[Rictor]

The rock star Bono has launched a new global brand, Product Red, with a share of profits to go to the fight against Aids in Africa.

Launch partners American Express, Gap, Converse and Giorgio Armani announced a range of "red" branded products.These will include T-shirts, footwear, sunglasses and a credit card.

"Here we are, fat cats in the snow," said Bono at the start of the launch, only to correct himself: "I should say winners in the snow."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4650024.stm

Godamn brilliant. A pampered millionare rockstar is partnering with several multinational corporations to sell what I can only assume will be overpriced "designer" brands, including a line of credit cards, and it's all to help the poor little AIDS-stricken bastards, living in poverty in the global periphery. And the best part, the very best part, is that the lot of them with their $600 sunglasses and mansions, made by either the labour of gulibility of others, will go down in history as selfless humanitarians.

Truly, one of the most perversely cunning marketing campaigns in history. This is the type of thing only the devil could think of, while sitting in his Madison Avenue office and grinning like a maniac. This is some sort of marketing Zen, some whole new level of deviousness. It's like watching Hannibal Lector eat a person, it's awesome precisely because it's so evil.

[aldo_14]

A 'share' of profits.

Ah, what senseless, thoughtless charity they give.

EDIT; so all they've really  promised, is to reinvest the profits straight back into their sweatshop workforce?

[vyper]

At least we're getting some interesting google ads to click thanks to this thread.

[Nuke]

this is why u2 sucks.

[vyper]

No U2 suck because they sound awful.

[Unknown Target]

From your description...it sounds like the already overpriced designer brands will be donating money to AIDs in Africa...problem with that is what?

[ionia23]

Certainly, because it would be preferable they gave no money at all.

[Rictor]

No, because they are using the suffering of others to sell merchandise and fill their wallets. Then, they will generously donate maybe 5% of the earnings to AIDS treatments, make out like bandits and be treated like kings. Because taking from the rich to give to the poor only works if you don't keep 90% of the money for yourself, as the middle-man. Also, because the lot of them, starting with Bono and Armani are douches of monumental proportions. Like Bill Hicks said: the only good marketers can do in this world is to remove themselves from it. Becuase charity to the dying should not be subject to corporate profit margins. Do you disagree?

[Unknown Target]

No...but 5% is better than 0%, even if it is clothed in scumbaginess, don't you think? If you were dying, would you rather recieve 2,000 dollars for your treatment (when it really costs $10,000), or nothing?

And don't forget; 5% of their sales is a LOT of money. Not as much as the other 95%, but it's still a lot.

[aldo_14]

From your description...it sounds like the already overpriced designer brands will be donating money to AIDs in Africa...problem with that is what?

Because in many ways this sort of lip-service is worse than just ignoring the problem; it creates this sort of ideal that, here is this problem, and we've set the absolutely maximum we're willing to do as being just slightly more than bugger all.  It's actually devaluing the crisis; now middle classed kids can buy sunglasses with a 120% markup, and feel free to disregard the problem because they've 'done their bit'.  I mean, it's not any different from Pepsi brining out a special 'patriots edition' can in October 2001, with 3 cents of every can sold (collectors edition!) going to a victim support group.

[Unknown Target]

Damnit, you replied before I did. Where did the notification go? Anyway, read my post above yours please

[Rictor]

No...but 5% is better than 0%, even if it is clothed in scumbaginess, don't you think? If you were dying, would you rather recieve 2,000 dollars for your treatment (when it really costs $10,000), or nothing?

And don't forget; 5% of their sales is a LOT of money. Not as much as the other 95%, but it's still a lot.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that all recognized religions, including atheism, consider putting a single dollar in Bono's pocket a sin of the worst kind, for which there is no redemption or forgiveness. Pope Leo IV based his entire tenure on the principle of "Thou shalt pay no dividends to assholes", and IIRC the Dalai Lama issued a decree to the same effect.

edit: also, what aldo said. I don't know about you, but the suffering of million is maybe not the right thing to make a buck, or a million, off of.

[aldo_14]

No...but 5% is better than 0%, even if it is clothed in scumbaginess, don't you think? If you were dying, would you rather recieve 2,000 dollars for your treatment (when it really costs $10,000), or nothing?

And don't forget; 5% of their sales is a LOT of money. Not as much as the other 95%, but it's still a lot.

The problem is that it's not just xxp or nothing; it's a sticking plaster solution that encourages people to believe they're donating more than they actually are, and assuages any sense of guilt they may have at actually giving bugger all to the actual people.  It's just like how the National Lottery (in the UK) has hit general charity donations; because people look at the 'good causes' part of the ticket price, and ignore the whopping great chunk of that pound going to Camelots coffers, so the pound they would have given to charity becomes some small percentage the lottery allocates to build a new opera house for working class single mothers or some rubbish.

 It's not like people aren't only going to buy this stuff because 'it's for charity' (although arguably thats worse - why not just give that money all to charity?) and the charities are getting xx they wouldn't want.  this is people taking the money they would or could have given, and spending it on themselves, using the tiny percentage cut as an excuse for their selfishness (if you're not going to donate, fine, but don't be so bloody shady and claim you do it all via your purchase of Bono-branded merchandising).

[Ulala]

Hm, interesting points from both sides.

[Dough with Fish]

Bono = biggest douche ever? You be the judge

[ionia23]

Well, sure, one way to look at it is the suffering of others is used to move merchandise (example, that self-centered piece of crap Chumbawumba album "Starving Children Sell Records").  This is the voice of the cynic.

Another way to look at it is that the suffering of others can be alleviated by the shopping needs of the wealthy.  This is the voice of the misguided idealist.

The smartest way to look at it is this:

"The socio-economic problems of Africa cannot be solved by merely throwing money."

This is the voice of the truth.

[an0n]

I can't be the only one who thinks we should just let Africa burn, can I?

I mean, we tell them to wear condoms and they think we're trying to put a ****ing voodoo infertility curse on them. They gang-**** AIDS infected hookers on a Friday night.

Then they have 15 kids and sit around whining about not having enough food. Here's a ****ing clue: Disease and mortality rates would fall if you STOPPED HAVING HUNDREDS OF KIDS! And there'd be more food.

They should just forcibly sterilize them with chemical attacks. That'd solve everyone's problems.

[aldo_14]

I can't be the only one who thinks we should just let Africa burn, can I?

I mean, we tell them to wear condoms and they think we're trying to put a ****ing voodoo infertility curse on them. They gang-**** AIDS infected hookers on a Friday night.

Then they have 15 kids and sit around whining about not having enough food. Here's a ****ing clue: Disease and mortality rates would fall if you STOPPED HAVING HUNDREDS OF KIDS! And there'd be more food.

They should just forcibly sterilize them with chemical attacks. That'd solve everyone's problems.

Ah, anon.  The voice of being dropped on your head as a baby.


Repeatedly.

[an0n]

Tell me I'm wrong.

[aldo_14]

You're wrong.

Better?