Red isn't, well in the red

Being cynical is easy. It's easy to look at something someone else has done and find fault with their motives. I'm not talking about constructive criticism that focuses on improvement but the kind of cynacism that questions someone's motives.

I'm having a problem with the criticism of the Red campaign, especially after reading about it in AdRants and in Advertising Age.

My first problem is with the math. AdRants says, "It seems it took up to an estimated $100 million to bring in $18 million for the charity effort. Not exactly the best ROI for a campaign of any kind."  That's not really the right calculation for ROI. It should be based on the revenue of the products sold,  not the donation to the charity. The marketers of red goods participated in order to raise money AND sell products.

Which brings me to my second point. The article seems to imply that it would be better for people to just donate directly to the charity. True, however, they could have done that for the last three decades. Relief fund raising for Africa is nothing new. The $18M that was raised (so far) was $18M that may not have gone to relief without the campaign. In addition, the campaign was also about awareness. In deciding to purchase Red products, consumers learned more about the problem of AIDS in Africa.

Sure, people could have just donated directly. The problem is, though, we've become too accustomed to seeing starving children or people in pain living in horrid conditions. It takes celebrities and more stuff to get our attention. It's just the way it is. AIDS relief in Africa can't wait. The Red campaign is  using pop culture to make a difference now.

You can see a response to the articles here.

- Paul Herring