Ditz

Issue date: 11/2/09 Section: Outside the Bubble

Media Credit: Ashley Van Simpa Is Bono Superman?

Imagine you're in the checkout line at the local supermarket. You glance around looking for distractions--Jon and Kate are fighting (again), Justin and Jessica Biel split, Michelle Obama made the best-dressed list, Bono's on the cover of Newsweek. Wait, NEWSWEEK? But U2 doesn't have a new album out. He doesn't have any surprise movie roles a la Across the Universe releasing anytime soon soon. And what's this headline about saving the world?

Apparently, saving the planet is the noteworthy act Bono has been working on lately. And he isn't alone. The role of celebrities outside of acting, and especially in the world of politics and diplomacy, has become increasingly prevalent in American culture over the last three generations. We're all used to stars like George Clooney and Brad Pitt gracing the covers of magazines like People and GQ as artists, but now they're also seeking recognition as activists on international issues. And, hopefully, it has a lot of us asking 'why?'

When it comes to the rich and famous, celebrities' careers give them a title with a recognizable name that leads to a self-appointed position of power and ultimately translates into public influence. Like Miss America, celebrity activists, for better or worse, feel they have the status, authority and power to tackle the issue of "world peace."

Leading the pack of glorified, self-selected cast members in this production is Bono, who has in many ways become the bridge between Hollywood and Africa by successfully combining his dual personas and jobs as both rock star and celebrity diplomat. In 2006 Bono launched the (RED) campaign, which, according to its mission statement, "empowers you, the consumer, to choose products that raise money for the Global Fund to help eliminate AIDS in Africa." In other words, Bono and his business partners were looking for ways of funding their project and secured corporate America and consumers as their means of accomplishing this. Lucky us!

Media Credit: Google Images Bono and Oprah's Shopping Spree on Michigan Ave. in Chicago

There are currently nine big-name corporations working with the (RED) campaign, including Hallmark, Starbucks and Dell, but by far GAP has had the biggest response, beginning with the Bono-Oprah spectacle of a shopping spree on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, which aired live on The Oprah Winfrey Show. While the co-sponsorship of these companies may seem like a leap in the right direction in the eyes of the public, most scholars who have studied and analyzed Bono's efforts agree that the campaign has missed the mark in more ways than one. While (RED) was founded to raise awareness about the underdevelopment in sub-Sahara Africa and offer aid, the campaign quickly turned into a consumer-based campaign focused on spending money in order to 'save Africa.' The slogan, quite literally, is "Buy (RED), save lives. It's as simple as that."




But when you take a look at the simplicity of the campaign, it isn't "simple" at all. Each product that you buy with the (RED) product logo attached to it, as great as it sounds, does not necessarily mean that you are saving lives in Africa. All of the corporations are different and while it may result in a small influx of cash in Africa, the bigger result is the huge hunk of change going to American corporations. And that is exactly what Bono's business partner Bobby Shriver suggested was happening in an interview with The New York Times when he said, "We don't want [our (RED) business partners] to be thinking, 'I'm not making money on this thing,' because then we failed. We want people buying houses in the Hamptons based on this because if that happens, this thing is sustainable."

How refreshing. A politician who measures sustainability in the fight against AIDS in Africa by how the campaign benefits America's corporate elite and their high-rise condominiums or vacation homes.

While GAP may donate 50 percent of all (RED) profits to the United Nations Global Fund to eliminate AIDS in Africa, their product actually has side effects that are detrimental to the cause they are trying to support and bring awareness to. The original (RED) graphic t-shirt in 2006 that read INSPIR(RED) was easily accepted as following the theme of the campaign. Once the company started expanding, however, poor efforts to become trendy resulted in the production of overpriced cotton t-shirts that read HAMME(RED) and SCO(RED). (RED) started to completely fall flat by sending a message to young America that it's considered cool and fashionable to wear shirts that promote drinking and sex.


"The (RED) campaign has become a branding, marketing and advertising movement, where people are commodities and only as good as their next credit card payment."


We all know that sex sells, but is this appropriate to use when we are talking about the consistent spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa due to lack of education about prevention and treatment of the disease? How does linking sex and alcohol through a brand of t-shirt sales translate into educating the public about AIDS in Africa, which is the main part of the (RED) mission? What about the message they're selling to people here in the United States? According to the Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse, approximately 60 percent of college women who have acquired sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and genital herpes, were under the influence of alcohol at the time they had intercourse. So riddle me this: If we are trying to raise awareness about the prevention of contracting HIV/AIDS through intercourse, an incident often promoted by alcohol, why are we using consumerism to promote intercourse and alcohol?

Along the same contradictory lines of sex and drinking, the "BO(RED)" shirt is another design that is tasteless and irrelevant to the cause (RED) claims to be supporting. Instead of printing facts about issues in Africa or promoting a website where people can get information on prevention, protection, and testing for HIV/AIDS, GAP brings 'awareness' to the topic (Bono's chosen words) by sending a message to their consumers that the cause is boring. Why would we care about that?

What's even worse is that due to celebrity culture in America and Bono's innovative twist on classic cause-marketing with celebrities wearing the (RED) logo, the American public not only admires these clothes, but is easily able to emulate the look and feel good about supporting a cause with affordable GAP clothing--a consumerist dream come true.

Media Credit: Google Images (RED) Supporters: Bill Gates, Bono Michael Dell

To keep ourselves from mindless consumption we need to think about what these celebrities are really supporting and promoting. Is wearing a t-shirt that says HAMME(RED) next to a friend's that says DESI(RED) and walking down the street listening to (RED) iPods really going to help save dying children in Africa? No. What (RED) is really promoting is consumerism and capitalism in America that will benefit specific billion dollar companies and business elites who are onboard with Bono, not individuals who are suffering in Africa.




While it is evident that every penny donated to the AIDS pandemic in Africa does, in some way, makes a difference, it is hard to dismiss the fact that consumers are buying in order to give. While this action fits perfectly with the (RED) slogan: "You + GAP (PRODUCT) RED = Ending AIDS in Africa," donations are made in a roundabout way that ultimately benefits consumers and American corporations, often more than the cause itself. Think about it: instead of donating $20 directly to the Global Fund in the fight against AIDS in Africa, we need to spend an extra $20 to reward ourselves with an identical shirt that Julia Roberts wears on a billboard. What we must realize is that shopping is not the solution to the problem.

If college-aged students are naive enough (which many of them are) to believe they did their part in the world by purchasing a HAMME(RED) t-shirt, it is evident that the (RED) campaign has become a branding, marketing and advertising movement, where people are commodities and only as good as their next credit card payment.

Media Credit: Google Images Same Cause, Separate Worlds?

At the end of the day, selling a t-shirt to highlight a problem is not the same as solving a problem. Bono, and all those who buy into the (RED) campaign, has a one-dimensional view that giving simple monetary aid to Africa will wave debt, end poverty, provide education, stop the AIDS epidemic, and develop the world. In keeping with the (RED) slogan, they believe "it's as simple as that." This is not only wrong, but extremely naive.




(RED) took advantage of this naiveté by focusing entirely on Bono's celebrity influence on the American public. The $18 million dollars that has reportedly been raised is money and the reason we spent it was because Bono and other celebrities told us to. Whether we like it or not, celebrities influence us in all walks of life, from what clothes to buy, to what movies to see, and even what organizations to care about and donate to. We have become puppets and celebrities have become ventriloquists. They tell us what to care about, and we gladly bend over backwards to listen and play along.


"Bono and his business partners were looking for ways of funding their project, and they secured corporate America and consumers as their means of accomplishing this. Lucky us!"


As writer Alex De Waal suggests, "The size of the audience and the length of the ovation are not the measure of success." At the end of the day, it is up to the American public to decide for ourselves what to do, who to trust, who to follow, and when to lead. If we continue in this direction of admiring, trusting and following celebrities, we end up in a society of Bono-ization, and a world where diplomacy is more heavily dominated by people who have the right kind of style rather than the people who have the right kind of experience to actually make a difference.

So to all you singers, actors and reality stars out there trying to celebritize diplomacy--stick to what you know and leave the politics alone.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools