The ways in which the global world and specifically big-time corporations adapt to current trends in capitalized societies always astounds me. I'm explicitly speaking of the (RED) campaign launched officially in the United States by Bono and (RED) CEO Bobby Shriver. (RED) claims that its

primary objective is to engage the private sector in raising awareness and funds for the Global Fund to help fight AIDS in Africa. Companies whose products take on the (PRODUCT) RED mark contribute a significant percentage of the sales or portion of the profits from that product to the Global Fund to finance AIDS programs in Africa, with an emphasis on the health of women and children.

At first I bought right into it. It sounds promising that these corporations are willing to donate a portion of their profits to help Africa. Finally, these CEO's are taking some kind of social responsibility. But as I watched the campaign being featued on Oprah, in which Oprah and Bono ran from store to store purchasing (RED) products, I could not help but label the whole campaign as a marketing ploy.

This (RED) campaign is a great publicity tactic for these companies (American Express, Converse, Gap, Giorgio Armani, Motorola, and MySpace.com (media sponsor) ). While the companies are donating part of their profits from (RED) products sold, they are also exploiting the idea of humanitarianism and philanthropy by capitalizing it. The purpose of the campaign is quite altruistic, but its means are far from it because it encourages consumers to BUY BUY BUY, rather than to give selflessly. The campaign reasons that if you are going to shop, you might as well shop (RED) since it's like a donation anyway. But it's not a donation. This is not a selfless act of philanthropy. It is merely an advertising campaign that paints a humanitarian light on corporations in order to influence their consumers to purchase their products. It is capitalism at its finest.

Perhaps I am being too hard on the companies. They are after all giving up a part of their profits (even though it is balanced off by the positive publicity anyway). And they also specifically state on their Manifesto that (RED) is not a charity, but rather a business model. Maybe I just feel frustrated that our capitalized society thinks the way to global aid is to purchase that trendy new phone/shirt/sneaker. Why not pass on these new items and with that money, directly donate to the actual people who need it instead. Or, better yet, volunteer to help - which reaches people more than money ever can. I guess I just want society to keep in mind that giving is not about receiving. If we are good-hearted enough to decide that we want to help, we should not be focused on what we will be getting in return. And frankly, this (RED) campaign, while honorable in its mission, gives the public a skewed image of philanthropy. It tells people that by buying, they can give to others, and in return, they'll have a pair of (RED) converses to show for it, along with the satisfaction of saying that their self indulgence was really all for a global cause.

For me however, self indulgence and global giving are not even the least bit synonymous. But who am I to be all self-righteous and judge when I too am guilty of self indulgence here and there? The truth is that if it mobilizes people to wake up and smell the Aids epidemic in Africa, then maybe it's not all bad.