any of you "ONE" peeps able to explain this?

[mama cass]

I’m actually genuinely surprised that this little campaign hasn’t yet gotten a wrenching in the media. When I first saw this I really thought, shit-storm landing in 5,4,3,2… No? Huh…

I totally understand that they are well in the can to LV’s parent company, after they bailed out Edun, so there’s probably not much they could do about them wanting this kind of presence as a trade off. And I know that the fine print pushes Edun, and Ali is decked out in Edun, not LV, and I know it’s fashion/Edun, not poverty/ONE, and I get it’s meant to be about her, not him, and that the point of Edun is to try and push high end fashion over into something else. But, still… to any non-fine print reading person casually flicking through a magazine (surely a good 90% of the people who will see this), what does this look like?

In a snapshot, this plays right into the hands of absolutely everything thrown at Bono. If you want to come across as genuine, and you want to avoid being classed as just an ego-centric, loaded rock star, flying private jet from one of several luxurious homes around the globe, to spend a few minutes yelling at people about how they should do something about poverty, before returning to count your tax dodged dollars – I would think that wanting to avoid a tacky romanticising of it all via an Annie Leibovitz shoot (in all it’s airbrushed glory) would be a start, and that perhaps not having that romanticised version of yourself and your work used to push one of the most iconic examples of idiotic excess, would just be a given.

I understand how this likely came into being, but I really can’t see it in any way helping his cause, doing anything positive for his image, or in the end, even really giving Edun any kind of publicity or push. All you see is Bono, in Africa, Louis Vuitton bag, LV logo. Here he is to save Africa (soft focus sunset Africa), in all his luxurious glory. Really. Somewhere there's someone working in media relations for either U2 or ONE who is continually fielding stupid questions or challenges about Bono, and I can just imagine that person hearing he was off to Africa to shoot a Louis Vuitton advertisement with Annie Leibovitz and just going

yep, totally understand... i face-palmed too! lol!!!

i think it comes across so wrong...

what would Naomi Klein say eh?

 

[MikeyJB]

Bono and ONE are currently getting a roasting over on the Guardian newspaper's website. A poisonous 'journalist' Marina Hyde has got hold of the donations story and of course is raining down the scepticism. But to be honest, with stuff like this and the tax-dodge story and the Louis Vuitton ad - Bono just does not help himself at all

 

[mama cass]

yeah MikeyJB, that was the link in my opening post

btw... marina hyde isn't really a "poisonous journalist" - the "Lost in Showbiz" blog is just really celebrity target practice lol

they only opened it up to comments this morning though, which predictably brought the Bono bashers out in full force...

 

[powerhour24]

Hate to point it out powerhour but your points wildly contradict one another and Bono is in fact the co-founder of ONE and one of the most prominent members of the board of directors. Also, I think the Red Cross has got just a lil bit more legitimacy (and, likely, transparency/accountability) than ONE at this point. While it may be some bloated two headed monster of charities as you claim, it's also done a hell of a lot of good relief work in just about every country in the world, the US included.

Why are people rushing to judge this article so harshly? Are the figures stated within it true? Does anyone have any hard countering facts other than "I'm sure there's more to it" or other similarly vague statements? Isn't this IRS stuff a matter of public record or something?

Please note: I'm not criticizing Bono. Let he who is without blame...and all that. But he has set himself in a certain position, and it's not unfair to expect to be accountable for what the money's spent on..maybe he isn't even aware! I sometimes get this notion that my favorite rock star ain't all that good with keeping track of money..he certainly doesn't seem the 'accountant' type personality...at any rate, whether he's aware or not, if there's mismanagement of funds, his best move is to get it sorted out and/or distance himself as much as possible from it, for his own good

I never said Bono wasn't a co-founder, I just didn't use the word, what I said was that he is not a paid CEO or other executive of the organization.

Nor did I say I thought the Red Cross had never done any good, but they are too large and unaccountable for their actions, I support smaller, on-the-ground organizations where you know their reputation and can see the work they do. Look into the ARC, September 11th and the earthquake in Haiti this year are just 2 examples of them raising millions (or in these cases hundreds of millions of dollars) specifically for disasters and spending less than 40% on the relief the money was raised for. Saying they're keeping the rest to 'invest for the future' while the people they claim to have satiated still need basic services. Give me individual dedicated organizations any day.

 

[MikeyJB]

btw... marina hyde isn't really a "poisonous journalist" - the "Lost in Showbiz" blog is just really celebrity target practice lol

Well she published a book in which she basically slagged off the charitable efforts of people like Bono, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and Jude Law, so in my books that makes her a poisonous journalist, thriving off cynicism to sell herself. I'd love for someone to investigate her charity work (if any).

 

[gvox]

I never said Bono wasn't a co-founder, I just didn't use the word, what I said was that he is not a paid CEO or other executive of the organization.

Nor did I say I thought the Red Cross had never done any good, but they are too large and unaccountable for their actions, I support smaller, on-the-ground organizations where you know their reputation and can see the work they do. Look into the ARC, September 11th and the earthquake in Haiti this year are just 2 examples of them raising millions (or in these cases hundreds of millions of dollars) specifically for disasters and spending less than 40% on the relief the money was raised for. Saying they're keeping the rest to 'invest for the future' while the people they claim to have satiated still need basic services. Give me individual dedicated organizations any day.

You're splicing hairs, you said Bono was "more the ideas man and the spokesman and not an executive" - if you sit on the board and are the co-founder, you're a bit more than just an ideas man/spokesperson. Also still a bit contradictory in your unswerving support - can you really see the work that ONE has done and is it actually proportionately more than what the ARC has done? I'd beg to differ. Many of the countries that ONE spent millions lobbying have yet to make good on their promises, so even that rather nebulous concept of the money being spent to lobby for bigger money is neutered a bit if the relief doesn't actually happen. In terms of the %s, if the figures the NY Post trotted out are correct, 40% is a heck of alot better than 0.01%

I think your points are somewhat valid but where it breaks down is when you use the Red Cross as an example. You can't on the one hand say that ONE needed to spend 98% of the donations on salaries and expenses and then on the other hand say the Red Cross is not allowed to spend 60% on salaries and expenses. Or at least that's how I see it.

Personally, it always grinds my gears a bit when I hear about how charities/nonprofits exec salaries are 'in line with the market' for other execs' salaries and that unless they were paid those competitive salaries the charities/nonprofits wouldn't be able to attract top talent to run the things. Really? Wow, executives aka rich people not hurting for money really are greedy assholes aren't they?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Complaining about the Red Cross holding cash for 'the future' is utterly ridiculous. They're a unique organisation. They're on the ground in disaster zones in a massive, effective, absolutely crucial way well before your 'direct' charities have even opened their phone lines.

 

[gvox]

^ Also, that.

 

[powerhour24]

I brought up ARC as an example of huge mismanagement of donations to contrast the numbers being talked about with ONE, not to compare the actual work they do, of course they've accomplished more, do I think ONE has had as much success as Bono and the rest of hope(d), no. The two aren't comparable, the numbers were. My 'unswerving support' was simply saying that Bono is not the one who is collecting these donations as his salary, nor have I ever seen him elicit donations in the name of ONE, I'm sure he does in different circles, but to the wider public he asks that we stay informed, and join letter-writing lobbying campaigns.

Believe me, I'm against corporate size salaries for nonprofit executives, I'm the co-founder and executive director of my own organization and I would never stand for that kind of behavior simply to attract 'the best people', the best people are motivated by the cause and the hope to help the organization they're being hired for, if they're looking to make more than a corporate employee of the same caliber, they're in the wrong game.

The truth is we don't know how many employees that money paid for, but Bono is the target as the face of the organization, but I'm kind of guessing he doesn't have a lot of time to sit down and figure out compensation comparison analyses for each prospective hire. If the number of employees that the money went to is low, the media has every right to criticism the organization, my only point is that they really desire to criticize one man, not an organization.

 

[powerhour24]

Complaining about the Red Cross holding cash for 'the future' is utterly ridiculous. They're a unique organisation. They're on the ground in disaster zones in a massive, effective, absolutely crucial way well before your 'direct' charities have even opened their phone lines.

Yeah I'm talking about organizations that operate in the places specifically, if we're talking Haiti, I'm talking Partners in Health who the government deferred all federal emergency health services to because of their reputation and infrastructure. Excuse me for wanting donations to go to where they are allotted to, if you fundraise on the platform of disaster relief, that is what the people gave to, and if there are still millions in the lurch 9 months later, you have the present to think about before investing and entire $100m for the future. Don't patronize me and act like I'm condemning everything ARC has done in its history, I'm simply saying that in disaster situations time and time again these same kind of controversies arise. For blood donations, and long term charity, I do trust them.

 

[mama cass]

Well she published a book in which she basically slagged off the charitable efforts of people like Bono, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and Jude Law, so in my books that makes her a poisonous journalist, thriving off cynicism to sell herself. I'd love for someone to investigate her charity work (if any).

i think her book looks pretty funny actually... but then i like her humour, and i like the way she calls out certain celebrities who do seem to use/abuse humanitarian issues to promote themselves (which B-man doesn't do obviously)... calling her "poisonous" is just hilarious!

she's actually just commented on the blog:

1. Bono is desperately compromised by his tax avoidance activities. Philanthropy starts with paying tax, and in answer to the commenter who claimed "you'd do it too if you could", erm, no I absolutely wouldn't. I loathe tax dodgers / exiles / evaders, be they Rupert Murdoch, Michael Ashcroft or Bono. Bono almost depresses me more than the others because I believe he is genuinely trying to do good, but can't or won't see how the tax thing makes him an easily dismissable hypocrite, and by extension compromises worthwhile causes to which he attaches his name.

2. The co-opting of the customs of the celebrity world into the aid debate and humanitarian sphere in general is in my view both moronic and massively unhelpful, and the explosion in glitzy "humanitarian award ceremonies" and aid-related goody bags is not a Good Thing. See also Madonna using the lawn of the UN for a party to promote her Raising Malawi foundation which turned out to be a jont party to promote the opening of the new Gucci store on Fifth Avenue. The goody bag there contained an $800 Gucci bag. The per capita GDP of Malawi is $800. It looks shit, doesn't it, not that she cared.

which is practically what many of us lot are saying...

 

[gvox]

The truth is we don't know how many employees that money paid for, but Bono is the target as the face of the organization, but I'm kind of guessing he doesn't have a lot of time to sit down and figure out compensation comparison analyses for each prospective hire. If the number of employees that the money went to is low, the media has every right to criticism the organization, my only point is that they really desire to criticize one man, not an organization.

I actually didn't read that article as solely an attack on Bono, while he is the prime example used he did walk into that by launching these initiatives and getting other celebs to do so also (either with his or with their own). I think the article speaks more to the phenomenon, and there are some really thought provoking issues that situations (such as ONE) like this raise.

That said, I think it bears reiterating that even if Bono doesn't have alot of time to sit down and audit ONE's books, he owes it to himself, the people of countries he advocates for, and the strength/legitimacy of his currency as celebrity for these causes to take a hard look and clean house, if necessary.

 

[MikeyJB]

i think her book looks pretty funny actually... but then i like her humour, and i like the way she calls out certain celebrities who do seem to use/abuse humanitarian issues to promote themselves (which B-man doesn't do obviously)... calling her "poisonous" is just hilarious!

I guess I just don't find that sort of humour appealing, same as that Charlie Brooker nobhead. I dislike people who are just achingly cynical about everything (so I realise that eliminates the vast quantity of journalists!)

I just wonder whether, after writing a book slagging off 'ego-charitable' celebs she donated any of the profits generated by the sales of her book to charity? Hmmmm....

 

[mama cass]

just found this response by ONE... clears a few things up i guess... importantly, the source of funding... at least if it's funded mostly by its own philanthropists they will be aware of how the money is being put to use, and it's not as if the money has come from the general public assuming it is going to charity... and for a staff of 120, 8 million USD sounds about right i guess... relieved a few points have been cleared up at least... lol

Recently, there have been some confusing and inaccurate stories about ONE's work. So we wanted to set the record straight.

ONE does not fundraise from the general public, and we do not receive any government funding. We are funded almost entirely by a handful of philanthropists on our board of directors to raise awareness and pressure political leaders to fight extreme poverty through smart and effective policies and programs.

With the exception of our annual ONE Africa Award, which is given to an effective grassroots organisation in Africa, ONE does not directly fund charity projects in developing countries, work which is done well by other NGOs.

ONE's staff of 120 policy experts, media professionals, and campaigners working in 7 countries around the globe carry out ONE's work by:

1.) educating people, including our 2 million members, about the crisis of extreme poverty and the solutions,

2.) encouraging the media to cover these issues

3.) working with leaders and activists in Africa and the west to address structural issues, like trade, debt relief, investment and good governance, that are essential for countries to lift themselves out of poverty, and

4.) pressing political leaders in the US, UK, Germany, Brussels, France and other countries around the world to pass and fund smart policies and programs that help lift people out of poverty.

ONE's staff is the principle tool through which it fulfills these goals. Reports that have questioned why ONE spends a large percentage of our budget on staff fail to understand how ONE works. ONE's largest funder, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, put out this statement today to clarify this point:

"ONE is not a fundraising group but an important advocacy organisation whose engagement of its two million supporters has helped to improve the lives of some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people," said Alex Reid, Head of Media, Europe, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

ONE has been a relentless advocate and we are proud of the role we and our members have played in successfully fighting for smart, effective programs and policies that have saved lives and improved futures in poor countries.

As a result of those programs, today more than 4 million Africans have access to life-saving AIDS medication, up from only 50,000 people in 2002. Malaria deaths have been cut in half in countries across Africa in less than 2 years. As other examples of our work, ONE helped to successfully press for debt relief for Haiti after the devastating earthquake there earlier this year and played an important role in securing new US legislation requiring better transparency in the oil, gas and mining industries - an important step to ending backhanded deals between energy companies and corrupt politicians that hurt people in poor countries.

The media kits that were mentioned in recent press stories, which were hand delivered by staff and volunteers to reporters in New York, were an effort to focus reporters on the Millennium Development Goals, a set of promises world leaders made to cut poverty, hunger and disease by 2015. In hindsight, the kits were not the best way to gain attention for the issues and we regret that sending them distracted from the work we are trying to do and the issues we care about.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I got the article from atU2 about EDUN being made in China now and that was certainly a head scratcher.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

i face-palmed too! lol!!!

i think it comes across so wrong...

I think it does too. I get it, you need LV's money to keep EDUN going-but Bono and Ali are certainly intelligent enough to know how that ad comes across. I also get that high gloss fashion magazines have high gloss ads but I also think the readers can and would appreciate a different approach. I can't believe that LV would be that shallow that they would insist upon an ad like that.

 

[mama cass]

Personally, it always grinds my gears a bit when I hear about how charities/nonprofits exec salaries are 'in line with the market' for other execs' salaries and that unless they were paid those competitive salaries the charities/nonprofits wouldn't be able to attract top talent to run the things.

yeah i do find that hard to stomach too... thankfully not all NGOs go in for that approach though...

 

[corianderstem]

I got the article from atU2 about EDUN being made in China now and that was certainly a head scratcher.

Yeah, although there was a disclaimer of sorts I read about a few days later, that clarified that while some of the production was moving to China, that the clothing that had originally been sourced from Africa was still staying in Africa. Something like that.

I get why that's disappointing, but I also get why it might be a necessary evil. If the current practice wasn't sustainable, it may have been a choice between a) "well, shit, that didn't work. Oh well."; or b) "why don't we try this and if things change for the better, we can still keep doing at least some of it the way we want to do it?"

 

[U2girl]

Oh god, what did Bono do now? I'm so tired of apologizing for him.

Well, it's Bono. What hasn't been used against him after all these years ?

It wasn't worth getting worked up at the taxes "scandal". I don't plan to do that on any of his philantropic endeavours...

 

[last unicorn]

People have to learn to distinguish between "a charity" and an "advocacy organisation". ONE is the latter, Bono has made that more than clear many many times. You cannot "donate" to ONE because it's not a charity. You can only give your voice to support certain campaigns. All justified criticism (and there certainly is always reason for that) aside, I think it's easy to throw dirt at Bono these days and I have a feeling that it's actually especially conventient when he and/or U2 get a lot of positive response from the public, like right now when they are on tour. People should just get their facts straight about ONE before claiming things. And I'm sure Bono himself is more than critical about his campaigning. He has been dealing with this stuff long enough to know more about it than most people who are quick to bash him simply because he's Bono. What he does in public is mostly political work, not much charity, and he has made that clear many times.

I just don't get fans who feel the need to "apologize" for Bono, I can't stand this kind of self-pity and I feel that it's very common among U2 fans. If Bono screws up, that's not my problem, he has to deal with it. He's an adult, not a child you need to protect and since I don't know him personally, I could never justify any his actions. That's just ridiculous. I never apologize for anyone except myself.

 

[VintagePunk]

I just don't get fans who feel the need to "apologize" for Bono, I can't stand this kind of self-pity and I feel that it's very common among U2 fans. If Bono screws up, that's not my problem, he has to deal with it. He's an adult, not a child you need to protect and since I don't know him personally, I could never justify any his actions. That's just ridiculous. I never apologize for anyone except myself.

If you were referring to my post (I think I'm the only one in the thread who used the words "apologize for Bono"), I thought I made it clear with the winking smiley that my comment was sarcastic/in jest.

 

[partygirl43]

I can't believe that LV would be that shallow that they would insist upon an ad like that.

You are employing sarcasm, right?


I personally hate the ad and find the whole LVHM aquisition of Eden questionable.

 

[mama cass]

People have to learn to distinguish between "a charity" and an "advocacy organisation".

i know, but B has got so many things going on it gets confusing for your average person who isn't up to speed with all of them, myself included lol

 

[doctorwho]

That's a good point -- Bono himself, for all we know, may have objected to moving that tax base abroad. In the end, we don't know, as U2 always put up a united front (which is to their credit). Actually, it doesn't matter vis-a-vis the celebrity activist issue -- it's entirely separate and irrelevant -- but, as you say, it's just another thing for people to bitch Bono about.

Actually, the tax laws are not so straight-forward.

Some "artistic" tax breaks are given - but there is a limit. Movies are not considered "art" for example, and are taxed. Also, any money U2 generates outside of Ireland is definitely taxed. So that big concert they held near you had city taxes, county taxes, state taxes and federal taxes on it. And each worker hired had to pay the same. In other words, they pay PLENTY of tax. But of course, that side is never presented. ALL media has an agenda - it's only after one does some homework that the truth is slowly unveiled.

As for charities, though, I agree - precious little from some charities goes to the actual cause. I would hate to see ONE being that way, but I would need to see a lot more information first. It may be that since ONE is new, they have a higher start up costs that will drop quickly over the years. But if ONE is using the bulk of their funds for more fund-raising, then they clearly fail as a charity and I will not donate or support them. Again, do homework. I hope Bono himself actually looks into this. If a scant few percent of all funds are donated, then what good is this charity?

 

[MikeyJB]

I understand the idea of a U2-united front but last year Larry came out in Q mag saying he disapproved of Bono being all chummy with Blair and Bush, saying "I'm not one for toeing any party line". Therefore if Larry could have been outspoken about that, I would much rather Bono had come out saying 'look, I know its hard to accept this but its a band issue not an individual issue and I was out-voted on it'. I don't think people would be so quick to dismiss him with 'hypocrite' statements had he approached the delicate issue that way.

 

[Marien]

As for charities, though, I agree - precious little from some charities goes to the actual cause. I would hate to see ONE being that way, but I would need to see a lot more information first. It may be that since ONE is new, they have a higher start up costs that will drop quickly over the years. But if ONE is using the bulk of their funds for more fund-raising, then they clearly fail as a charity and I will not donate or support them.

OK, again, ONE is NOT a charity, it is an advocacy group, this means that ONE doesn't get public funds to be used directly on ground, they receive private funding from philantropists to be able to pay the costs of their work, and their work is to raise awareness among the population and to pressure governments to fight extreme poverty and illness, to pressure them to create their own governmental projects and to give funds to the charities that work on ground, such as Doctors without Borders for example.

We can't say we won't donate to ONE because we've never been asked to in the first place, we've been asked to join their net, to support their causes by signing in some petitions on line, we may have been asked to do some other little things as going to the concerts as volunteers and going on stage with the masks or the lanterns, so we can help to raise awareness among the public, but that's all.

The amount of money they raise or they give to charities is not the measure of its efficency, we must look at the increment of funds the CHARITIES receive from public funds, I know it is quite difficult to prove how much of it is due to ONE's pressure as it is difficult to prove that Glenables' debt cancellation was due, at least partially, to the presence of ONE's representatives, but that's the ground ONE works in, ONE doesn't touch the money they press to be given.

Now with that in mind you can decide if there is a need for such an advocacy group or not, if you want to support it or not, I support them because I've seen with my own eyes how their programmes work.

I also wanted to say that there is nothing wrong in charities paying people salaries according to market, it is the only way to get professionals to do the job, to ensure it is done properly and to get a continuity in the programmes. Most of the times volunteers can only help them, I hope we don't go back to the many mistakes made during the 80s and 90s by volunteers with the best of their wishes. Professionals already do a sacrifice leaving their countries, sometimes with their families, and going to places where their living and working conditions are significantly worse, sometimes even their personal security is questionable as we've seen recently.

 

[mama cass]

I also wanted to say that there is nothing wrong in charities paying people salaries according to market, it is the only way to get professionals to do the job, to ensure it is done properly and to get a continuity in the programmes. Most of the times volunteers can only help them, I hope we don't go back to the many mistakes made during the 80s and 90s by volunteers with the best of their wishes. Professionals already do a sacrifice leaving their countries, sometimes with their families, and going to places where their living and working conditions are significantly worse, sometimes even their personal security is questionable as we've seen recently.

i agree that those out there on the frontline and in difficult territories totally deserve "danger money", but to be honest many don't always get a salary to match the risks they face...

my bugbear is with some of the "pen-pushers" in the offices with the cushy numbers that get astronomical salaries within some of the more well-known charities, when you get people going for the jobs because the money is amazing and the "cause" is secondary... i think that is dubious... disclaimer before i get jumped on: i am not saying ONE does this, it's just a general comment lol

 

[corianderstem]

ONE | STATEMENT BY ONE ON RECENT MEDIA REPORTS

 

[mama cass]

thanks... found it the other day and posted it on p. 3 hehe... glad to see they took the time to respond to the articles in the press though and clarify things a little...

 

[corianderstem]

Dagnabbit, I missed that you'd already posted it. Sorry about that!