For a while Ive been feeling kind of icky (and then guilty about feeling icky) about Gaps product (red) campaign. Icky because its really just an advertising campaign for The Gap, which too tightly links consumption with philanthr…

When I saw the Motorola ads, I thought it was just a promotion for a phone design like the Razer.

My first clue that it might be something bigger was at a U2 concert where people were wearing Inspi(red) and Desi(red) shirts all over the place. Since it seemed 1) a pretty narcissistic message and 2) like people were jumping on a bandwagon to prove how cool they were, I was immediately soured on the whole thing.

It wasn’t until I researched the whole thing that I understood that the GAP shirts and Motorola phones were actually related to each other and to something I might actually support. It might have been better if they made up shirts saying Ca(red) and Sha(red)to start with instead. (Or if they did, no one wanted to buy more sincere sounding shirts)

Eventually, I probably would have still be turned off by people trying to prove how socially conscious they were. But I wouldn’t have been as poorly disposed toward the effort before I had a chance to investigate.

I thought RED was an idea. Maybe it just got killed off by the free markets that are neither free or markets… sigh.

Then there are the people who think capitalism is a dirty word. They apologize for shopping at Whole Foods because it doesn’t go far enough with its organic commitment. This group is never going to embrace RED, even if it were proven to save thousands of lives, because oppositon to “the system” is a core part of their identity. It’s like being against DDT–the actual consequences are as nothing compared to the identity maintained by the attitude. These are Grant’s “skeptics.”

Finally, there are the unself-conscious types who aren’t sure what they think about capitalism but who feel virtuous for shopping at Whole Foods. They are the natural targets for RED, but they are highly susceptible to attacks on their virtue by the other two groups, because their desire to be a good person isn’t tightly bound to an ideological point of view. Here is where denunciation by the hipsters takes its toll as Grant describes.

I think a campaign like this would work better if it were not associated with visible paraphernaila, were clearly marketed as a promotion (as Stephen Denny suggests), and were pushed hard in the more religious parts of the country. Those folks don’t see anything wrong with doing well while doing good, unlike the poster at 10:17:34

It sounds like many, many people have confused RED with a charity. Not sure why this is. RED is a cause-related promotion. A promotion.

Like, “Buy this red iPod and get 25 free music downloads”, except the hook is “we’ll donate $20 to The Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria in Africa”.

Different things, both putting money where it needs to go. Not a charity. A promotion!

I wouldn’t write this off just yet. Sure, there are many in the holier-than-RED camp who have dismissed anything that smells of “capitalism” (shudder), but if we can refocus for a moment on what has actually happened, the picture is good. RED has put $25M on the boards in five months.

For comparison’s sake, if Newman’s Own (who is pure of spirit, with 100% of profits disbursed to charities) donates, on average, $12.5m a year… tell me again why RED, with $25M in five months, is bad?

We agree that the eco-socio-snarky-trenderati occupying the top 5% of potential “givers” may feel this RED thing has gone (gasp) mainstream — which would make it as un-cool as saving the rainforests or something — but going mainstream may be the exact thing that makes RED work.

What matters is the awareness and the cash that this throws off. Judged by this criteria, RED is GOOD. Thanks!