Perhaps Mr McCracken’s way of setting his ideas about Bono or other celebrities in relation with good works, may not be seen fair or right for some of us (this is an statment that deppends a lot of our particular values, tendencies and information about the topic in play)

It is well sustained to say that behind this social marketing there are capitalist interests, mostly when within the concept of a “red card” there has to be an associate like amex. That is a good example of entrepreneurship, a way of becoming rich most times. BUT…

…in a way, Mr Hewson (Bono) as many other celebrities are sending -maybe in the form of consciense consumerism- signals to make us continuosly aware of our social problems, and this strategy works for many people that need that to open their eyes to others problems not only their own issues. NOW…

…Grant is also telling us to open our minds in order to see the other face -side- of the coin.
Nelson Lara.

In general though, this is a risk that most do gooders face, they get accused of arrogance. Seeing that Bono started down this road years ago, and he’s still going strong, the criticism doesn’t seem to be slowing him down any.

BTW, Richard Branson has also stepped into similar do gooding, joining Bono and Bill Gates. Do we think that this is a bad idea for all three? If it is a worse idea for some than others, why?

The fact that some people see him this way tends to negate any intention he might have to the contrary. He’s riding a wave of perception, and if it turns wrong, he falls, and so perhaps does the associated brand.

I can’t help feeling there is something grandly presumptuous about Bono when he acts like this. This is a man we have elevated in the larger scheme of things because some believe he is a gifted musician and entertainer. That he should now appoint himself a moral spokesperson is I think a little dubious. Nelson Mandela can be a spokesperson. Bono, not so much.

I think you misunderstand Bono. I don’t think he’s posing as superior. Instead, I think he sees himself as everyman, a concerned citizen who uses the resources at his disposal (i.e. fame) to try to bring attention to what most people would agree are bad problems. But he’s not uninformed. He’s been talking to Jeffrey Sachs for over 5 years now, he went to Africa with the then US secretary of the treasury, and has managed to speak convincingly to both Jesse Helms and the Pope.

Somebody like that, with a years of asking about a question and an effective track record of communication with powerful people, is somebody with some credibility.

Let’s turn this around – why should we believe Bill Gates when he talks about trying to solve the world’s problems? After all, he’s an executive and a computer guy – not a public health expert or an economist. Isn’t he just using his fame (and money) in a similar way?

i do – however – not see this difference. “celebrity” to me is not a category on its own.
just like “brand” is not.

with both “brand” and “celebrity” – imo – it is essentially about personality as a sense building offer.

if one overestimates this, one can easily be on the path of the most overrated publication in recent years: naomi klein’s “no logo” … and that simply would be a shame…

Dilys, Thanks! Well said. Grant

Anonymous, sure, we can hope that consumers will engage in their own philanthropy. (But personally I am a little astonished to think that some people will be moved to do so only because Bono encouraged them to.) Thanks, Grant

Tom, and she would have been so much better dress. Thanks, Grant

Johnnie, thanks! yeah, we can’t know what the other motives are and how Red might inspire new generosity in other ways. I just come back to that sense of unease that we should need a rock star to encourage us to do something that is…well, clearly important, urgent, necessary. I mean really if we can’t figure this out for ourselves… kind of thing. But I take your point. If it works as a incitement to philanthropy, it really is a good thing. Thanks, Grant

MEL, great point, and somehow I am favorably disposed to Newman than to Bono, perhaps because the former really is delivering things of value in the marketplace. Plus, you don’t see Newman lecturing Devos, or visiting with Blair, or presuming to appoint himself a moral authority. There is a modesty to Newman that I’m not sure we see in Bono. And maybe that’s what it comes down to, philanthropy should be “all about” the people who are its recipients. I am nervous when someone else appears to be cutting themselves in on the action. Thanks, Grant