrow. For nothing but a reminder to get tested and to be aware.

The chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in a woman's life is about 1 in 8 (13% of women). It is estimated that in 2006 about 212,920 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States. At this time there are slightly over 2 million breast cancer survivors in the United States. Women living in North America have the highest rate of breast cancer in the world.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer. The chance that breast cancer will be responsible for a woman’s death is about 1 in 33 (3%). In 2006, about 40,970 women and 460 men will die from breast cancer in the United States.

Ennis said:

Can anybody else contribute to the factual question of whether these goods cost extra?

Janeofalltrades replied:

Coming from a PD & QC background I absolutely refuse to believe that these products cost more. I went thru all the Red product at the Gap over the weekend and I'm just not convinced it's better made or made of better fabric.

Jane, by "cost", I think Ennis meant "price", or cost to the customer, not cost to the merchant. I don't know about the Gap case, but my understanding is that the iPod is priced the same as other iPod nanos, and the AmEx card is just a normal credit card.

Mr Kobayashi, without large profits drug companies would have no incentive to help develop new therapies or channel billions of dollars into research...

It should be obvious that charging a lot of money in Africa is not going to help new research in drugs. Drug companies develop drugs for diseases of rich people and rich societies. No American drug company would develop a drug for a disease that exists only in Africa. Americans get the benefits from these drugs first and the American markets sustains the R&D that these companies do. Future research can be funded just from this. With Africans there are ONLY two options. Sell it to them cheap and help them live or price it high and deny them the drugs. This does not follow the usual supply-demand curves. Above a certain price, the demand just does to zero. They simply cannot afford it even if it means dying.

I went to an Economics class (not my major) to find out more specifically about this kind of thing. And guess what I found out - monopolies actually maximize their profit by selling their products cheap in other markets. So it's better for the companies as well if they can make AIDS drugs available as cheaply as they can in Africa. But the political pressures are huge. If others pay less than Americans for the same drugs , it looks terrible for the company. I hate it when Democrats work to force these companies to have similar prices in different countries "so our seniors don't have to pay more drugs..."

"Something is better than nothing," .... the real something that needs to be done will perpetually remain undone.

....and the real something that needs to be done will never be done.

interesting article in today's NYT about AIDS drugs and them unmasking a hidden leprosy infection...

Kurma, my understanding about the differential pricing issue is that the drug companies are afraid that if they sell it cheap in Africa, that will create a huge gray market for re-imports. This is already an issue with Americans buying cheaper drugs from Canada. Now, most drugs in this country are bought by insurance companies anyway, so it's arguable how big an impact this would really have, but it's not as simple as "just charge different prices".

Toastyken, I didn't say it's simple. The solution would be to not allow reimportation and not to try and equalize prices. Just imagine the headlines though. **Greedy drug companies imprison poor US seniors so they can corner Africa market**. Politicians are never going to let that happen. It's much much better for them to have millions die in Africa than to have a few US citizens go through hardship for drugs. In other words - I can help you, but only if it means I don't have to face the slightest discomfort.

There is lack of political will on the matter of enforcing a ban on reimportation.

Does anyone remember that Killian's used the "DESI(RED)" phrase in their billboard campaigns? They had these up about a year ago... I'm thinking plagiarism on Gap's part.

My God, 75 comments and nobody has done any research on Project (RED)--yet here you all are criticizing this "charity." The people involved with Project (RED) never said anything about being a charity. (RED) is a business model. It's a way of simply getting medicine to the people who need it but can't afford it. If two products of equal quality, price, etc. exist and one is a (RED) product, people will generally be more inclined to purchase the (RED) product. End of story. And (RED) products are of the same price, quality, etc. as other products. I don't know who gets brand-new jeans for under the $100-$200 range anywhere. Bono, Oprah, etc. know that this model takes complete advantage of capitalism, but that's why it will work. Yes, most companies are only giving the 1-2% of their profits, but GAP is giving 50 percent. Yet you all choose to bash the GAP? And while 50 percent is not a lot on a single purchase, after a while it adds up. It adds up from the other companies too. Before long, some people in Africa will get the pills they need.
Do your research before you come out here with fists waving. I thought America had learned that by now.

thanks for the comment mfunnierthanyou...

more on project red... and they even have a blog.

(this is aside from the thread) - there is another 'charity' initiative called Goodtree... its a combination of the Google, Yahoo, MSN, and AskJeeves search engines... everytime you use it some money goes to charities and you can choose which one(s). without debating how much of it actually goes to people and helps them... we can give it a try, we have nothing to lose.

if you go to the hyperlink, i think u can join on your own, but if you need an invite for it, drop me an email and i can send you one.

Can anybody else contribute to the factual question of whether these goods cost extra?

regular jeans in various styles (for women) -> $30-$60 the (RED) jean -> $150

that's what found from the gap.com website ... i don't know if the products are of equal quality, but the price difference is pretty staggering

I don't know who gets brand-new jeans for under the $100-$200 range anywhere.

pretentious, much?

Okay, I admit the jean comment was pretty lame. But everybody knows that when a new pair of jeans first comes out, they're usually really expensive. I stand by the rest of what I said.

The campaign has spent $100M on ads for Bono/Penelope Cruz/Turlington but raised just $18M for Africa.