There are 1 announcements, 6 topics, 57 posts, 25 voices
Congratulations everyone, we’ve already managed to raise more money than the RED Campaign.
Since the RED Campaign has spent at least $40 million more in marketing than it has raised in proceeds coming from the sale of RED Products, they’re $40 million in the hole.
Meanwhile, as of right now we’ve raised $796, pretty good by comparison.
So according to my calculator, it looks like we’ve raised $39,999,204.00 more than the RED Campaign.
Excellent work!
You’re all completely ignorant. Why would you waste your time? If you honestly feel he’s not doing the right thing, do something yourself without criticizing. In all honesty, it’s people like you that judge, judge, and judge some more.
Be who you want to be, without having to tear strips off of someone else…it makes you small and ineffective.
By the way, it is actually borderline hilarious that the most recent media you have of him is a video from the 80’s. Way to go guys…
This is coming from the website of the Global Fund:
“(RED) has raised $53,647,276 for Global Fund financed HIV grants in Ghana, Rwanda and Swaziland. (RED) was the 15th largest contributor overall to the Global Fund in 2007.”
That is a higher contribution than most countries!
You can read it here:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/partners/private/
This is probably form end 2007, as you can read this on the (RED) website: "
"(RED) generates more than $100 million
Thanks to your (RED) purchases, our partners’ (PRODUCT) RED contributions to the Global Fund have reached over $60 million. Together with the $42.58 million raised at the (RED) Auction, thanks to Damien Hirst and the artists and buyers, (RED) has now generated more than $100 million for the Global Fund."
So, even if the (RED) Campaign have spent a lot of money on marketing (although I think that will be a lot less than you might think because most celebrities are donating their services for free), none of this money has come from the Global Fund.
If you want to shut up Bono with this action, you’ll have to come up with a lot more that a few hundred or thousand dollars, euros or pounds.
You’re insane, man…
why are you doing this? are you fu**** jealousy
If you REALLY want to do something for help peoples, shut up and work to get some money and build a company that helps people!
Don’t even think about this piece of sh** of “petition” to stop the REAL WORK FOR PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED!!
Study to BE someone…or you’ll be nothing…hey! wait…you’re already NOTHING…
Bono and the other rock stars that are working on these campaigns claim that want to help poor people in Africa. That’s a good intention, but because international aid is a complicated proposition at best, we should be willing to critically evaluate whether these actions are effective and the ways in which they may be accidentally contributing to the problem. Why the knee-jerk reactions? If you think that the Red campaign is so great make some arguments to support it, but you’ve got to take these criticisms into account.
After all there is something a lot more important than a rock star’s reputation as a global philanthropist at stake here. If charity is really going to help people transparecy and a forum for public debate and discussion have to be there too.
Yes Christopher, I agree that charity needs to be scrutinized and held accountable. The knee-jerk reactions (from myself at least) are because this site is not to dedicated to that, or at least not the majority of it.
It’s not a campaign to focus on (Red), it’s not an evaluation of the One Campaign, etc., it’s a campaign to get Bono to retire from public life.
It astounds me that there are people out there that successfully make it through their day, while holding beliefs like the one that Bono does everything he does for publicity.
Do they think he sells more cd’s because of the work he does? Does he need more money? “I know, I’ve already got enough money for the next ten generations of my family, but I think I should spend my time and energy on promoting aid in Africa even though people will make fun of me and question every tiny move I make because they don’t have anything better to do.”
Sites like this remind me of that kid in school that says that everything is too “mainstream” for him – critical just to be critical, making the attempt to form sort of reputation as someone that will never be part of society because he’s just too darn smart and edgy for everyone else.
That’s what I meant in my reply. Stop criticizing someone else and do something yourself if your actual intention is to be helpful and positive. All this sity does is shine light on the fact that this is not at all about that. It’s a child vying for attention. Congratulations on all the hits on your site though….now find something better to do.
One more thing, to Christopher, there are good sites (easily found) that legitimately debate charities like these, without the publicity stunt of raising $1000 to get Bono to retire from public life.
Kim – Thanks for posting and helping to correct the inaccuracies.
I’m writing from (RED) to do the same. This petition is full of misstatements about (RED) that the simplest Google search would uncover. (RED) has raised more than $109 million for the Global Fund in just two years – ALL of this money goes to AIDS programs in Africa, with NO overhead (or advertising money) taken out.
This money is funding AIDS programs in Ghana, Lesotho, Rwanda and Swaziland that have already helped put more than 80,000 people on lifesaving antiretroviral treatment and helped provide 369,000 pregnant women with counseling and services to reduce the risk of mother-to-child-transmission of HIV.
Julie
joinred.com
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion here. It’s an important discussion and I’m glad we’re having it.
I’m glad to see that Julia Cordua, the Vice President for marketing on the RED Campaign has joined our conversation and I hope you’ll continue to discuss with us. Julia, I have to commend the job you’ve done in marketing the RED Campaign. Regardless of how anyone feels about the campaign, you can’t argue that you see RED stuff everywhere.
Perhaps the best marketing move RED has pulled off is averting the public criticism that RED has failed to raise as much money from the sale of RED products as it has spent on marketing. It seems that until the RED celebrity art auction led by Bono this last February, the statistics that were available online were that RED product sales had generated around $60 million towards the Global Fund, while having spent at least $100 million in marketing costs to launch the campaign, and no one really knows how many millions have been spent on marketing since its launch in 2006.
This disparity, combined with the message RED sends to consumers that the most effective way to fight AIDS is to buy the products RED markets, is what generated significant criticism of the RED Campaign.
Now in February Bono threw a celebrity art charity auction. From what I can tell he raised $42.5 million dollars from this auction, which went straight to the Global Fund. I for one applaud this effort, and think this is the kind of thing Bono should be doing. Basically he got various celebrity friends to donate directly towards fighting AIDS. Although I can do without him publicizing the event so much when really only the millionaires in attendance needed to know about it for the auction to raise that money, I don’t have any problem with Bono making direct donations to fight AIDS & getting his friends to do the same.
But you’d have to be blind not to see that this was a bail-out of the RED Campaign. First of all, direct donations from millionaires have nothing to do with what the RED Campaign’s unique fundraising strategy. Why even label the money raised from this auction, if not to balance RED’s books and justify RED’s model in the eyes of its critics. Clearly, associating this auction with the RED Campaign was a PR maneuver designed to silence the critics who rightly pointed out that the marketing costs for RED have far outweighed the proceeds from RED sales.
Let me say that as the organizer of this campaign, it is not a mere stunt. This is a critical issue…if people accept that buying sweat-shop GAP apparel will effectively fight AIDS, or that acquiring a special U2-branded RED iPhone is all one needs to do to feel like they’re a part of the solution, then Bono has set a very dangerous precedent. To me, it seems that his efforts promote his own image more than they manage to achieve in effectively fighting the causes he claims to support.
I would love to find out that I am wrong about Bono, and to be convinced that the RED Campaign has been more than a commercial for RED partner companies, but I’m going to need to see some numbers before I make that leap.
As for the money that RED has sent to Africa, you must weigh that against what RED could have donated if they’d simply sent all the marketing expenses directly to the cause…its clear that they’d have accomplished much more that way. One has to wonder who the RED Campaign is benefiting more….Bono and companies like GAP, Apple and American Express who are able to attract new customers and brand themselves as socially responsible, or the charities that could have received millions more if the marketing expenses had gone directly to them in the first place.
To me the answer is clear…but, Ms. Julia Cordua, Vice President of Marketing of the RED Campaign, I invite you to prove me wrong.
I challenge you to reveal the following statistics to the public:
1. How much total money has been spent on marketing the RED Campaign? We know that $100 million were spent to launch the campaign, but how much has been spent total including the cost of promoting the campaign since launch?
2. How much total money has RED generated from the sales of RED products to date?
In the interest of transparency, and of effectively evaluating whether RED’s model of philanthropy is sustainable, I think it’s only right that you share that information. Certainly you owe it to the people who have bought RED products thinking they were contributing to an effective philanthropy model. If you cannot reveal this information, as you have not to date, one has to wonder what you are hiding.
Thank you, and I sincerely hope we can continue our discussion.
Aaron With
First, I want to state that the $100M figure you mention and the basic premise of your argument about the allocation of corporate marketing dollars are wrong.
(RED) has not spent any money on advertising. (RED) gets the corporations to spend a portion of their EXISTING marketing budgets on promoting (RED) products. In response to the notion of why companies don’t just donate their marketing budgets, the simple fact is that corporations are not in the business of donating marketing budgets. They are in the business of creating products, marketing them and delivering value for their shareholders. (RED) intersects that process and convinces them to channel some of this power to raise funds to buy AIDS medicine for people who otherwise couldn’t afford them. If these companies weren’t advertising (RED) products, they’d be advertising regular products that don’t generate money for the emergency of AIDS in Africa AND they definitely would not be donating those budgets.
The only part of a corporation that is the business of ‘donating’ is generally the corporate foundation. We purposefully do not go through the foundations for this partnership. We engage the business sectors because our goal is to create a sustainable flow of dollars to the fund, not a one-time handout. This goes back to basics of “WHY” (RED) was formed. (RED) was designed to create a SUSTAINABLE flow of private sector dollars to the Global Fund (www.theglobalfund.org). The Global Fund was created in 2002 and designed to be a public/private partnership i.e. to get money from governments and business. However, it is first four years it had raised $50B from government and just $5M from business (by approaching corporate foundations for support). We needed a new way to engage business in helping to address one of the worst healthcare crisis of our times. So, (RED) was created – with the basic concept of engaging business in a way that made good business sense and creating this sustainable flow of dollars for the Global Fund.
As for the money raised, over $60 million has been raised through the sale of (PRODUCT) RED goods and over $40 million was raised through the (RED) Sotheby’s auction. 260 million media impressions were also garnered through the publicity around the (RED) Auction and the fact that it was raising money to buy drugs that cost 40 cents per day for people who can’t afford that amount to stay alive. We are in the business of raising money and awareness and it seems to make sense to do both at the same time when we can. The auction would not have been possible if the (RED) brand did not exist. It was because of the brand awareness and the excitement around it in the marketplace that many of these artists were willing to participate and one of the reasons why there was so much support to produce an event of that magnitude. All of these things work hand in hand and help build momentum that will raise even more money over time. And, as (RED) grows and matures, you will see our model continue to do more new things that surprise and, at the end of the day, raises the most money possible for the Global Fund to help finance AIDS programs in Africa.
At the end of the day, (RED) is just one way for people to get involved. It does not replace charity, volunteerism, government participation and other avenues to help. It is all of these things working together that will help address the greatest social issues of our time – not each thing working separately and in isolation.
You should stop this REALLY don’t you realize you are making a complete fool of yourself. Bono is a man who’s efforts are intended to raise awareness toward the AIDS pandemic in Africa and towards the fact that African people are not victims, they are people that live in a country with a lot of unexploited potencial. Have you ever been to Africa?? I guess not… It’s sad to see people like you that definitively have absolutely NO life …. If you are concered about the people in Africa stop paying so much attention to Bono and do something for them!! If I were you I would be ashamed to show my face in public because with stupid causes like this one you just make a complete fool out yourself.
By tha way I guess Bono is loosing his sleep over your cause jajajajajajajajaja.
I find it hard to believe that no additional dollars were spent to market RED than would have been spent otherwise. In 2006, the year of RED’s launch, GAP alone spent $91 million more than they had the previous year on marketing expenses. How much of this was associated with RED’s launch? How much more did the other companies spend than they would have? Only RED has the power to make this information public and give consumers the knowledge they need to decide if RED is an effective philanthropy model that they wish to support. But you have continued to conceal that information, shirking the issue once again by saying the marketing expenses are irrelevant. I’d argue they are essential. The $100 million expense I quoted can be found in many articles online, (such as this one ) , but its true that this quote is an estimate. Some estimate it to be much higher, but only RED has the ability to make that information known. The question remains….why don’t you? I remain unsatisfied by your response and reiterate my challenge to RED to release its marketing expenses. If you wish to qualify those expenses by showing how many of those marketing dollars would have been spent by these same corporations with our without RED, you should….but in GAPs case it seems clear that there was a substantial marketing increase exactly timed with the RED launch.
I also contest the premise that the only way to engage corporations to increase their giving to the Global Fund is through RED’s model. In fact, Chevron just made a $30 million donation to the Global Fund this year. If just one company is able to contribute half of what RED has accomplished, without any marketing expenditures, imagine how much more could be raised for the Global Fund if all the RED partner companies did the same.
Moreover, it looks like none of the RED parter companies are exemplary performers in terms of the percentage of their overall profits that they donate to charities. All donate 1.1% of earnings or less, but are perhaps perceived by many consumers as leaders in corporate giving because of their association with the RED campaign and the heavy marketing done to brand these companies as socially responsible. This measure is much more significant the total RED sales proceeds a company many generate, but it is far from the only measure consumers need to be aware of when deciding which companies are responsible enough to warrant their patronage. We need to be dynamic in our assessment of corporate social responsibility, factoring in company’s giving percentages but prioritizing the sustainability of their business model, ensuring that the products we buy are made with fair labor standards that are environmentally sustainable.
RED claims to have a unique way to encourage corporate social responsibility, by giving financial incentive to companies to brand themselves that way. Has RED accomplished greater corporate responsibility, or rather a more effective branding strategy to appeal to consumers who want to do good? I think a strong case can be made for the latter. Not only are RED partner companies are not the most exemplary givers, but they under-perform on many other social and environmental fronts. GAP, for example, has a long and notorious relationship with sweatshops . If we’re going to increase consumer awareness around socially and environmentally responsible businesses, lets promote those companies that perform the best in those categories. What RED has effectively done is to allow companies that are not particularly responsible to buy a socially-responsible image.
You stated that RED ‘does not replace charity, volunteerism, government participation and other avenues to help.’ I’m concerned that this may not be accurate. Surely, there are many RED customers with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. But I fear that there is a strong possibility that many RED product buyers will feel like they’ve done their part once they’ve bought RED products. Indeed, this seems to be the message from RED’s own marketing campaigns, such as Dell’s RED laptop ad, where the RED laptop owner is celebrated by everyone he greets in the city, admired for having saved lives, he even gets a kiss from a random beautiful woman. What more does this hero need to do to be a responsible consumer? Apparently nothing. And even if not every RED customer believes that they’ve done their part after they buy their RED products, those who do end up convincing themselves of this, with the help of RED’s ads cheering them along, are potential consumer activists lost to RED’s misleading marketing. And right now, to confront today’s critical problems not limited to AIDS but including workers’ rights, global warming, etc., we need a new army of well-educated consumers supporting the most progressive and sustainable business practices available.
Finally, to return to the issue of RED’s failure to be transparent about the effectiveness of its model, readers of this discussion should know that many months ago, Ben Davis of the Buy (Less) Crap coalition , who shares many of my criticisms of the RED campaign, issued a similar and more comprehensive challenge in a letter to RED CEO Bobby Shriver, and has received no response. I have only recently discovered Ben’s letter, but I believe it addresses my primary concerns with RED even better than my initial challenge to Ms. Cordua did. Mr. Davis’s challenge on RED were:
1) RED and its partners provide administrative transparency. Let consumers know exactly what has been spent, by whom, and on what. Just as non-profits must provide administrative accountings of how they spend our donations, let RED and its corporate partners be proud of their accomplishments and disclose the figures publicly. This will genuinely answer questions and address consumer concerns.
2) Adopt reformed contribution models that make clear how much money goes to The Global Fund with each purchase—replacing the current models that do not. Consumers require the confidence of knowing exactly how much money goes to charity with each purchase. Remove all doubt and include this information right on the price tag.
3) Make it possible and easy to donate to The Global Fund directly—without requiring a purchase—via clear web links and by installing informational kiosks and/or clearly marked ways to give at check-out counters in retail locations. Doing this would eliminate consumer confusion and cynicism about RED partners and their contributions. And, the links and kiosks would increase awareness about the African AIDS crisis and create a new and valuable stream of money to help save lives.
My initial challenge specifically pertains to the first point, but all of these are excellent ideas. RED can spin the PR wheels as much as it likes and convince many an uncritical mind that it is accomplishing something, but until RED can be transparent about the marketing expenses of its partner companies vs proceeds generated, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate model.
I think RED is justified because it does grab the attention of those not involved with the crisis of AIDS like teenagers who may first be introduced to social justice in a local Gap. For them, it may be the first time they realize that the majority of the world does not live a cushioned life. No, it is not the ideal way to give but it is a way to give and it provides a stepping stone for those not involved. It is also justified because, AIDS in Africa is a crisis and while Africa certainly has the means as a continent to provide for itself, it is still stricken with debt to the West and inner-turmoil. This crisis is the heart of Bono. He constantly tells do-gooders that this is an emergency and not just philanthropy or a “cause.” Sometimes in a crisis, decisions are made that are the best at the time but don’t necessarily yield the maximum benefits. While RED may fall under that category, that doesn’t mean it should not have been initiated. When someone’s drowning, you don’t find the best life raft before jumping in, you grab the closest next to you and go.
So what if Bono promotes himself? Bono is a brand, an icon, a pop image of what? Rock? Yes. But more than that, he is the image of helping helpless people. Supporting that image is to support what he stands for. If Bono promotes himself, he is promoting his brand—all of his beliefs and ideals about religion, politics, and social justice.
Sure, he’s rich, but how many times do I hear good people wish they were rich so they could do what?—be more mobile to help those in need and have something to give. Bono has taken his riches and done even more than that. He has taught others how to give and given them multiple ways to do it. Sure giving straight to a need is the best way and sometimes skipping the organizations is even better but we don’t have that luxury as individuals thousands of miles away unless we give our lives to Africa, move there, and do something.
So he’s self-righteous? So what? Who doesn’t at one time or another act self-righteously? Does that mean that you do not support those who are genuinely trying to do good? Bono represents honesty with what he has. He often talks of his need to be better, more righteous. legitimately righteous. I’m sure he’d be the first to acknowledge some self-righteousness in his life. I look at people who are giving in the right way and give to their “cause” anyway though they may be all about how “good” they are. If that is a criteria to stop giving then, let all giving cease because all philanthropists are somewhat self-righteous.
RED is a bridge—a stepping stone. It gets people thinking about others when they are naturally thinking of themselves (in a mall) and I am sure that right now Bono is looking at ways it could be better.
Thank Jesus for Bono—that saint in unusual clothing.
I think Ms Cordua really clarified the issue when she wrote: “corporations are not in the business of donating marketing budgets. They are in the business of creating products, marketing them and delivering value for their shareholders.”
Companies have been doing the same thing (allowing for some differences in the organizational details) for hundreds years. And it was in pursuit of these values – profit-making, markets, and cheap raw materials – that Britain, France, and Germany carved up Africa in the late 19th century, devastated indigenous forms of social organization, and integrated the continent into their economies in a subordinate and dependent position.
African countries occupy basically the same position in the world economy to this day, and many a corporation continues to “deliver value to its shareholders” by exploiting African workers and extracting low prices from African commodity producers (with a big assist from the IMF). The crisis in Africa is complex, but at its base is this continuing subordination to Western corporations.
The “Red” companies are a bit different tho – after all, the workers they exploit to “deliver value to their shareholders” are mostly found in Asia, the lucky beneficiaries of the sweatshop miracle. What is the utility of philanthropy to their reason for existence – making more money and delivering it to rich people?
The utility is precisely to set yet another layer of mystification before the public, in order to obscure the source of the problems they claim to be ameliorating. It is, after all, the “delivery of value to shareholders” that has driven Western economic elites and governments to create and zealously defend this global system of radical inequality, which produces both sweatshops and horrific health crises. The logic of the “Red” campaign is induce complacency amongst consumers – having bought “Red” products, they are satisfied that the sweatshop companies are socially responsible, they believe they have done their part as well, and the cycle of accumulation and inequality can begin anew.
Your campaign and approach are quite sad.
I suspect your “distaste” with Bono’s public persona stems more from dislike of the man’s personal characteristics than from genuine disagreement with the social causes he promotes. Is his ego enormous? Yes. Is he self-promoting? Yes. Is he voluntarily grossly overexposed? Yes. Trust me, those are burdens die-hard U2 fans such as myself have been forced to tolerate for years.
However, based upon your posts, it is obvious to me that in reality, you know very little about Bono’s causes or the work he has done both within and without U2 over the years. You talk about a video that you have “heard” was projected as a backdrop at concerts you have apparently never been to and ignore the broader context of those displays and the songs they accompany. You base your view of Bono’s “condescending” attitude towards Africa on a single, out-of-context lyric from a song by a celebrity ensemble produced 25 YEARS AGO when Bono was 23 years old, and written by someone else. You justify that statement by flippantly stating in a later post that Bono and Bob Geldof are basically “partners in philanthropy”- a blanket statement which belittles any individual effort either man has made over the years.
Hate Bono and/or U2 all you want. You have every right to do so. But please learn a little more about the man before starting some asinine campaign to eradicate his involvement in a cause in which MORE public awareness is necessary. Don’t you get it? The $40 million is a drop in the bucket and relatively meaningless as far as solving worldwide issues. It is the AWARENESS that RED breeds through global material marketing that is the real goal. I am embarrassed to live in a society where young people worship Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, 50 Cent, etc. Those teens & tweens could not even tell you where Africa is on a map, never mind have knowledge of broader social issues facing third-world countries. If anything we need more celebrities like Bono. God help us if BONO is the type of celebrity people like you are trying to erase from public life.
In any event, I would encourage you to track down on youtube video of the speech Bono customarily gave prior to U2 performing “One” on the 2005 Vertigo tour. Perhaps you will learn something.
Hello everyone,
Thanks to Dave, Julia, Ryan, Chris & Jake for the variety of productive comments.
First to Dave…responding to a few of your points:
—That the $40 means very little and that its the awareness RED has created that matters.
-That they could have brought $40 million more via direct contribution is significant, but you’re right it’s not the main point here, indeed it’s what RED stands for and what it achieves in terms of consumer awareness and responsibility that will be its legacy. I care very much about that side of the RED campaign, except that from my perspective RED is creating a false awareness that misleads consumers. As Jake so aptly put it: “The logic of the “Red” campaign is induce complacency amongst consumers – having bought “Red” products, they are satisfied that the sweatshop companies are socially responsible, they believe they have done their part as well.”
—-That Do They Know It’s Christmas" is irrelevant because it was 25 years ago.
-Well, they’re "still doing that song today . If Bono can be let off the hook for being 23 in 1984, we should be able to at least debate the value of his repeating self-righteous line of “well tonight thank God it’s them instead of you” in the BAND AID 20 version. That video by the way, as I previously mentioned, has a classic “starving, disempowered Africa” moment in it when all the rock stars look seriously and somberly at the TV screen & watch the starving children.
—-As for Bono’s inspiring ONE speech…
-We haven’t really gotten into the whole Make Poverty History issue at all, admittedly I’m much less familiar with that campaign than I am with RED, but I know that there are a lot of problems with it. I implore people to read this article which points out how a well-intentioned MPH movement which initially had good participation from a variety of NGOs had their mission obscured by the involvement of celebrity philanthropists and UK officials. It provides examples of some of grassroots organizations and leaders in Africa who were disillusioned by how MPH more and more began to mimic UK foreign policy, and how Oxfam and other NGOs were too dependent on funding from UK gov’t to hold their ground and push for the initiatives that MPH had originally been founded on. There is a great quote about the whole Africa imagery thing I’ve been discussing throughout this campaign that more aptly summarizes it, criticizing the “inaccurate portrayal of Africa as a continent-come-country ravaged by natural disasters and warring tribes” without mentions of “the roles of colonialism, IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes and Western corporations.” Would be interested to hear people’s reaction to this article.
Second to Julia Cordua…we’d still love to hear back from the RED campaign since I last issued you a number of important challenges to you and to RED to clarify RED’s marketing expenses.
And finally, to the other Bono praising commenters in this thread who’ve engaged in an angrier tone, thanks for your participation here but you contribute very little when your comments are more anger filled then reasonable points of debate. Please read and respond to the points involved in this debate before you leave emotional comments. Don’t just say “Bono is just trying to do good! Why are you doing this? You are an expletive!” because you’re not helping your case and I’ve provided plenty of documentation, links and comments as to why I think publicly criticizing the RED Campaign is imperative to consumer awareness. Comments that contest the anti-RED criticisms would be helpful to clarify whether Bono’s philanthropy is effective or not, but blind allegiance to Bono without considering the points here just makes it harder to have a real dialog.
Do i like Bono,
Is that the question here?
I hope not.
Personally i find U2 and Bono boring, and not important in too music world at all, i don’t think they ever came up with anything that hasn’t been done before.
My opinion only.
Is my opinion important? proberly not.
The question about Bono’s imput in aid for africa in there fight against aids is the question, so a least stick to that.
His profile lifts awarenes, no doubt there.
His profile raises funds, no doubt there.
Doe’s his profile raise new funds is the question?
And where they go is the other question?
And can we be sure though’s fund’s arn’t being taken from another cause just as important?
The problem that i see is the same problem i see everywere.
A celebrity makes a statment about lung cancer, fans of that celebrity are moved by there call for help! they give readilly to that cause, they feel good about themselves and there chosen celebrity.
Where do though’s funds go? does that fan even stop to think about were they go?or do they care?
If all the cancer charities around the world got together and shared there findings, and there funds, wouldn’t that be a world to live in?
But they don’t.
They don’t share there results, why? money i suppose.
If all the governments around the world got together and put all there aid into one basket, run idependently of all world governments, there would be plenty of money to go round,
but they don’t.
How many African charities are there,
How efficient are they,
and can each and every one of though’s charities justifie there bieing there.
Knowing where my money is going, is the question i want answered, before i give money to any of them.
Bono isn;tt all important, Sting did the same thing with Natives from the Amazon,,
In that case the adverse publicity dispelled the saying, all publicity is good publicity. Sting suffured fron bad press for a couple of years, if Bono has half the talent he will survive bad press. The fact they are willing to put themselves out there is important.
But does it help Africa???
I’m not shure
“Thanks to Dave, Julia, Ryan, Chris & Jake for the variety of productive comments.”
Well thank you Aaron, for responding and behaving exactly how I thought you might. Your big “challenges” to RED, your long expositions on how everyone is doing everything wrong. Perfect.
Let me just ask YOU one more thing – issue you a challenge – and see if you’ll respond. If this “discussion” is so needed, and so important, what are you thinking will come of it? Answer me directly, in as few sentences as possible…..HOW WILL THIS HELP THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT??
Tell me that. Please. And please don’t spin it, or go on and on. Tell me how you spending your energy on this will help the people that need it.
I am curious who you are trying to impress, and why.
This is all very curious. Your contention that Bono’s work is counter-productive and self-righteous is…well, self-righteous. Bono’s actions certainly deserve critical analysis, but to engage in a charitable campaign based solely on such negativity is bizarre, especially as your chosen recipient of funds – the Global Fund – has its own history of ineffectiveness and counter-productivity (talk to any AIDS NGO in Swaziland about it). God help us if this site is what international action has been reduced to.
To post a reply,
login
or
create an account.
message