You know how sometimes you just get … browned out to the point where everything you see has some sort of desi connection? Well, it happens to those not of the subcontinent as well. Here’s what happened to Saheli’s friend ToastyKen:
 |
|
Not Aishwarya |
While I was driving, I caught a glimpse of this Gap ad in a bus shelter. “DESI(RED).” I immediately assumed it was pun on the words “desired” and “desi”. I only got a brief look as I sped by, so I figured it was a Desi model in the picture. (“Was that Aishwarya Rai?”)
“Hm,” I thought. “I didn’t realize the word ‘Desi’ was so mainstream now. Maybe they’re trying to project a multicultural marketing message or something?” But I didn’t really think that hard about it. [Link]
<
p>Of course, it’s not Aishwarya, it’s Penelope Cruz. And it’s neither an appeal for brownbucks nor a critique of socialist influences in “I love Lucy”, it’s part of the new (product)red branding exercise / fundraiser “designed to Help Eliminate AIDS in Africa.” It has nothing to do with us, even though we like to imagine that everything does. It’s purely a koinkydink.
<
p>As an aside, while I often find myself defending Bono, in this case I agree with the conservative critic Michael Medved’s opinion of the campaign (assuming he’s correct):
… [Medved] called the campaign a “scam” because, he wrote, it is merely an excuse for companies “to jack up their prices on ordinary merchandise to ridiculous levels, and not all the difference in price is actually going to the charity…” [Link]
I’m afraid I’m too desi (i.e. cheap) to buy in. I’d rather buy the regular gear and send a check for the excess directly to the charity of my choice without having the Gap or whoever skim its percentage. To me, that’s the desi and desi(red) way of donating.
Damn, Mr. K! I was hoping to see if this would turn into an actual discussion of alternatives to capitalism for paths to social prosperity, which I have been dying to dive into lately. But I’m afraid I’ll awaken the midget zombies…
you guys see jamon! jamon!? cruz’ has some brown entrerrosca.
Gujudude:
I agree with you that it does not help to reduce a problem to socialist/capitalist slogans. One does generally end up with a lot of sloganeering and little progress. But at the same time, stating the constraints for a problem itself involves a statement of one’s worldview. For example, one might say that the large profit margins of pharma companies cannot be tampered with, and should be taken as a constraint, and people who do not see market freedom as sacronsact will disagree. So in the end, it ends up as the same old argument of competing philosophies/worldviews.
It is possible to bring about small changes working inside a system, but to bring about significant changes, it is often important to rethink one’s assumptions/constraints (I hope I do not sound like a Marxist revolutionary because I am not 🙂 ) .
A couple of notes:
The way I see it, though, this campaign is not for people who already donate to charity. It’s to reach out to people who do NOT already donate to charity. And if the participating companies actually make money doing this, well, that just provides the incentive for them to continue the program, right? And in the end, the charity does get money, so everyone wins, no?
The only morally ambiguous part of this that I see is if the marketing and profit gain for the company through this program is significantly disproportionate to the amount of money they end up giving to charity.
Can anybody else contribute to the factual question of whether these goods cost extra? If I’m wrong, I’ll happily change the post … Medved could well be wrong, and the NYT may not have fact checked his assertion.
Sakshi:
Constraints exist everywhere. Knowing what you have to work with and understanding the system/’game’ is the beginning to maneuvering through/around it successfully. To win or succeed, understanding the rules (I’m using this loosely) is crucial.
Everything in life is, but when people with different ideas recognize the pragmatic realities before their own world view, things work better. Lofty ideals are great, so is cool theory. How does that translates into practical and effective solutions is a different world.
How does subsidizing expensive HIV cocktail medication even work when the professionals, government, and support structure doesn’t even EXIST to deliver the necessary long term care effectively. That is recongizing a constraint – logistics and human resources. Having cheap medicine won’t hurt, but it isn’t the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Lack of fundamental development and education is, particularly for healthcare.
I really don’t want to get into an argument of the merits of economic systems here. That isn’t my intention. It doesn’t really matter how the local population is organized in terms of healthcare, just that they are organized, educated, and honest. Much of the work needed to be done is over there, not here. A combination of ideas (some capitalist, some social, some religious, etc.) dialed for the particular problem is needed. The dosage of each ‘system’ competely depends upon the deck of cards you’re handed. Being dynamic and flexible is the key here rather than using a shotgun, one size fits all, routine.
some of the companies are rebranding existing products (and keeping the prices the same like the i-pod), and other companies are launching new ‘limited edition’ products (armani, the gap), so there is no historical price point to compare them to. The Gap is donating 50% of the profits to the Global Fund, so that means that yes, they are profiting from the (Red) product launch. So while they can drastically mark up prices to retain profit, marking up the price increases the donation since it’s a percentage contribution, rather than a fixed amount going to TGF.
my detailed analysis 😛 tells me yes, the red stuff costs more regular jeans in various styles (for women) -> $30-$60 the (RED) jean -> $150
I hear you GujuDude. Education is a fundamental, yes, but I think even before that there needs to be an acknowledgement that AIDS is an epidemic. Some African governments still haven’t done this. If the govs don’t do it, the health care systems and, I think most importantly, the societies in a cultural sense, will never be able to properly address it. Culturally, it’s associated with sexual deviance. Many communities that are completely aware of the fact that their people have AIDS skirt the issue by denying it, calling it by other names or simply shunning those who are actually “out”. If The Gap can make a t-shirt that advocates direct action to pressure governments to prioritize AIDS, I might not be so critical.
And this is on a bit of a tangent, but previous educational campaigns have had serious ethical responsibility issues. These include implementing programs that are more about population control than health care (all the condoms and sterilization options in the world but very little culturally sensitive sex education or relief for the actual affliction); the [further] disempowerment of women of the Third World in both the public and private spheres (by shifting the responisibility of communal health from corporations, govs, patriarchy and misogyny onto the women themselves – blaming the victim); and proselytizing (white Jesus?), among other things… Just saying we should be wary of these things as we promote education.
sumiti:
I understand the point about administrative costs and the costs of awareness campaigns. I also understand that some companies and NGOs come pretty close to what they’re cracked up to be. But The Gap is not one of them, even if they “raise awareness”. I see the difference between a good and bad institution being a matter of size, business ethics and national base (I believe you also indicated something to this effect). None of those considerations put The Gap in a favorable light; hence, when I see this particular campaign, TheBullshitRadar goes off.
Fully understanding that they will both have to attend to administrative fees, if I had to choose between The Gap and a local NGO that is aiming for the same kind of awareness, I’m going to choose the local NGO. It’s not a sexy answer, but I think that if people really want to make the right decision about supporting a certain institution’s campaign, then they’ll have to do some pretty thorough research on their own. And that’s the problem.
i completely agree with ToastyKen. this campaign is for the people that don’t donate to charities, whatever their reasons may be. this is for the college age kids that are so wrapped up in their classes and social lives that they don’t think about life outside their own; the soccer moms so busy trying to schedule their kids’ lives and their own, etc. they see some cool looking shirts and gadgets on oprah or on a billboard, go into the store and buy one. and i think that a good amount will read the little blurb on a t-shirt’s tag, or visit the red campaign’s website.
mr kobayashi, i don’t know if i would compare this to colonialism. i’ll agree that the red campaign may not financially be the most effective way to get money from people to medicines/treatments in africa. but it’s getting money from people that aren’t traditionally involved in charity, along with people already interested in the cause, and it’s bringing exposure on a hollywood level. as a teenager not too long ago, i remember whose messages were heard and listened to by my peers and whose weren’t in the world. bono is being smart and savvy by knowing how to reach the masses. that said, i may not bash this campaign and actually have a lot of praise for it, but i completely understand where you’re coming from and i think that people like bono would wish that everyone could think like that, but understands that they don’t and therefore the red campaign.
Summary of what I’ve learned today
Gap and the pharamceutical companies are bad.
Education is FUNdamental (not to be confused with the artist Fun-Da-Mental).
Withdrawing in disgust is not the same as apathy. Keep pushing the boulder up the hill, eh Mr K?
Bad bullfighters get Go(Red).
I think I am too ti(red) to carefully follow this thread. But that Penelope is no Aishwarya.
Mr. K just doesn’t like to see Big Pharma dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix.
Coming from a PD & QC background I absolutely refuse to believe that these products cost more. I went thru all the Red product at the Gap over the weekend and I’m just not convinced it’s better made or made of better fabric.
Mr. K, you are right on.
“What I’ve been talking about is corporate heart-string-tugging strategies.”
Yea, there’s even a term for it: Cause-related marketing. Consumers feel virtous, companies rake in the moolah.
i haven’t read all of the comments..but this month is also the pink month promoting breast cancer awareness.. from campbells soup cans turned pink to delta airlines painting a plane pink and serving pink lemonade on their flights…being a cancer doctor i get excited about companies promoting awareness and such… however, a great eye opening news piece last week on abc news put’s it all into perspective in which i think this (red) campaign gap is trying to promote is in truth going to go to…the bottom line of business is to make a buck..
yes it will maybe promote awareness..but as others above have said before.. it will cause the consumer to buy something to appease their conscience…
from that news piece:
campbells soup cans:
yoplait yogurt:
.
in the end.. it’s a little deceiving…when a lot of people (including myself) go bright eyed and bushy tailed into trying to buy pink products or other things to help a cause…
who is right who is wrong? dunno… it’s just being aware of the bigger picture.. as coffee scoop said above.. it’s cause related marketing…and in the end… cha ching… companies win…. ding ding ding!
Chickie thanx for posting it. I’m watching “Why I wore Red Lipstick to my Mastactomy” on Lifetime right now. I’m distributing the pink bands to the whole department tomorrow. For nothing but a reminder to get tested and to be aware.
The chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in a woman’s life is about 1 in 8 (13% of women). It is estimated that in 2006 about 212,920 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States. At this time there are slightly over 2 million breast cancer survivors in the United States. Women living in North America have the highest rate of breast cancer in the world.
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer. The chance that breast cancer will be responsible for a womanÂ’s death is about 1 in 33 (3%). In 2006, about 40,970 women and 460 men will die from breast cancer in the United States.
Ennis said:
Janeofalltrades replied:
Jane, by “cost”, I think Ennis meant “price”, or cost to the customer, not cost to the merchant. I don’t know about the Gap case, but my understanding is that the iPod is priced the same as other iPod nanos, and the AmEx card is just a normal credit card.
It should be obvious that charging a lot of money in Africa is not going to help new research in drugs. Drug companies develop drugs for diseases of rich people and rich societies. No American drug company would develop a drug for a disease that exists only in Africa. Americans get the benefits from these drugs first and the American markets sustains the R&D that these companies do. Future research can be funded just from this. With Africans there are ONLY two options. Sell it to them cheap and help them live or price it high and deny them the drugs. This does not follow the usual supply-demand curves. Above a certain price, the demand just does to zero. They simply cannot afford it even if it means dying.
I went to an Economics class (not my major) to find out more specifically about this kind of thing. And guess what I found out – monopolies actually maximize their profit by selling their products cheap in other markets. So it’s better for the companies as well if they can make AIDS drugs available as cheaply as they can in Africa. But the political pressures are huge. If others pay less than Americans for the same drugs , it looks terrible for the company. I hate it when Democrats work to force these companies to have similar prices in different countries “so our seniors don’t have to pay more drugs…”
I know I’m taking this out of context, but this is another reason I hate Democrats. The way they continuously shaft liberals by offering “something is better than nothing”. So fuck Kucinich, fuck Green party, fuck Nader and consumer rights, fuck opposing the war, fuck Kyoto. We’ve got to defeat the Republicans today. We can stand up for liberal values later. We don’t really have to act like liberals. Who are you going to vote for if not us? Republicans? Something is better than nothing.
….and the real something that needs to be done will never be done.
interesting article in today’s NYT about AIDS drugs and them unmasking a hidden leprosy infection…
Kurma, my understanding about the differential pricing issue is that the drug companies are afraid that if they sell it cheap in Africa, that will create a huge gray market for re-imports. This is already an issue with Americans buying cheaper drugs from Canada. Now, most drugs in this country are bought by insurance companies anyway, so it’s arguable how big an impact this would really have, but it’s not as simple as “just charge different prices”.
Toastyken, I didn’t say it’s simple. The solution would be to not allow reimportation and not to try and equalize prices. Just imagine the headlines though. Greedy drug companies imprison poor US seniors so they can corner Africa market. Politicians are never going to let that happen. It’s much much better for them to have millions die in Africa than to have a few US citizens go through hardship for drugs. In other words – I can help you, but only if it means I don’t have to face the slightest discomfort.
There is lack of political will on the matter of enforcing a ban on reimportation.
Does anyone remember that Killian’s used the “DESI(RED)” phrase in their billboard campaigns? They had these up about a year ago… I’m thinking plagiarism on Gap’s part.
My God, 75 comments and nobody has done any research on Project (RED)–yet here you all are criticizing this “charity.” The people involved with Project (RED) never said anything about being a charity. (RED) is a business model. It’s a way of simply getting medicine to the people who need it but can’t afford it. If two products of equal quality, price, etc. exist and one is a (RED) product, people will generally be more inclined to purchase the (RED) product. End of story. And (RED) products are of the same price, quality, etc. as other products. I don’t know who gets brand-new jeans for under the $100-$200 range anywhere. Bono, Oprah, etc. know that this model takes complete advantage of capitalism, but that’s why it will work. Yes, most companies are only giving the 1-2% of their profits, but GAP is giving 50 percent. Yet you all choose to bash the GAP? And while 50 percent is not a lot on a single purchase, after a while it adds up. It adds up from the other companies too. Before long, some people in Africa will get the pills they need. Do your research before you come out here with fists waving. I thought America had learned that by now.
thanks for the comment mfunnierthanyou…
more on project red… and they even have a blog.
(this is aside from the thread) – there is another ‘charity’ initiative called Goodtree… its a combination of the Google, Yahoo, MSN, and AskJeeves search engines… everytime you use it some money goes to charities and you can choose which one(s). without debating how much of it actually goes to people and helps them… we can give it a try, we have nothing to lose.
if you go to the hyperlink, i think u can join on your own, but if you need an invite for it, drop me an email and i can send you one.
that’s what found from the gap.com website … i don’t know if the products are of equal quality, but the price difference is pretty staggering
pretentious, much?
Okay, I admit the jean comment was pretty lame. But everybody knows that when a new pair of jeans first comes out, they’re usually really expensive. I stand by the rest of what I said.
The campaign has spent $100M on ads for Bono/Penelope Cruz/Turlington but raised just $18M for Africa.
there are too many brown ppl in canada teaching our kids their counties bs learn some fuckin english and stop taking over all the parks and starting fightes with ppl with your gangs