Sucke(red) into Consumerism

You know something is wrong when both Bono and Oprah advocate it. Here you have two individuals with a ridiculous amount of media power actively seeking out new trends and items to consolidate their image on television. Around this time last year, Bono sought out leaders of the economic world in order for them to get behind his Product Red bullshit. The expected result was that people would wear their charity on their sleeves, so to speak, and buy common products branded a little differently, ie. colored red, in order to help promote awareness of AIDS in Africa, amongst other things. The coolest thing about this campaign is how polarized people are. I've brought it up in my cultural studies classes twice now, in two different classes, and both times the whole classroom basically erupted into mayhem, mostly in defense of this noble campaign.

Perhaps I should explain my disdain for Product Red. In and of itself it seems like a sweet idea: you're buying stuff that you'd normally buy and for no increased price, a percentage of the profit goes towards a charity to help out Africa. But, of course, nothing is in and of itself. The frontman for this sham is Bono, later to be helped out by other media darlings such as Oprah or Kate Moss, which immediately should be the first red flag. Sure, there could be an argument for Bono and Co., believing that these people truly want to help others in need and are selfless people, sublimating their own needs for others. If you don't find anything wrong with the previous statement, I'd suggest removing your capitalism goggles and seeing the campaign for what it really is.

First of all, we have the basic drive behind the campaign: essentially, we are goaded into buying a Product Red product simply because it is "charitable." This is where Bono and Co. are very crafty. Take the Red iPod Nano, available in 4GB and 8GB, which sells for the exact same price as a similarly sized iPod, though with this one there's a sense of satisfaction with the purchase. How could anyone really walk into a store, look at the red Nano, look at the blue Nano, realize they're the same price, and take the blue one, knowing full well that the red one contributes a mere 10 dollars to Africa, at no extra cost to you? Unless you have a strong aversion to the color red (read: it clashes with your outfit), there's no real reason to be an asshole. Most of the Product Red items are similar to this: the cost of being nice is not put on the consumer, rather, it's placed on the corporation. Bono is a capitalist genius. Corporations have long taken flak for being mega-jerks, caring only to sign the bottom line with a dollar sign. Yet, now they so gracefully donate some money to Africa. Super.

Bono and Co. have totally made charitable consumerism fashionable. Just take a look at items being offered in Red: Gap clothing, Armani sunglasses, iPods, American Express Cards, Converse shoes... the list drags on. These are not really products that put functionality over form; there's a reason full-sized iPods aren't offered in Red - Nanos, sunglasses, and trendy clothing are all pieces that define a person's sense of fashion, their social position in the world and their ever elusive "cool" factor. Not only that, but now you're a Humanitarian. Awesome - just like Bono.

There's something almost sickly about offering charity through consumerism. It's kind of excusing consumerism, advertising, and capitalism by going against their foundations; instead of being stereotypically cutthroat and self-indulgent, they get to be a little good for once. It's free advertising for the rest of their line - Product Red has gained a lot of media coverage, which is prime time for these corporations to slip in a few shots of the rest of their wares. But here is exactly where the problem with Product Red lies, even if the above could be excused. Most of these companies are giving a percentage of their profits towards the campaign. How disgusting is that? It's not like these corporations are relying entirely on the sales of Product Red items. They're still selling their regular merchandise right next to it - that's the genius of Product Red - you can "choose." Hell, in the case of Apple, you can't even make the argument that it costs them shelf space - the red Nano is sold directly from Apple, usually through the internet. So, my question is, why don't these corporations, if they survived economically pre-Red, offer 100% of the profit? I understand that they have to pay certain overheads - manufacturing costs, labor, shipping, etc, but after that, the corporation only stands to gain. If, as Bono would love to have you think, Product Red is such and awesome thing, why wouldn't the corporations go all the way? Break even and offer whatever is left to AIDS research. But no, they need to take a percentage of the profit as well! Why? So the fucking CEO can go to Hawaii twice this month?

Whenever I bring up Product Red in my disturbingly cynical classes (which I love), it seems like I'm going way to far with my cynicism. Interestingly enough, it's always the female population of the course that totally lambastes me, using Oprah as a foundation for their counter-argument. I mean, if Oprah says it's charitable, it's gotta be true. This woman holds a tremendous amount of power over women in North America (and I guess any household with satellite television): what she says goes. I'm pretty sure that she could build an army of women in about a week, all toting her O magazine, ready to become better, truer women. The counter-argument always starts out along the lines of "at least they're doing something." Sure, next time you see a homeless person, take out your wallet, make a show of counting your bills, and give him a nickel. If these multi-million corporations are going to do something, it'd better be a lot bigger than anything I could muster up. As a side note, Bono once put forth a plan for industrial countries to set aside 1% of the taxes they collected to help towards third world relief, and then proceeded to move U2 to the Netherlands, where taxes are much lower than Ireland. Awesome. Anyways, back to the mob of angry girls. Most people seem content to throw 10 dollars Africa's way and forget about it forever, only noticing the color red when coordinating their outfit. The most disturbing thing about this whole campaign is that it's only made 18 million dollars so far, despite having spent over 100 million on advertising; perhaps people should shop a little more. I won't lie, I've spent zero dollars on AIDS relief. At least I'm honest about it.