The New York Times reported yesterday that Product (RED) is about to start an online music service along with its other product lines (like Gap shirts, iPods and Dell computers). The re-appearance of Product (RED) in the news brings up some old questions. Is donating a portion of purchases to charity raising awareness about important causes or just allowing shallow consumers who idolize Bono to create the appearance of caring without any real commitment? Is it promoting the companies without real benefit to the charity? Should the companies redirect the money they are spending on marketing Product (RED) and actually give those funds to charity instead?
What is “Embedded Giving”?
A series of 2007 posts by Lucy Bernholz on the topic of “embedded giving” defines the practice this way: “Embedded giving is the (apparently) increasingly common practice of building a philanthropic gift into another, unrelated, financial transaction. For example, rounding up your phone bill to make a gift to charity. Or using your own grocery bag and donating the nickel that the store gives you to a local homeless shelter.” Her post included the observation that a charitable “surcharge” onto other purchases may encourage people to give without thinking about what they are really doing.
But here’s my question: Do we care whether people are intentionally being thoughtful and purposeful when they donate, so that if they buy Product (RED) for the social cachet instead of with the desire to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, the charities should decline the proceeds?
Buy (LESS)
I once saw Tactical Philanthropy list “Buy (LESS) Crap!” as one of the “best of the Philanthropic Web.” Buy (LESS) critiques the model of Product (RED) on the grounds that it promotes consumerism and that buying stuff is not real charity. But does (RED) really suggest that we should buy more crap, as Buy (LESS) claims? Or merely that, if we are going to buy crap, like t-shirts, greeting cards and iPods, we can choose to buy an iPod where part of the purchase price will go to charity? Same iPod, same price, but more to charity. On their web site, (RED) explicitly states that the choice is between buying (RED) and buying non-(RED). Suggesting that (RED) makes us buy more crap is like suggesting that “Pulp Fiction” made us more violent. Are we really still blaming Quentin Tarantino for our violent society? We’re blaming (RED) for our consumerist culture?
“Tainted Money”
Years ago, as a new grant writer for a museum, I bemoaned to my boss the fact that a company whose practices I find to be socially irresponsible sponsors a major arts grant competition (hint: illip-Fay orris-May). Her reply: “There’s a saying in fundraising that ‘the only problem with tainted money is that there ‘taint enough.’”
“Indulgences Sold Here”??
Think those charities should turn the money down? I don’t. But–and this is the key–the charitable contributions can’t be used by anyone–a company, an individual, media, shareholders, charities or anyone else–as a way to deflect attention from wrongdoing in some other area. Corporations need to exercise social responsibility irrespective of their other charitable activities. Philanthropy can’t be used as an excuse or a shield, so that companies avoid all other scrutiny. (My former congressman once justified his acceptance of Phillip Morris campaign contributions by pointing out that they own Kraft, and Kraft gives a lot to charity. Ick.)
So we should applaud Yoplait and M&Ms, General Mills and ChapStick and the other 60 corporate partners that give money to Susan G. Komen (those people have this model down to a science) but that doesn’t mean no one should be looking at other aspects of those businesses and holding them accountable.
What do you think?
Do you own Product (RED)? Do you prefer companies that partner with charities? Do you feel confident that the charities who let their names be used are thoroughly vetting the companies before letting themselves be associated with that company? Thoughts and comments welcome.
