| live earth and (product) red |
| Written by David Swanson | |||||
| Sunday, 17 June 2007 03:43 | |||||
 On July 7, Live Earth will brodcast The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis from all 7 continents. Get it? 7/7/07 on 7 continents. So if you're in New York, you could see Kanye West and Fall Out Boy among others. If you happen to be in Sydney you could catch Wolfmother and Jack Johnson. If you can't make it in person (London, Johannesburg, Rio de Janerio, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Hamburg are the other venues. The Antarctica location hasn't been advertised just yet.) you can watch the whole deal streaming live at at MSN . So, what to make of Live Earth? Should we be excited or cynical?
The appeal to the public for our participation has led me to associate Live Earth with the ongoing (Product) Red campaign. You may remember the hype when The Gap, Apple, American Express, and some other companies announced that a percentage of profits from the sale of certain (red) products would be donated to The Global Fund. For a while I couldn't turn on the television, open the paper, or walk down Michigan Avenue without one of these companies trying to sell me one of their brightly colored, socially conscious products. And maybe that was a good thing. While the hype for (Product) Red has died down recently, it seems likely to pick up with this month's Africa issue of Vanity Fair guest-edited by Bono. NBC recently reported that the (Product) Red corporations have spent $100 million in advertisement for the campaign, while only raising $18 million for The Global Fund. While $18 million is a lot of money, there has been a lot of grumbling about how much has been spent on advertising. Buy (Less) Crap has creatively spoofed the whole campaign while encouraging people to skip the middlemen and donate directly to The Global Fund and other charities. From their website,
It's those last two words- without consuming- that catch my eye. While the motivation behind (Product) Red is likely above board, it's the means that seem questionable. In the face of human suffering, is our best option really more consumption? This is certainly not a unique view. I'm reminded of President Bush' encouragement to the nation shortly after 9/11,
The issues (Product) Red and Live Earth are addressing are massive and those behind these campaigns and concerts should be commended. But given the implications of extreme poverty and global warming on the world's most vulnerable, could those of us who are the target of these campaigns do more than consume as a response? To be fair, Live Earth's purpose is to raise awareness and should probably be judged differently than (Product) Red whose goal is to raise money. But the question remains. Do these campaigns and events lead you and I to consume or to sacrifice? And does it matter? Is consumption the best we have to offer? Or, through our sacrifice, could our impact be greater? All for now. TAGS: advertisement , encouragement , participation , corporations , implications , questionable , advertising , beneficiary , consumption , destination ,
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (1)
L. Perry
said:
|
 |
Imperfect Responses I've been wrestling with the critique of Project (Red) and the question whether consumption is a viable response to this world's needs. As a follower of Christ, I agree with buylesscrap.com's message that consumption is not an adequate response to human suffering and ecological responsibility. I believe that all humans are responsible to care for those in need, and that consumer-based solutions do not absolve individuals of their social/ecological responsiblility. However, I am troubled by the criticism that has surrounded Project (Red), as well as a recent critique of Travelocity in the July 2, 2007 issue of Time Magazine for providing air travelers with the opportunity to donate money equal to the amount needed to the cost of absorbing the polution generated by their flight. If Project (Red) was simply a revenue generating campaign, and if air travelers really thought that their contributions alleviated further concern for the environment, then I would be concerned that social consciousness was becoming a product to be marketed. However, what I believe is overlooked by buylesscrap.com is the symbolic value of the (Red) line. In a culture were personal appearance and fashion communicate a great deal about a person's interests and priorities, a T-shirt is no longer just a T-shirt. It has become a billboard. Consequently, the money raised by Project (Red) is only a portion of the overall impact of the project. Rather than the end-all solution, I believe its value lies in its ability to start conversations and spur higher levels of interest in both personal and corporate responses to world-wide need. Similarly, air travelers that are concerned enough to balance their environmental impact are unlikely to commit environmental evils without remorse. Certainly there is a place for skepticism of corporate concern for the weak and oppressed, but there is an important distinction that must be made between skepticism that leads to the exploration of motives, and cynicism, which overlooks imperfect solutions to complex problems. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
