Project (RED) and the Bonoization of the Protest Movement

[biff]

Here's an interesting article from yesterday's National Post:


Kleinification V. Bonoization
Poverty activism: brickbats or $28 T-shirts?
by Greg Beato, National Post

Published: Saturday, November 10, 2007

LOS ANGELES -Project (RED), Bono's attempt to end AIDS in Africa via an orgy of sexy, self-aggrandizing consumption, celebrated its one-year anniversary in the U.S. last month, and it's been a resounding success. With partners like the Gap, Converse, Emporio Armani, Apple and Hallmark selling everything from (RED)-branded perfume that boasts a "delicate and carnal breath" to (RED)-branded greeting cards that play Marvin Gaye's Let's Get It On when you open them, the project has generated $45-million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

It has also generated criticism from old-guard brandinistas like Naomi Klein, who, in the early years of this long decade, helped inspire the War on Relaxed-Fit Khaki Chinos with her No Logo, bestselling critique of corporate hegemons and global capitalism. At a literary festival in England, and in a subsequent conversation with CNN, Klein complained about the "Bonoization" of the protest movement and the way efforts like Project (RED) have both legitimized unfair power structures and undercut efforts at more direct street-level activism, like the WTO protests that took place in Seattle in 1999 and 2000.

But can one really blame whatever diminishing influence today's hardline anti-corporate rebels may be experiencing on the rise of philanthropic consumption? The urge to smash Starbucks windows and the urge to wear $170 Emporio Armani sunglasses are hardly compatible phenomena -- would the people purchasing the latter really be eager to help Klein menace billionaires with giant papier-mache puppet heads at the next global summit of the WTO if Project (RED) didn't exist?

In the same way that Gap Inc. targets different segments of the market with the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic, the social justice movement is diversifying. This is good news for those who'd prefer to riot in the malls instead of the streets, but perhaps even better news for activists like Klein. After all, if you can't capitalize on the spectacle of enlightened First Worlders celebrating their global compassion by donning $28 T-shirts made by AIDS-stricken women toiling in Lesotho garment factories for $5 a day, then you're just not working hard enough.

And imagine the public relations disasters that will result if the companies licensing the Project (RED) brand don't live up to the project's ideals. Back in the good old bad old days, multinationals like Gap Inc. amassed fortunes off sweatshop labour while shrugging off their dependence on it with cool corporate detachment. They didn't employ the workers themselves, they'd carefully explain. They had no control over how their suppliers ran their businesses.

Now, Gap Inc. and others are not only benefiting from low Third World wages, they're literally merchandising Third World misery. The distant, abstract drones who manufacture their products have become their spokesmodels, their brand architects, and the new intimacy that characterizes the relationship between these workers and the companies that participate in Project (RED) makes the latter more vulnerable and policeable than they've ever been before.

Instead of scorning Bono, Klein should send him one of Hallmark's "You make my life 99% more awesomer" Project (RED) greeting cards. If the project's partners act in any way that doesn't co-ordinate well with Project (Red's) rhetoric, she'll be halfway toward her next best-seller. In the meantime, there's that $45-million. While it's substantially less than the $7-to $10-billion the Global Fund says it needs each year to combat AIDS in developing countries, it's $38-million more than the organization managed to collect from the private sector from 2002 to 2006.

Perhaps a pair of rose-tinted Armani sunglasses are required to make the necessary leap of faith, but what if that revenue stream continues to grow? Any dollars that flow into the Global Fund through Project (RED) increase the Global Fund's autonomy from the government benefactors on which it currently relies for the bulk of its funding. Similarly, the more popular Project (RED) grows as a brand independent of any specific product, the less it has to cater to any single corporate partner. Which ultimately means that consumers, not the corporations that license the brand, hold the real key to Project (RED)'s power: The more valuable they make the brand, the more negotiating power Project (RED) will have with potential licensees.

With Project (RED), the millions of people who'd like to see big corporations behave in a more just manner but don't want to throw out the BabyGap with the bath water have a convenient if semi-appalling means to exert their collective might. It's not an approach that pleases everyone, but in the end, dissent has at least one thing in common with button-front cashmere cardigans: It's always nice to have more than one style to choose from.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=094bd3bc-94d4-4e85-82e3-df23546e1d74

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I do believe there's some credibility to the whole notion of "Bonoization" of social justice causes, and there's both good and bad in that.

I may take some flack for this, but I actually agree with a lot of what the article has to say. The most important fact, of course, is that (RED) has raised $45 million, but I can understand criticism of the campaign, too. Buying (RED) products isn't worth nearly as much if consumers don't understand the causes. I've also caught myself wondering more than once over the last year if some of the companies involved have been, as the author suggests, "merchandising Third World misery." How much does the campaign make consumers think things like "Oh, look at Gap doing something charitable. I'm going to go shop at Gap," which is in the long run much better for Gap than Africa.

I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, which I know is what seems to happen a lot of times when conversations about (RED) around here stray from the actual products. It was an article that was critical, but reasonably so. Thanks again for sharing it.

 

[oktobergirl]

First of all, the writer called it "Project RED", not Product RED. Do your research...

There are some good points to the article altho I don't agree with the bulk of it. I'm sure there are regulations in place to prevent The Global Fund from losing government funding if Product Red sales exceed their projected percentage. The Global Fund would not be stupid enough to risk that, and the RED people wouldn't either.

It is thought provoking, however and for that it has some merit. Thanks for posting!

 

[Liesje]

I'd like to see more of an all-or-nothing approach, like what Edun is doing. Not making the same old products and donating a minuscule percentage to the Global Fund, but actually manufacturing "fair trade" products that give people jobs, benefits, and opportunities. I like (RED) b/c I like the idea that you can be socially- and environmentally-minded AND be for-profit and not everything has to be either greedy profits or outright charity. But....I guess I like Edun's model better. People don't want donations and hand-outs, they want JOBS. Spend only 10 minutes in any rural African village and it will be painfully obvious. One of the vibes I picked up while in Africa was that hand-outs sort of unintentionally say "yes, we're better/richer/smarter than you and we know you can't survive without our help so here we are to save you" and that really gets people down. Grassroots programs that provide jobs, opportunities, and education are what is wanted. Also, I like Edun because it operates on a grassroots level. Pumping money into large funds always leaves me a bit skeptical. Distribution is such a huge issue surrounding foreign aid, and also with "funds" comes the need for part of that money to be spent just maintaining the paperwork. I'd rather buy and Edun product and know that someone somewhere has a job with fair pay and safe working conditions than buy a shirt where a few dollars goes into some fund and then lord knows what happens after that...

 

[biff]

I'm sure there are regulations in place to prevent The Global Fund from losing government funding if Product Red sales exceed their projected percentage. The Global Fund would not be stupid enough to risk that, and the RED people wouldn't either.

As I read it, the writer is not saying that the Global Fund would risk losing government funding. Rather, he's saying that if Product (RED)'s contributions continue to increase, then the Global Fund would be less reliant on government funding and all of the political strings that often attach to that funding. He's saying it would be a good thing for the Global Fund to become less dependent on government money and it might be able to do this if (RED)'s contributions continue to increase.

 

[jaynejenjune]

^I agree with you biff..... The article had some points... but I do not agree with it......I don't see any other way that money (from a consumer ..as we all are ) can become readily available for these very important anti-viral drugs ... Thousands of people are dying everyday....The companies involved are very large corporations that can easily market a product to the public .... This may not sit well with a lot of people .. but that is how it is..
The (RED) products are basic items that consumers buy all the time... I don't understand how anyone could be against having a portiion of the money from that product going to a fund that SAVES LIVES!!....
Not everyone has the time to protest and wait for things to change ... The people in Africa surely don't have the time ...
Something had to be done .... Charities are so corrupt that by the time the money actually reaches the cause .. Thousands have already died.. There is no easy answer to any of this ... But I also do not believe that nothing should be done. .. and yes I am sure there are better ways to raise money without invoving these corporations ... but right now we have (RED)...
Of course Bono is a target for criticism... he's out there all the time .. and he knows he is a target... and he doesn't care , because the bottom line is that .. life-saving drugs are purchased from the money .. and people are saved ....I do not think anyone who is in dire need of a drug that will save their or their childrens life would protest .... I personally think that consumers will demand that all major corporations have either have a product (RED) or something similar to it as part of their company. .... I believe ,because of the people involved that every single precaution is taken to insure that the money goes directly to purchase the medicines needed. ...(RED) is for those that can use the power of their dollar to directly help.

 

[vertpomme]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I do believe there's some credibility to the whole notion of "Bonoization" of social justice causes, and there's both good and bad in that.

I may take some flack for this, but I actually agree with a lot of what the article has to say. The most important fact, of course, is that (RED) has raised $45 million, but I can understand criticism of the campaign, too. Buying(RED) products isn't worth nearlyas much if consumers don't understand the causes.

I, like you, am not trying to stir up anything here, but
I agree whole-heartedly with the last part of your
statement that I quoted. I fully expect a hail storm for
what I am about to say, but I feel that there is a need
to say it.

Note to all: I honestly did not mean to make this so
long. I mention my "twin" later on, but I forgot to also
mention my inner professor. I apologize for her
wordiness; she really needs to finish her degree and
write a book already.

How much of what has been done - causes that have been
preached about, products that have been sold in the name of
raising money to fight poverty/deal with AIDS, entire concerts/
tours that have become a platform instead of a rock concert -
actually has an effect on the people who hear, buy, and/or attend
them? I think that perhaps there may be an exception when it comes to
certain fans (PLEBAns included) because I know that there are truly
sincere people in the world still. However, how much of this has been
done - white wristbands worn, (RED) products purchased, names texted
during a show to sign the declaration of human rights (only to have your
name splashed across the marquees of the arena) - because it is popular
to do?

How many people do you know that have done any of the above
actions simply because it was/is "en vogue?" As I said
above, I am sure that there are people who are sincere.
While I know that all of this gets the message out to
the masses, (and maybe this is just the early morning
rant of my pessimistic, sleep-deprived twin) I am afraid
that the message is being lost.

Although it is way too early for me to get philosophical,
the whole article and issue for me is similar to Baudrillard's
Simulacra and Simulation. This is actually something
I have been contemplating for a while now, so please bear with
me. My mind, while grasping the concept, is finding it hard to
explain the actual meaning, so here's the intro to its
Wikipedia entry:

Simulacra and Simulation is most known for its
discussion of images, signs, and how they relate to the present
day. Baudrillard claims that modern society has replaced all reality
and meaning with symbols and signs, and that the human experience is of
a simulation of reality rather than reality itself. The simulacra that
Baudrillard refers to are signs of culture and media that create the
perceived reality.

Again maybe I'm thinking too much, but a very long time
ago I studied this book/treatise inside and out. Basically
this leads to a decay of meaning.

It works like this:
A) There is extreme poverty in the world (namely Africa
since that is the primary focus).
B) Organizations (i.e. DATA & One) decide to take up these
causes and raise money to aid them.
C) Since one of its founders already has the attention of most
of the world (and has always been a fighter/supporter of these issues),
they begin to create a social consciousness about these situations.
D) This leads to ads (remember the One spots on both TV and in print)
and merchandising to raise money for said causes.
E) People with good intentions, people who truly want to aid the causes
that these organizations have brought to light for the rest of the world,
these good people go out and buy a (RED) shirt, they wear a white One
wristband to show support.
F) The next thing you know, EVERYONE is wearing a white wristband
as well as an armful of other colored wristbands for other causes.
It has become a trend.
G) To finally, the annoying kid across the street, the people who
are always "up" on the current trendy things to do/say/drink/wear,
those people start sporting (RED) shirts.

The problem with this is that the people in steps F & G have
absolutely no clue that what they are wearing has meaning.
It is simply just something to be seen doing. The meaning
around these items has "decayed" to the point were there is
no meaning left in them at all.

As for the money thing, I suppose having people that are
completely clueless about an item but still choose to spend
money on it is a bonus. The cause is still funded. But has
anyone really accomplished anything? Next season, will it
still be trendy to wear said Armani sunglasses? How many people
do you see on a daily basis that still wear their One/Live Stong/Not
On Our Watch wristbands? When it is all said and done, will the
causes still be remembered and supported or will they all fade
like a black shirt in the wash?

And, as some have mentioned above my post, it sure does
help Gap, Converse, Emporio Armani, Apple, Hallmark, etc.
put a dollar - or millions and millions of dollars - in
their corporate pockets. Please do not forgot that Product
(RED) is a profit organization (as as opposed to a
non-profit). (Side note: Does anyone know if the actual
for-profit numbers of the Gap (RED) mercandise can be located
or appears in Gap quarterly stock reports? I'd love to see how
much they've made off this.) I'd ideally like to see these
companies donating upwards of 80-90% of the purchase price of
these items towards the cause(s) they are meant to aid.

What it all boils down to is that people simply have to be
aware and give freely to a cause because it is the
right thing to do. They should not expect
anything in return for doing what is humanistic and ethical
in nature. Until that time appears, until someone comes up
with a better system (and I hear you Liesje - I'm all for
fair trade), this is all we have. I appreciate the effort
and what has been contributed to The Global Fund; I just don't
want the meaning to get lost in a sea of red and white logos.

 

[last unicorn]

Do you really think a dying person in Africa cares about where their money for drugs come from?

Linking donations to commerce is a clever idea, it becomes sustainable. It's about getting the people where they are, instead of running after them or waiting for them to be generous enough to donate.

The project was developed to be a win/win situation for everyone involved: consumer, companys and the people getting the money.

I understand that there is critisicm and that there still are problems with a concept like Product (RED), some of which surely could and should be worked on, but overall I think it's a good idea, and it is saving lives.

 

[last unicorn]

Just to add something: I've just been shopping for my lunch break, and for many years now, before christmas, the shelves in our shops are full of articles where, if you buy them, a certain percentage of the money goes to (mostly national, but also other) charities. It's everything from matches to candles to chocolate bars to paper bags. I always buy this stuff. If I have the choice between buying a candle without any money going to charity and the one with the money being donated, I certainly pick the second one.

It's not only an article you buy and take home, it's out there in the public eye, therefore it has the side effect of raising awareness.

If you say only morally flawless people with good intentions should do good things by donating without wanting something in return, only out of sheer compassion, the world will be a very dark place. If buying the charity candle makes me feel better than buying the normal one, I may be not the best person because of the personal satisfaction this act is giving me, but I don't think in the end people's "real" intentions (which you can never figure out anyway) are what matters.

 

[Liesje]

Do you really think a dying person in Africa cares about where their money for drugs come from?

They do. They are people that have a very strong sense of dignity and a sense of purpose. When visiting some rural villages in Tanzania, we met with several people dying of AIDS who actually became healthier when they were given a means to make their own income, presumably because their spirits and morale were lifted once their lives had purpose. One example would be a man we met who had been HIV+ for 12 years. Via the government, he'd always had access to hand-outs and free drugs, but again, distribution was a huge issue there, plus he became very depressed and thought "what's the point? My children still do not eat and drugs only prolong suffering." Then, instead of donating money, a local group gave him a bicycle and a goat and spent some time teaching him how to care for his goat and use it to make his own income. Voila! Peter was happier and healthier than he has been in the past 12 years, not because he was taking hand-outs of drugs and money, but because he was able to support himself.

 

[bonocomet]

I completely understand and agree with you Liesje, there's no doubt about what you just stated, however, if drugs that something like Product RED supplied kept a man (woman or child) alive (for even one more day) until they received that bicycle or goat, isn't that still a good thing?


(and I'm not questioning you or your statement, I completely agree with it, and I know they care. I understand you were answering the previous post. I'm just adding my own thought to it. )

 

[Babydoll]

Yes they do care where it comes from. They care a lot, actually.

 

[Liesje]

I completely understand and agree with you Liesje, there's no doubt about what you just stated, however, if drugs that something like Product RED supplied kept a man (woman or child) alive (for even one more day) until they received that bicycle or goat, isn't that still a good thing?

It's a good thing, but that's not really how it happens. I've only been to/studied Tanzania so I can only really speak for that country (and Babydoll can too I'm sure), but I know there 80% of the population live in rural areas. These areas often do not have running water and electricity. There are not paved roads or lines of communication. IMO, distribution might be THE BIGGEST issue keeping rural sub-Saharan Africa from getting their heads up as far as economic development. Tanzania does not have separation of church and state. They recognize that churches and grassroots orgs do a better job of reaching people, and people are more receptive to them b/c they are actually a part of the community. The government has always given them aid, money, and drugs, but if there's no way to effectively distribute it, it doesn't matter. When we met Peter (the man who had HIV for over 12 years before receiving his goat), I could've given him $100 American cash, but what good would it do him? There's no store to buy food, and if there was, he'd have no way of getting to a store. It took us three hours to get to him by vehicle and he was only a few km from where we were staying.

That's why I'm skeptical of "funds". I need good, solid proof that people are receiving aid that is actually sustainable and that it is more effective than grassroots orgs that help develop community economies on a micro level.

 

[bonocomet]

I just wanted to add another thought. I'm not at all questioning whether the people receiving the drugs bought with Product RED care where they come from. They do. And maybe this thought is off topic, but anyways... Product RED is so named because it was created for the purpose of aiding in an emergency. Just as most people would not turn away the fireman who is willing to go into your burning home to try to save your dying child until you know his background and where he came from.. he is there because he wants to help you through this emergency right now. No one is against the people receiving the drugs becoming self sustainable, (at least I hope not ) but I think the purpose of the person providing the drugs, and the person providing the goat are 2 different things... although both are providing something valuable. And as Liesje mentioned, a person can also choose not to accept that help as well, but if they do choose to accept it, they might be able have their home and their child not be lost that day.


Edit: I see you posted while I was typing... (I'm a slow typer ) sorry!

Ok I read your response.

 

[Liesje]

I do not think Product (RED) is a bad thing, I just think that there are better, more effective ways of going about it. I don't hold consumers accountable, I hold the businesses like Apple and Gap. I feel like (RED) is a pretty half assed way to get involved, from their perspective. Only $10 from the (RED) iPod? Come on!

I like Edun's approach a lot better, it's just a shame people only care about the pop culture, quick fix options like (RED).

 

[achtung_girl]

I need good, solid proof that people are receiving aid that is actually sustainable and that it is more effective than grassroots orgs that help develop community economies on a micro level.

-> micro level ! that' s the point I think! Mohammed Junus won the Nobel Prize for Peace for working on that issue in 2005...

 

[drdre12]

I personally feel that naysayers of Product RED are not looking at the big picture. RED is simply another avenue to help those in need. If RED was the only way those in Africa were getting help, then yes, it is not the best model or way to go about it. But thankfully there are grassroots organizations, churches, other organizations ex EDUN, with Product RED that are all fighting for the same team. One would not beable to help as effectively without the others. It seems that some articles I have read desire to make helping Africa as competition of some sorts which it certinlly isn't.

Most of the money I give to help those in need is given to the church or grassroots organizations. BUT I love I have the option to give a bit more by buying RED wrapping paper to wrap my Christmas presents this year instead of buying it from Wal-Mart.

 

[last unicorn]

I do not think Product (RED) is a bad thing, I just think that there are better, more effective ways of going about it. I don't hold consumers accountable, I hold the businesses like Apple and Gap. I feel like (RED) is a pretty half assed way to get involved, from their perspective. Only $10 from the (RED) iPod? Come on!

I like Edun's approach a lot better, it's just a shame people only care about the pop culture, quick fix options like (RED).

I totally agree with what you are saying here and I hope EDUN can expand much much more ...and I also agree that these companies involved with RED should donate more of the money ... BUT since we live in a consumption orientated world and trademarks like Gap, Motorola and Apple are just hip and attractive to the general public who does not care for companies like Edun (sadly, I have to say), I can totally see where Bono and Co. are coming from. This is not about an elite, but about spreading the word to the people in their everyday lives: and shopping IS a big part of that.

 

[bonocomet]

I think what drdre12 said is what I'm trying to say as well. I agree with Liesje though that the big corporations could do/give a lot more, I wish they would too, but they don't HAVE to give anything. They could easily choose not to be a part of it at all and give nothing. RED can't and isn't meant to solve these problems. Even if a man chooses not to accept that help, or even if he wanted to but can't get to it... it's possible that the man who brings him the goat or helped him learn that new trade was able to do so that day because he received them, or maybe his daughter did, and because she's healthy today, he can spend today helping the other man. It's a very big and difficult puzzle that needs a lot of work, but even if one small piece of it is red, it's helping the pieces around it to connect.

 

[vertpomme]

Just to add something: I've just been shopping for my lunch break, and for many years now, before christmas, the shelves in our shops are full of articles where, if you buy them, a certain percentage of the money goes to (mostly national, but also other) charities. It's everything from matches to candles to chocolate bars to paper bags. I always buy this stuff. If I have the choice between buying a candle without any money going to charity and the one with the money being donated, I certainly pick the second one.

It's not only an article you buy and take home, it's out there in the public eye, therefore it has the side effect of raising awareness.

If you say only morally flawless people with good intentions should do good things by donating without wanting something in return, only out of sheer compassion, the world will be a very dark place. If buying the charity candle makes me feel better than buying the normal one, I may be not the best person because of the personal satisfaction this act is giving me, but I don't think in the end people's "real" intentions (which you can never figure out anyway) are what matters.

If this is directed at what I posted, then you completely missed
the point of my entire argument. And that's okay; I didn't expect
everyone to jump on board with my ideas. I just felt that it was
about time I put it down in a public forum in the hope that at
least my ideas would be heard.

I understand that in a perfect world, charitable giving
wouldn't involve merchandising and slogans. Read
the last part of my statement again. I address that
and the idea of merchandising. I understand that is the
way it works; I just hate that it has to come to that.

Do I want people to stop buying things attached to
charities - NO! I would just prefer the intentions behind
the purchase to always be true and the issues at hand to
not get lost in the packaging. Am I asking for too much?
Probably, but I can dream and have hope for a future
where this is all possible.

 

[Jamila]

I appreciate knowing about this article.

Thanks, biff.

 

[last unicorn]

Do I want people to stop buying things attached to
charities - NO! I would just prefer the intentions behind
the purchase to always be true and the issues at hand to
not get lost in the packaging. Am I asking for too much?
Probably, but I can dream and have hope for a future
where this is all possible.

Yes, I think all of us would prefer that, but it's simply not the world we are living it. What Bono and Co. are doing is a very anti-romantic approach and I think it's more pragmatic than hoping and waiting for really good people with good intentions to come and solve these problems.

 

[vertpomme]

Yes, I think all of us would prefer that, but it's simply not the world we are living it. What Bono and Co. are doing is a very anti-romantic approach and I think it's more pragmatic than hoping and waiting for really good people with good intentions to come and solve these problems.

I added the color to your quote above
because you still don't get the overall
meaning of what I said in my first post.
As I said in my second post, that's okay.
I understand.

I am done discussing this topic, so please
do not respond to this post. If you feel
the need to do so (for whatever reason),
I can be reached via PM. Thanks.

 

[last unicorn]

OK I don't consider myself to be stupid ... I read your post three times, I get your point and see what you mean ... interesting analysis ... I still say making it a trend is a way to bring the issue out into the masses. Connecting the issue to trademarks and commerce can be an effective way to spread the word. It's called meeting the people where they are (= as customers). This is how society functions, like it or not.

btw, the fading of meaning is something that happens in every "protest" movement sooner or later. Do you think everyone running around in a Che Guevara shirt is really aware of what this guy once stood for? We are surrounded by things with faded meanings behind them everyday. I don't think there is a realistic way of keeping a constant level of awareness.

 

[Liesje]

I like the idea of connecting the issue to mainstream commerce and honestly, I don't care if people really care or not, but I take an issue with these companies that are essentially capitalizing on someone else's suffering. That's what I see happening, no matter what the intentions of Bono or the consumers may be. The truth of the matter is that Africa is WORSE off now than it was a few decades ago, before Live Aid, before ONE, before Jubilee....not that those things are making it worse, but that we have decades of proof that pop culture + charity = no real progress.