Although HIV doesn’t dominate headlines like it did 20 years ago, the virus still rages out of control in most patients it infects. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, most HIV-afflicted patients don’t take the drugs they need to manage their conditions. Scarier still, as many as 20 percent of those with HIV don’t know they’re infected. [More]
His response was “Whatever, somebody needs to come deal with this because I’m about to go off…”
Responding to a Dell pricing controversy that boiled over last week, a spokesperson for (Product) Red, an initiative whereby company color some of their products red and donate a portion of the profits to an AIDS fighting charity, left a comment on our blog to try dispel some of the confusion they felt had arisen over the issue. At stake was a computer Dell sells for $1,299 that you can get in the (Product) Red version for $1,599, with $80 of it going to the Global Fund. What about the other $220, asked gizmo blog Engadget? Well, we could tell them that it’s because you’re getting Windows Vista Ultimate and Microsoft Office and Student 2007 instead of Windows XP and Microsoft Works, but we’ll let the comment from Bich Ngoc Cao of (Product) Red do the talking…
Over at Engadget there is a debate going on about Microsoft and Dell’s collaboration on a (Project) Red XPS PC that is $300 more than the standard XPS, with $80 going towards AIDS relief.
(RED), the global co-branding experiment that directs a percentage of (RED) product revenues towards fighting AIDS in Africa, has only directed $18 million out of $100 million spent. AdAge reports that this is raising eyebrows other than our own.
The disproportionate ratio between the marketing outlay and the money raised is drawing concern among nonprofit watchdogs, cause-marketing experts and even executives in the ad business. It threatens to spur a backlash, not just against the Red campaign — which ambitiously set out to change the cause-marketing model by allowing partners to profit from charity — but also for the brands involved.
Charities are usually judged on the percent of contributions spent on programs, rather than administration. (RED) is not a charity. In a letter to AdAge’s editor, (RED)’s CEO Bobby Shriver explains why this makes all the difference.
Because (RED) is explicitly NOT a charity, we encourage our partners to go about their business including their marketing. This sells the products; the products generate the $25 million. In addition, this marketing would have been spent anyway, on other product lines. It never would have been (nor will it ever be) given to the Global Fund.
We tell you who’s right, after the jump.
We were shocked yesterday to see this clip accusing Bayer of selling medicine they knew was infected with AIDS, but maybe we should’ve been shocked back in the mid 80’s.
The American Express RED card is a new, ostensibly fashionable, way to wear your charity on your wallet sleeve.
An American preacher on Crusade [sic] in Africa offers an unusal come-on to Lesotho’s poor: he cures AIDS.
“Although you can no longer donate blood, the American Red Cross will continue to provide for the blood needs of you and our loved ones.”
Hey, AIDS sufferers! Better stock up on aspirin. There’s just not enough money is curing your often fatal disease, says the federal chief of AIDS research, Dr. Edmund Tramont.
“If we look at the vaccine, HIV vaccine, we’re going to have an HIV vaccine. It’s not going to be made by a company,” Tramont said. “They’re dropping out like flies because there’s no real incentive for them to do it. We have to do it.”
Of course, the pharmaceutical researchers deny that they’re dragging their feet.