I wonder if this trend is driven, at all, by a kind of sublimated hopelessness.  If you spend $250 on a bag and 10% goes to some large charity working in Africa, then you've done something very small.  If you gave that $250 to a local non-governmental organization (NGO) in, say, Chad, the impact of that gift is considerably more than if you gave it to a similar nonprofit down the street from you.  But given the structure of American philanthropy, and the American media outlook on the developing world, it is very difficult for most people to figure out how to give the money in Chad or anywhere else outside the United States.  

Currently, something like 2% of American charitable dollars go abroad; as far as I have been able to determine, religious purposes are the bulk of this, and much of the rest goes for art restoration in Europe and similar cultural and artistic causes.  The amount that goes to strengthening services and building infrastructure in the developing world is vanishingly small.  

When you buy something in one of these programs (and I just did it yesterday, even though I'm really not happy about this trend), you don't get any charitable deduction for your gift.  So if you want to make a real difference, do some research and give directly to an African (e.g.) NGO that is working to address the problem that concerns you.  Inasmuch as such support helps to build a crucial and wildly underfunded sector for addressing the problems of global poverty, it's arguably a better way to use your money than giving to the big multinational NGOs like Oxfam or Amnesty.

I don't see this as all that troublesome. As part of me buying something, the person selling to me is saying "And, you can direct a certain percentage of the profits I make to a cause that you believe in."

It's not the height of giving, but I don't have any real beef with it.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The question is whether or not it's scratching the idealistic itch with less than idealistic means to the end. So, in the absence of consumption-as-activism might people be doing something that actually changes institutional arrangements and mentalities?

I saw this in a shoe store at the downtown mall in Providence--only it was bright red sneakers, and the company was Converse.  I thought twice about linking to it, then decided it wasn't all that bad.  Click on the link if you want to, or don't.  I don't want to make a big deal out of this either way...all I want to do is point out that there have been a number of corporations practicing "responsibility" through campaigns like this one, and they do give people choices which they might otherwise not have.  For example.

• I always purchase Fair Trade coffee.  I'd buy coffee anyhow...I have to, as a loyal member of TPM café.
• I chose my wireless and long distance services on the basis of contributions they make to charitable causes.  I'd use services anyhow, why not choose those who do some good.
• Somehow, knowing the kinds of causes it supports makes Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream taste even better.  Now if they could only take the calories out in advance.

So let me know more about responsible corporate behavior.  I know there's are cosmetic companies which don't test products on animals in the laboratory, but I'm not a cosmetic kind of guy.  So what else can I buy and do good at the same time?

aMike

So what else can I buy and do good at the same time?

"This is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back."

Love how she makes snap cultural assignments to "the West"....pigeonholing all of us because of what Madison Ave spews. Unfortunately, the whole world does it.....assigns our spinmeisters and glossyglam/trendsetter/imagemakers crimes onto OUR heads.

Think Regionally. Act Regionally

He. And while I understand your point I think it's more than a little beside the point. You're basically saying you agree with him, yes?

You could also buy nothing and make a direct contribution. Anti-malaria nets result in many lives saved for small amounts of money.

http://www.nothingbutnets.org/

Food can be bought locally (less greenhouse gas production from shipping across the country or the world, and you support local farms/farmers/open space/help prevent sprawl). You can also buy organic to reduce the pesticides/herbicides used on farms.

There are now many more fair trade items than just coffee, including chocolate

http://www.tazachocolate.com/

and bananas

http://www.okeusa.com/

and t-shirts

http://www.offyourbackshirts.com/store/index_oybs.php

and many other consumer goods

http://www.joinred.com

including a magazine

http://www.goodmagazine.com/about

solar flashlights (you buy one and they send one to an african charity)

http://www.bogolight.com/

There are also tons of more environmentally friendly items, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), tankless water heaters, more fuel efficient cars and energy efficient appliances.

I think the question is whether this is better or worse than nothing?

I definitely think it's better. I can't tell you how many people I know who have bought these products that would not have donated money directly to these causes or really thought about them in any great detail. That's something huge, in my opinion.

Cynics Against Idealism

Well, who knows? I don't have any numbers. If all that happens is what you just described, to be completely honest, I'm still at peace with that, but I think that at a minimum, they will reach some young people that otherwise would never be engaged with these issues and produce additional empowered activists.

You should not underestimate the reach these companies have, especially in places in middle America like where I grew up, where you would not have otherwise been exposed to these ideas whatsoever. Reaching the next generation is a very important endeavor.

Along these lines, the ONE Campaign has been having some success, as far as I can tell. www.one.org

I overgeneralize too from time to time. Ain't no crime, I guess.
You'd have to live a lot closer to the heartbeat of our culture in order to take any credit or blame for it. Certainly, I am not close enough.

But in the end, my argument is our culture, and our society....is made up of endless puffs of pure fantasy. Every culture has had stories that sustained it (even tho they weren't true). Some of those cultures did good things with their stories...most have done hideous, inhumane outrages with their stories. Ours is so muddled and fabricated and re-fabricated that nothing good can come from it. And I believe Corporatization of our culture is evil. Without it, we may have exported something of worth with our regular Western Morals...our USA-ness. But we are pushing pure poison now. Living inside of it, you can see the hollow lie.....all froth and no water. From outside our culture, in Africa? Seeing what we are spinning here....I guess I do not know how it looks.

Think Regionally. Act Regionally

Sure, it's possible that people just buy something, "feel like they did some marginal good" and move on, but if they are going to buy something anyway, why not give them the option of buying something that helps someone else.

I happened to be at the mall on Saturday with my daughter (it was hot and there's an indoor playground). We stopped in the Gap Kids store and I very nearly bought a (RED) t-shirt for her. It was cute and she would probably wear it all the time. She saved me $20 by needing to use the bathroom, but we may get it or something like it another time.

I donate money to various organizations throughout the year, but things like the Project (RED) products (I don't know why it's written like that) are available, I figure there's no reason not to buy them if I'm buying stuff anyway.

It is all very well and good to want people to deepen their concern, but most people just aren't that committed to anything, so pragmatically, if someone chooses to buy a product that is going to donate money to a good cause, then maybe that's found money for said good cause, because the person wouldn't have donated it otherwise.

Please click here to sign the Petition Against You.

Think Regionally. Act Regionally

These campaigns are designed to drive brand preference - the audiences they are targeting are going to buy a bag, coffee, ice cream, or cosmetics anyway - now they can choose brand X and feel better about their choice.

These consumers hopefully do feel better about their choices if they choose a brand that is "giving back".
I think the concern that this consumption is either diverting funds or energy that would go directly to activism is not well-placed. The $250 spent on the purse (with 10% going to charity) doesn't replace a $250 direct donation - it replace $250 spent on another brand of purse.

Been there, done that, every Friday from 3-6 p.m.  :-)

aMike

I am of two minds about this do-gooder buying phenomenon.

On the one hand, it's worth noting that corporate philanthropy accounts for roughly 5% of all charitable giving in the United States.  Corporations give for reasons that one would expect: unlike individuals, whose giving is inspired by a variety of things, corporations give to advance their business interests.  What this tends to mean is that their giving is fairly conservative, in the sense that there is little corporate support for controversial, risky, or just unappetizing social needs.  These kinds of things shake it up a bit: businesses are tying their giving to the perceived interests of their customer base, which sometimes means that they go out on a greater philanthropic limb in their pursuit of market share.  That's what's good.

And it's true that money given this way is better than nothing - as Destor, I think, said above, that's money that would have gone to another bag, not another charitable cause.  This is what's neutralish about it.

But I have to think that it does encourage, as Andrew points out, a really passive and feckless attitude towards 'doing good' (and as CS points out, it does make Marx seem more relevant, as even our charitable impulses are swallowed up in the consumerist storm).  The people who do these things, some of them, may not have given the money any other way, or may not have even known about the issue they give for.  But that's a problem, and it is one exacerbated by this kind of campaign.

A really good campaign like this would be like what Working Assets does - in letting subscribers vote for who will get their money - only maybe more so.  Imagine a campaign with different possible recipients that encouraged the 'donor' to allocate their money themselves - say, you could go to a website, enter a number from your receipt, and choose who you are giving to, with the undesignated money being divided as the company sees fit.  Suppose that, once this is done, the recipient was informed that you had made a donation, so that they could follow up and tell you more about what they do and how your money helps.  Something like that would make you into a donor, rather than a purchaser, and that would be something to feel good about.

Oh come on, spare me. There doesn't have to be something sold for the discussion to be framed in a condescending, demeaning and downright classist-pig manner. It happens here all the time.

Several months back, a well known blogger here, Elizabeth (is Warren her last name?) writes a piece about what she considered an inspiring plan to deal with funding for higher ed. She had gotten the warm fuzzies over what was a rip off of John Kerry's national service plan (Kerry's plan:students provide a commitment to two years of service in the community, and they get a free four year college education)

The one Elizabeth was all fizzy over, was forumulated by those who obviously believe in and seek to impose a caste type system, where students have to work for four years before getting any assistance whatsoever. It was purportedly to be obligatory for all who wanted college, though, wealthy students could have mommy and daddy buy their way out of their obligation. talk about indentured servitude, and what hypocrisy.

When are issues of poverty ever discussed? Why no challenge to those here to educate themselves to the realities they want to either sweep under the carpet or write off as irrelevant? How about some of the writers here start putting a human face on the subject of the poverty faced by far too many American citizens?

You can't really poke fun at Vanity Fair and the rest when in all honesty, it's not much different here. You're going to have to start cracking the glass ceiling you've imposed here and start walking the walk some of you like to pretend to.

I think I'll create an avatar in Second Life to save Darfur singlehandedly, and maybe close Gitmo too, if I can clear my Netflix queue. Sponsorship deal, anyone?

Two birds with one (non)stone: now there's some real initiative! It's amazing what you can do by not really doing anything....

I promise to contribute 10% of all profits from my nonexistent product to support your virtual campaign.  After I finish updating my FreshDirect order.