Shopping for charity

Fashion is often associated with greed, materialism, and selfishness. After all, the industry’s focus is on making the individual happy on a purely superficial level. But what if you could do good while shopping?

            Product(RED) was started a few years ago with just that idea in mind. Dedicated to the cause of eliminating AIDS in Africa, Product(RED), according to the group’s website, “is a simple idea that transforms our incredible collective power as consumers into a financial force to help others in need. (RED) is where desire meets virtue.”

            (RED) products cost the same as similar products, but a percentage of the proceeds are donated directly to the Global Fund, an organization established in 2002 with the support of former UN secretary Kofi Annan to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. For example, a (RED) Apple iPod costs the same as a regular iPod, but part of the profit is donated to Global Fund’s campaign when a consumer purchases the (RED) version of the iPod.

            Since the Product(RED) campaign began, eight companies and one product have signed on: American Express, Apple, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, Gap, Hallmark, Starbucks, and Windows Vista. Each contributes a different percentage of profits, with contributions ranging from 1% to 50%.

            I like the idea behind the (RED) campaign because it helps shoppers to make a difference by buying a product they would have bought anyway, in addition to raising awareness about the continuing AIDS epidemic in Africa. If more large companies followed the same model, they could make a major difference financially while probably generating some positive PR about their product as well.

            I always have wondered, however, just how effective Product(RED) is at raising money for their effort – in other words, does it actually make an impact at the level that such major companies should be able to create, or is it mostly a way of making the consumer feel good about himself or herself while hauling in larger profits?

            Critics have charged that not a lot of money is contributed to the Global Fund proportional to the amount of money spent on advertising for the campaign, others argue that the allocation of the money is not transparent enough, and still others charge that (RED)’s focus on AIDS treatment means that a lot of money will end up in the hands of pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, the Product(RED) website claims that every penny goes directly to the Global Fund.

            Whether or not Product(RED) is a completely transparent process, I think it is a great start. Campaigns like (RED) remind shoppers that there are people who have it much worse than we do – and hopefully will inspire us to contribute the money that we were going to spend on a new handbag to charity instead, every once in awhile.