And how much word spreading has happened about HIV/AIDS in Africa thanks to (Product) Red? Loads. And almost all of it on the dime of Gap, Converse, Motorola, Apple and all the other companies involved. And they do it because it works for them and it works for the Global Fund. Everybody wins.

Can Cause Marketing Solve the World's Problems?
Think Before You Pink executive director Barbara Brenner said, "We've been encouraged as a culture to think we can solve problems this way, and there's pretty good evidence that it won't work.”

And where is that evidence? Newsweek doesn't bother to explain.

But the bigger problem here is the expectation that cause marketing can solve the world's problems. It can't. Buying a T-shirt at the Gap or sending in a yogurt lid isn't going to cure AIDS or breast cancer. That's as naive as thinking your $10 donation is going to do the same. Neither action in and of themselves will accomplish the end goal.

Duh.

But nobody is saying that. The aim of every non-profit and cause marketing venture is to bring more $10 donations and $1.50 cause marketing contributions to bear on a problem and hopefully the collective will amount to something and we can make some progress.

Cause marketing is just another piece of the pie to help solve the world's problems. It's not the whole pie. And why not take every piece of the pie you can get to help your cause of choice? Why turn away money, effort and attention? Causes should be saying, "Bring it on!"

Purchases Have an Impact
Another critical barb Newsweek hurls at Product (Red) comes from Ethics of Consumption author David Crocker: “What we buy and consume and use up and waste has a big impact on the developing world. So sometimes I think the responsibility is on the part of citizens to really take an active role [in learning about an item]."

And while Newsweek doesn't bother to follow up (again), I think this one goes in the win column for (Product) Red. Just check out the story of Motorola turning to a printing press in Africa for their (Product) Red packaging--and this is apparently something all (Product) Red partners have agreed to do. With all the focus on helping Africa, it would be foolish for (Product) Red to utilize child labor or environmentally damaging production processes. The whole concept is to have a positive impact on the developing world.

Obviously we need to be just as careful that cause marketing products are having a positive impact, but with the emphasis on a cause it's much more likely that the products in a cause marketing campaign are going to have a positive impact than the regular products that aren't associated with a cause. Consumers are more aware with cause marketing, so the impact should be (and in Red's case I'd say is) more positive.

Bottom Line
Everybody wins with cause marketing. Except those who'd rather sit around and complain.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so:

• The Independent Refutes Ad Age's claims
• Product (Red) Co-Found Bobby Shriver Responds
• Bobby Shriver Offers a Point/Counter-Point
• Global Fund's Executive Director Responds
• Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria's President Responds

(link via Selfish Giving)