are affinity-based charity campaigns a good idea?

Kottke seems skeptical:

It seems to me that if The Gap really cared about stopping HIV/AIDS in Africa, they would just donate the $7.8 million they spend on (RED) advertising to the Clinton Foundation. If Discover really cared about saving you money, they’d lower their APR to prime + 1.

I realize that the entire US economy is a house of cards kept standing by the escalation of spending and credit card debt by American consumers, but the sad fact is that to save money, you need to cut spending or increase income. And if you really want to help fight AIDS in Africa, instead of buying that (RED) Gap t-shirt for which Gap will donate 50% of its profit to The Global Fund, buy a cheaper one at American Apparel and send the $13 difference to the Global Fund yourself.

But it would be interesting to determine if people will just give money, in the same amounts, as they when they buy some tchotchke that tells everyone what a selfless person they are. I’m being unfairly critical, I know: I would rather people kept on buying (RED) items than stopped. After all, part of what The Gap is selling is an endorsement and some promotion for the campaign. And I haven’t seen the goods, but my assumption is that it says more about the campaign than about The Gap, which is the way it should be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *