(Red) spend 82% of money raised on advertising

We always knew there was something a little bit dodgy about the (Red) charity. Firstly, anything involving Bono has to be viewed with an innate scepticism. Secondly, any ‘charity’ that has pictures of Elle Macpherson posing with a Masai warrior does seem to be teetering on the edge of the fetishisation of the poor. And thirdly, any organisation with such a cavalier attitude to punctuation is clearly a danger to the very fabric of society. But, being a mild mannered chap, I had been giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I discovered today, however, that of the $100 million that the organisation has spent, 82% of it went on advertising (leaving a paltry $18 million for fighting HIV/AIDS). This is clearly not the impression that had been given to consumers and I’m sure that many of them are now feeling decidedly short-changed.

But hold on a minute. Surely (Red) will at this point throw up their hands, plead guilty, and promise to do better in future? Not a bit of it. Allow me to hand the mike over to Bobby Shriver, CEO of (Red):

“…because (RED) is explicitly NOT a charity, we encourage our partners to go about their business including their marketing. This sells the products; the products generate the $25 million. In addition, this marketing would have been spent anyway, on other product lines. It never would have been (nor will it ever be) given to the Global Fund.”

So basically, “we don’t make that much money for charitable causes, but at least we’re not spending quite as much money as before on corporate hospitality and cocaine”.

Well, thanks. All just goes to show, Bono is an evil and misleading bastard. Always has been. And I suspect I’m not alone in thinking this… http://www.myspace.com/bonomustdie

…

Incidentally, the American Express (Red) credit card is also pretty nifty, in that those nice folk at Amex make more money out of it than they do out of their normal credit card, whilst at the same time appearing to be concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDS. It’s a marketers wet dream, but in decidedly dodgy ethical waters.