91�ȱ�

I'm sure Bono is a very nice man, but I've always felt that too many celebrities are guilty of viewing charitable giving as something that's _only_ good when done in public (and Auntie Beeb is as guilty as anyone here, with her teddy bears and red noses). Perhaps after you've been doing telethons for twenty years, you get brainwashed into believing your own propaganda, that without you prancing about people wouldn't give at all.

The truth of course, is the exact opposite. Charitable giving is generally better kept private and even secret. Even if any of the products were the kind of thing I tend to buy, I think I'd actively _avoid_ any Red brand.

The low take up of the "Red" products may also reflect a mistrust of what Bono is all about. When multimillionaire popstars tell us what we should all be doing with our money, I feel we are entitled to feel somewhat cynical.

I keep in reasonable touch with current affairs but must admit the "Red" concept had completely passed me by so it cannot have been very well promoted. During the last year I have purchased the usual mix of consumer goods (camera, printer, DIY Power tools, DVDs CDs) and not once was offered a "Red" product.
I always choose Fairtrade where offered and would go "Red" if given the choice.

Red? Never heard of it, so its good to know that the money wasted on advertising and not the charity is making a difference.....but now that I know about it, will it make a diference to what I buy/donate? Not in the slightest because I don't feel the need to flaunt a logo to support a charity....

At least he's using his status to good use unlike most of his other peers!.... Rome wasn't built in a day!! Good on you Bono for MAKING a difference. I'd buy RED anyday!

I would assume that companies like Gap are getting involved as it is good advertising for them to be involved with the Red brand. So perhaps they are spending the same amount of overall money on their advertising budget and so the rate of return on the marketing budget in Gap's eyes is not just what Red is making, but also what Gap is making out of the marketing campaign. If you add the two together, it may in fact be more than Gap alone would have made by spending the same amount of money on pure Gap advertising.

If you want to help charities through your credit card, there may be better options than the American Express Red card.

If you clear your balance off in full at the end of every month then a cashback credit card, available from several providers, makes more sense. American Express themselves have a card where you get 3% cashback for three months followed by up to 1.5% thereafter. This is significantly higher than the 1% contribution to charity that their Red card makes. When American Express give you your cashback you could donate this sum to charity, which would be substantially higher than if you had used a Red card. You could then Gift Aid this money to increase it by 28%. Also, the money would go to the charity you wanted, rather than having Bono decide for you.

Couldn't agree more. If I make any donation to charity, I want to do so discreetly and to a cause of my choosing. I also distrust big businesses that want to build their brand by persuading me to pay into 'their' charity.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. I think Red is an excellent idea for several reasons - the main one being, it combines sound capitalist principles with the concept of doing good - taking charity away from those with a 'moral' superiority complex and love of mud, smelly hair and inappropriate illegal actions that frankly achieve nothing but disruption (and wasting police time). Red is recognsising that people do want to do good and help others, and if that can be incorporated in a desirable way into their everyday lives, all the better. If it continues to feed the global economic machine, based on marketing, branding etc, then I'm sorry but that is the world we live in - and hugging a tree won't change that. You gotta work with what you've got - and this is just the beginning of Red - wait and see, I hope it becomes the most sought-after brand on the planet.

World problems can be solved by capitalism? Buying a product will stop AIDS? What sort of crack have you been smoking?

Known remedy:
Switching off/ destroying the TV, recycling old newspapers and vowing never to buy them again, shield yourself from all sources of modern life until cured

Disagree. I dont think it is predicated on most of us wanting to get something in return. I have have Amex card and use it instead of my debit card during the month which is an easy and painless way to do something. My daughter wanted an ipod so she got the red one. It is predicated on the notion that if we are going to but something, why not choose something with a dual purpose. To me its simply seems a clever idea.

I couldn't disagree more with your conclusions - perhaps you live in that perfect world where all are "so much better than that" but in the world I see everyday we seem to be more complex, less perfect, more real than some holy ideal of yours. I recently purchased a Red Ipod for my 15 year old niece and explained to her the benefit and meaning behind the Red campaign. She loves it, it looks cool, and it contributes positively to the world and her relationship with it. Is there something wrong with that - is it wrong to derive some pleasure while doing something positive? And yes I do like my Red Amex, I like the way it looks, and I like what it does automatically every time I use it for any purchase, no matter how mundaine. And that to me is the whole point, to contribute a little bit all the time as opposed to grandstand about some great big charity decision that will somehow once and for all solve everything. It is also the reason why I have standing direct debit orders for small amounts that I contribute to the other charities I've supported for years - it is a part of my financial life, ingrained and automatic, and I hope it does good for a very long time. Unless you have a better idea perhaps you could be graceous enough to support the spirit of one that may actually do some good, and reconsider your presumptuousness. Marco

Robert, I think you are missing what I see as one of the fundamentally great thing about red - it allows me to take a product that I was using anyway e.g. a credit card and a mobile and at no extra expense to me give a little bit to charity every time I use them, while at the same time it promotes awareness of the overall cause - HIV/Aids.

You're right that I don’t know the detail of where the money is going but I'm not using it as a substitute to giving money to charity I'm using it addition to what I was already giving.

The sums will never be great amounts but given the choice of raising a million Barclay card points in order to get a biro or giving a little bit to an extremely worthwhile cause, I know which card I would rather put my purchases on.

I think Robert is missing the point. If I needed a new mobile phone, I'd be tempted to buy a Red one because that option now exists. Bono's campaign is a way of bringing the issue closer to the everyday lives of us wealthy Westerners, raising consciousness as well as funds. The abolition of slavery happened because William Wilberforce et al. brought the arguments to the notice of those who make the decisions: the Red campaign is at least step in the right direction.

I've been a long-time fan of Bono and U2. Their music has been a soundtrack to my life since my teens. I've also admired his efforts on beating global poverty. He's used his position and fame to force the issue onto the agendas of world leaders pretty much everywhere. He's been honest in saying that he'd meet with the Devil if it would help, so I see his Red concept as yet another step in that direction. Sure it may cost the companies more to advertise than it raises for charity, but presumably they are still making a profit? Therefore, it's £18 million more than would have been raised without Red. However, I do feel this 'anything that works' attitude is starting to damage his credibility. Equally his investment activities via his 'Elevation' company and blatent attempts to minimise taxation on his various forms of income leave a growing taste of hypocracy in my mouth. He really needs to be careful if he wishes to continue to be a credible voice for Africa, as his image is all that is getting him through those important front doors.

I wonder how much Bonio makes in a year? Could he not achieve more by donating his annual earnings (less subsistence living costs) to charity?

Shopping, or more accurately, selfish western consumerism, is the modern consequence of prior decades of exploitation which has resulted in the poverty gap that productRED aims to help.

Yes, I agree with Bono that money is money. Yes, shop responsibly - if you "need" an iPod nano, get a productRED one: it's the same cost to you. Don't buy things just for the sake of having them (that applies to more than just productRED stuff, obviously).

Change the way business works. Free market economics has had its day and it's time for us to heal the wounds.

Ged

I have nothing against celebrities giving for charities even if they do it for the publicity (im not saying its the case or not) however I must say I only heard of 'Red' once before Mr Pestons point of view was posted here and it was by my sister,,who's not a very big fan of Bono (at all),,and was criticizing the matter

however it does make me think that if they spent so much money on publicity how come several of us posting a comment here had never or hardly heard of it??? makes one wonder.

yes we should contribute to improve the lives of others less fortunate however a lot easier said when you have millions than when you struggle through the month not to go over your overdraft as it is the case of a lot of people.

although I do try to do my part as im sure a lot of us do,,I do not need to shout it to the world although if that's needed to make people aware of certain situations I will have no problems doing so and in that matter im glad certain celebrities do so as they obviously have the power,,the money & the exposure to do so but think there have been other campaigns a lot better organized that 'red' and that ended raising up quite a lot of money and support

another thing that particularly worries me is the fact that all these campaigns,,although thought in good heart (and I want to believe in that),,address several problems in countries that are not as better off as ours,,but how can I expect people to do something for the children in south Africa or Cambodia if people cannot even be charitable to each other in their own countries and their own towns

although I do agree with Mr Pestons point of view I do wish 'Red' works out and manages to raise more money,,not for the sake of Mr Vox or the companies associated to 'Red' but because at least some money is going somewhere even if not as much as they spent in publicity

please do help other people but don't stop being charitable to people around you just because your phone is helping people somewhere you don't even know where making you look good and oh so in touch with societies problems

I apologise for the length,,really didn't mean to write this much and do hope that people around the world keep joining efforts to better the lives of people in our wonderful planet but look first around you on what you can physically do and try to know who you're helping,,or which charity instead of leaving that decision to someone else

peace xx

Verushka

I didn't want to give to bono's choice of charities but wanted to have the image. I bought a silver ipod and then got it resprayed to be red. Cost an extra £25 but I reckon it was worth it.

Going to do the same with my amex charge card.

Hang on.

Let's assume that Gap (who have a red brand) was going to spend $1 billion on its marketing of Gap's normal range. Charities would have got nothing.

Instead, Gap spends $900 million on marketing for it's normal range, plus $100 million on its Red range.

Then, from the profits made on the red range, a contribution is given of $18 million to charity.

So, prior to Red, the charity would have got nothing. Now it gets $18 million.

What's the problem?

If most of us are better than that, why are people starving?

Whilst Bono's endless preaching about the world's woes drives me insane, I do believe that his RED initiative was a well-meant attempt to raise awareness and money for a very worthy cause. More money might have been raised however, if the so-called 'Red' items were not so massively over-priced. I looked into items at GAP and the 'Red' phone and simply couldn't justify the over-inflated prices being charged. Lower prices = more sales. It's not brain surgery.

Ditto, these wealthy lefty self-congratulatory egotists should quit preaching how and where others should spend their money and mind their own business.

Anyway Bono, Geldof etc. since you're all so wealthy, why not donate ALL of your earnings & royalties from now on, to a charity of MY choice? Put your money where your ugly mouths are. SURELY your morals are more important than tax breaks & other such incentives...?

Please people - take a step back! Why should we discredit someone trying to raise awareness of causes just because they have made their money? It strikes me as some weird snobbery. I mean, who better to promote causes than someone like Bono who has the status and political contacts? You are free to chose who you donate to - Bono is not forcing you to do anything, mearly trying to put his point across.

The RED brand in principle is a good idea - and no I would not want to flaunt a logo, but that's not the point. If you are donating through what you would be buying anyway is that really a bad thing? Retailers and charities get something from it - that is the whole sustainable point of the RED brand.

To all those who have not heard of RED - you have now, so go and look into it.

Another example of failed pretentiousness.
Now if they had been selling Make Bono History T Shirts, how much money would that have made?

Giving is not the same as helping. Opposition MSPs in Scotland voted to "give" some of the English grant they receive to African aid. Research has now found that 67p in the £ was spent on admin, compared to 4p spent by Whitehall on similar aid admin.

I donate to charity, buy freetrade etc... but as soon as I heard of the notion of Red, everything became Bono and Red... and I frankly do not think Bono needs any further publicity. He has used Red the same way Branson uses Virgin... and for a charitable organisation that is something I dont want to support.

I've got a Red phone. I picked it for an upgrade because I liked the phone. It was a nice colour and was easy to use.
The fact it donates to charity is secondary but not a bad thing. Also I had no idea Bono was behind Red or, in fact, what Red was. Would that've made me change my mind? Probably not. Mind you if had been Sting then definitely!!
It won't stop me giving to other charities of my choice but I don't mind that some of the cash I'm paying out for phone calls is going to tackle Aids.
I hate labels and will purposefully not buy something if it has a logo or label attatched. I really couldn't care less who made what or who is wearing what

I got a Red card as I thought it was better the money went to help these causes rather than in bonuses to the bosses of Amex, but if only a tiny fraction is getting through then its time to look for an alternative.

John Humphreys made a similar observation in his book "Beyond Words". The idea is very nice but the products attached to Red are just symbolic not really an everyday bought item and the fact that it is a brand kind of takes away the whole alturistic ethos of what is charity. A noble cause but misguided in practice. Well pointed out in the article.

So what if it appeals to "negative" behaviour? Since when does that matter? Money raised is money raised. If that means making a brand and flogging people special edition iPods, then great - let's capitalise upon Capitalism.

I think this is part of the problem with this kind of thinking - are we trying to raise money, here or trying to be "better people", somehow? We should do whatever works, not whatever makes habitual charity-givers feel the best. I would rather see £10 of someone's phone purchase go to Africa than a £1 "pure" donation by someone who *really cares* (how good of them).

You correctly write that simply handing over the $100m spent advertising is not an option for the companies involved, and yet you largely dismiss the $18m that has been raised in this manner. This is an 18% return for the charity, without the charity spending a penny! It smacks of tendentiousness to not factor in how much the participating companies have made as a result of their involvement.

These companies will continue to participate for as long as it is profitable for them to do so; the charity will continue to receive an both an income stream and vast amounts of free publicity, some of which is bound to translate into more direct donations.

Everyone wins; but I assume this does not make for great copy. But to knock the efforts of Red and its creator, and then suggest that it was a fundamentally flawed idea anyway, is facile; Red does not so much create a complication between shopping and charity as elegantly dove-tailing these two pleasureable activities for the ethical consumer.

The good news about this whole article is that it is... well, more free publicity, which is all to its good.

It's no more giving to charity than buying a lottery ticket really. On the basis that most people epitomise the utterly ghastly combination of shallow materialism with a zealous desire to display their green/pc/fair trade/save the seal credentials without actually having to do anything, it's quite a good idea.

Personally, the only way Bono would get me to hand over money would be on the condition that he a) stopped releasing such dreadful records and b) promised to stop his egotistical campaign to be appointed some kind of living saint.

It begs the wider issue of why do pop stars get involved in politics? It's pathetic. Remember Live8? A lot of uninformted bluster from barely litterate millionaries and zero lasting impact. Still, made lots of annoying teenage hippies feel good about themselves for a while, whilst bashing big business and politicians.

I have about as much appetite to hear Chris Martin's views on world poverty as I do to hear John Reid cover "I am the Walrus". Actually, I would quite like to hear that. Come on John, do something useful for once!

I don't agree. I overcame a number of mental hurdles to buy the Red phone, most of which were to do with cynicism and fear of being judged in the way this article judges. I eventually decided that it was time for up to put these vanities aside and raise the flag for Big Efforts of any kind. What harm can it do compared to the possibility of good it can do?

A year later I am amazed that so few people know what RED is. Mostly, when friends remark on my beautiful phone, I take the opportunity to let them know what's behind it. They are always interested, then cynical and eventually disinterested.

Not all of these people are contributing to other charities or thinking actively about how to save the world - many are still, sadly, not making any connection at all between their own behaviour and the global impacts.

In contrast, when I was in Holland recently, everyone recognised the phone and approved of its intentions. My conclusion is that RED is still ahead of its time. I hope Bono holds on.

So now I'm under pressure to go green but buy red? Thank God I'm colour blind.

I like the Red brand, however I am not going to buy a £130 item to give less than £10 to charity. So if I buy the item anyway, only then am I tempted to go for the red option: sometimes the fact there is a red option might be the final thing that tempts me to buy the item in the first place...

this explains why I haven't bought the iPod Red, but I will buy the iPod Red Shuffle the week it appears...

P.S. I don't see buying red as giving to charity. I see it as forcing big business to give to charity (a red iPod is the same price as a bogstandard one).

I'm confused. If the charity receives an allocation from total profits in the first place, then surely this implies the whole scheme is in profit, which presumably is after costs, including the marketing of $100m. This means Bono could argue that the scheme is profitable for all and therefore working quite well (given that global consumer companies are unlikely to deliver this quantity of money to charity without some sort of quid pro quo). Secondly, if the donation is instead, a proportion of revenue, then we still have no idea of the total profitability of the scheme and whether it covers and justifies its fixed costs. Given that this is being leveraged off existing infrastructure using existing products, I would imagine that marketing could easily be the most significant incremental cost to provide this scheme. For example, if the scheme made $18m and this was 10% of revenue (using Motorola as a guide to how the revenue is allocated) then it still made $180m total revenue, which may or may not be enough to cover the incremental cost of running the scheme but would appear to be enough to cover the marketing costs. Thirdly, the article gives no indication of how much of those costs are one-off outlays of start-up capital which won't be repeated in the future. So in a long winded way, its impossible to conclude whether its working or not from what you or the magazine that published the article has said.....What is clear is that people can buy the things they want/need and are going to buy anyway but they can also make a donation to charity where they wouldn't normally. It doesn't stop them making further contribution and it may mean that some people who wouldn't donate are able to donate so net net I think it does provide some benefit to society.

You want to give to a 'Red' charity? Go to your local Blood Donor session or sign up to a Bone Marrow donors register:

Find and help your community charities. Give your time and volunteer, assist a local group. Its not all about giving money.

However - what if these big corporates and Bono (I see the world thru my Rose Tinted Shades man) actually just gave the cash over instead of wasting millions on an advertising campaign that has clearly failed to reach the masses. I have not heard of this 'Red' concept until now.

Not since the billions the Lottery Fund (how much did they squander changing the name to 'Lotto'?) are sitting on have I heard of such a farce regarding monies for charity.

"I donate to charity, buy freetrade etc... but as soon as I heard of the notion of Red, everything became Bono and Red... and I frankly do not think Bono needs any further publicity. He has used Red the same way Branson uses Virgin... and for a charitable organisation that is something I dont want to support."

Don't knock Branson, he was going to run the National Lottery as a NON PROFIT organisation with all proceeds going to charity. Strange how a private company managed to get that gig instead, and
are now sat on billions in unallocated funds.

I would never purchase a RED product on the basis that, quite possibly the world's most pompous tax avoidance expert, B(uffo)ono has a connection to it.

Much better to give direct to whichever charities you prefer.

I was recently in New York where the Red iPod is cheaper than other iPods, sadly I had just bought an iPod so couldn't justify although with cheaper prices than the UK my next iPod will be from USA.

I don't like Bono, he has plenty of money, not living hand to mouth like the rest of us, and I agree that the stars who want us to give to charity should be giving a substantial amount of their own money.

Recently when U2 were on Jonathan Ross it was clear that his fellow band members were also sick and tired of his jetsetting in respect of charitable work, the rest of the band, musicians, probably want to be musicians, not a sunglass wearing freeloader.

This has got to be one of the most cynical marketing campaigns I have witnessed. Motorola who have been actively involved in destabilising a certain African country in order to get mining rights for a certain mineral to make a certain model of phone??? Yes the RED one! - You might want to look it up. While I cannot knock Bono's intentions.... no one can really, he is nothing more than a poster boy for "corporate responsibility". These "phillanthropists" have jumped at the chance to get on this bandwagon that paints a picture that they really care about the welfare of Africa. The reality is very different, take GAP and their sweatshops as one example of how they care about people in other parts of the world. Rather than solving Africas problems, Bono is so naive he is actually perpetuating them. Whilst misleading the public in to thinking that they can genuinely change things with a consumer drive.

If Bono changed his status to be resident in the UK or Eire for tax (rather than living in a tax haven) then people might listen to this self-righteous, self-important man.
He chooses not to, meaning that the governments and people he berates don't get the benefit of millions in tax that he would pay, and that could be used to write off 3rd world debt or support charity; how does that fit with 'would meet with the devil it it would help'?

'Make Bono History' T shirts for everyone I think

Angus M has a point, if on average about 5% of the Red purchases go towards a charity, to be able to channel GBP18 million on to better causes,the companies have made around GBP360 million.

Although not sure about business margins, if the companies spent GBP100 million in marketing this particular brand, the returns seem decent.

No one probably is fooled by the corporate social responsibility that the companies are spewing out, but what's the harm in having a cause behind our consumerism?

If anything, one could be cynical about the way these corporations have tapped into the current trend of eco warriors, and world savers, who have money and are willing to spend it.

But then that is the way the world works - everyone likes to make a bit of money on the side - and if someones figured out a way to channel some of that towards fighting AIDS, why not?

This is all very interesting. I am keen to believe that Bono is clever enough to use his celebrity as currency in a saturated market that simply won't listen otherwise. As a professional fundraiser for a global medical charity I am faced every day with cold and shrugging shoulders - people find it difficult to donate now with so much need in the world. Maybe Red is just another modern and commercial attempt to bridge a gap that seems likely never to close. In this rich first world we all buy things we don't really need, every day, so why not try to cash in on that and make charitable donations at the same time? Surely that's better than nothing?

Bono doesn't invest his own money in Red, Apple sells a Special Edition U2 iPod. Its profits are not donated to Red, U2 made $389m from the recent Vertigo tour. Its revenue was then funnelled through companies mostly registered in Ireland and structured to minimize taxes.

U2 moved its music publishing company to the Netherlands from Ireland in June 2006, six months before Ireland ended a tax exemption on musicians' royalty income.

Any more reasons to not like Bono?

The number seems off. Apple donates $10 for every red iPod nano sold and if you assume $18M comes from Apple, that means only 1.8M red iPod sold since (out of 21M in the Christmas quarter plus whatever they've sold in the current quarter). Now factor in Gap, Amex, Motorola and so on.

The premise in the article is wrong too. It's not about people wanting to advertise their donation with a logo, but it's about buying a charity-friendly product when they need to get the product anyway at no cost to them. You don't buy a red iPod to donate, but you get a red one at the same price if you want/need an iPod.

Even if they only raise $18M, it's still $18M more money they get than if they've done nothing. Comparing it to $100M advertising fund is false because the companies involved will spend money for advertising anyway and $100M was not solely for RED, but also for the companies' own brands and products. It helps build the brand awareness. Even if you think the idea is stupid and disagree with it, it still gets people talk and put the thought of donating to charity in their mind and if they don't like RED, they may just think about donating money to a charity elsewhere.

Not everyone wants to support the 'big' charities or issues such as HIV Aids as they are not that relevant to their lives. Plenty of people want to give to charity but want it to be closer to home where they can see the benefits of their donation. My children's school uses easyfundraising.org.uk which allows you to shop online with lots of retailers and each purchase generates a donation to the charity or good cause of your choice. This is great for our little community school where Bono's Global Fund is markedly less important than the need to raise funds for our children's new play equipment.

It's not so terrible to want to flaunt your charitable credentials- at least, it's better than wanting to flaunt any other brand.

Private giving and public giving shouldn't be an either/or thing, but hey, having a Red ipod or an 'I have given blood 25 times' keyring isn't annoying other people.

And no, I haven't bought anything Red - I'm anti-capitalist and try to avoid buying much at all. But I don't really see what is achieved by the vilification of 'virtue symbols'.

Never heard of RED, but from now on I will actively look for RED products, and AVOID it at all cost!

Charity is my personal stuff, and I dont want Bono or anybody else to tell you which charity to choose, neither I am going to donate to Bono's charity.

And particularly Bono, who charges $100s for a concert, tries his best to avoid tax, talking about making people to donate is one too many insult to accept!

Infact, I believe charities will benefit more from distancing themselves from people like Bono!

Enough Windbag, enough!

Charity giving organise by international businesses, always makes me wonder what the real reason behind it is.. oh Profit!

We regually dontate text books to africa, baby grows to africa, and money to independant local charities.

We will increase our donations as and when we can afford to. In the mean time. Red? yep commercial abuse of the charity sector makes me see it!

This is the same Bono who has moved his tax-residence away from Ireland to save tax?? (having enjoyed privileged tax status for years in Ireland).

The man is an breathtaking & outrageous hypocrite and should not be given the oxygen of publicity.

Bravo Robert! Well pointed out.