Lately, my cousin bought an iPhone. “Look, it’s such a precious red. I can’t take my eyes off this phone!”, she screamed.

It really was beautiful. An iPhone with a bright, shiny bleeding red that’s impossible to miss.

I looked in closer, turned it around, and said, “The back says ‘Product Red.’ What does this mean?”

That’s when we googled it and realized how much of a cave we lived in: Apple has been selling ‘Product Red’ versions of its devices since 2006.

Whenever you buy a Product Red device, Apple claims that a certain percentage of the money goes to the Global Funds. 

Global Funds is an organization that uses this money to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria specifically in sub-Saharan Africa. 

Apple buyers have raised nearly $270 million USD for this cause (which can be either a great or terrible sum of money depending on your worldview). Well, I just hope they’re not supplying AZT as monotherapy. 

How it all began

Men with unusual names often make history. One such pair is Bono (lead singer of U2) and Bobby Shriver (an American activist) who founded Product Red together in 2006.

They approached big players like Amazon, Starbucks, Jeep, Fiat, Gap, and formed a partnership with them to sell some of their products under the Product Red label.

For every product that they sold, a part of it would go to the Global Funds. In this way, private consumerism also became a form of charity.

Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, and Bono reportedly shared a good past- Steve even sold his San Remo apartment to Bono. Turning this friendship into a partnership, Bono approached Apple to endorse Product Red. 

Naturally, when the first Apple Product Red iPod Nano was launched, it was a hit. 

People loved the color, and it shined in morals too. Slowly, Apple began selling other products under this label. The iPhone 7 and 7 Plus in 2017 were the first ever iPhones to be released in the Red edition. They also made an iPod special edition for the rock band U2.

Unsurprisingly, the iPod made more profits than any other company. 

It’s not just phones that Apple sells under the Product Red label- we have gift cards, books, audiobooks, a dating app for HIV/AIDS folks, accessories, Apple watch bands, and leather cases galore!

It wasn’t all a whale of a time though- things also fell off between Steve and Bono with regards to the parenthesis in Red branding (which I clearly skipped in this blog). Steve didn’t quite like it, and B&B were pissed that the ‘Red’ branding was too insignificant; apart from the color, of course.

Nonetheless, with a slightly bold, aggressive ‘these products save lives’ tagline, Product Red has been on its marketing A-game since then.

Small role, huge impact?

So what does this partnership aim to achieve: selling more goods under the cloak of philanthropy or a genuine desire to raise capital for better healthcare? 

Has more money been spent on advertising Red products compared to the proceeds from its devices? 

Do we neglect the labor and original costs of these devices, which probably exploited the very likes of those sub-Saharan children?

Alas, every move you take comes with its own criticism- and this holds true for Apple too. People have been cynical about this partnership, especially after Apple failed to specify what percentage of the money goes to Global Funds. 

“Like it or not, people, and companies, find it easier to spend money on themselves than on charity and Bono has found a way to combine the two.”

Desiring something, an iPhone in this case becomes a way to feel good about yourself. I believe it’s the ultimate validation you need- surpassing even social media aspects. Think about it- you don’t have to go find a charity, you don’t have to lose extra money, and no hard work is involved- just go grab an iPhone for yourself and believe you’ve made a difference.

Is there a problem?

Perhaps choosing a Product Red is like choosing between the devil and the deep sea.

Ours is a capitalist society, and it’s unsurprising to see partnerships like Apple and Product (RED) in the corporate world. Think about it: would you deny it if you worked for Apple and I approached you with a Product Red branding idea?

The goody-two-shoes image of MNCs demands a cynical view, for they don’t exactly seem like the type to do greater good. When I was looking for papers that critique Product Red, I came across the Elaboration – Likelihood model, which makes sense in this case. It explains how Product (RED) appeals to both the central and peripheral paths for most of us. Cause-related marketing speaks to our logical mind, while the shiny red is good enough for our impulses.

Another research paper was titled, “Shop so the unfortunate can live.” Harsh, ain’t it? 

Further, a paper published by Taylor & Francis reads:

“Not since the days of khaki colonialism has buying Africa been so sexy, so fashionable.” This short statement cuts to the heart of the third main argument offered by critics of Product (RED). The campaign presents a stylized representation of Africa and Africans. It masks the true human, environmental, and labor costs associated with increased consumption and the feel-good aura that shoppers are “doing good” by purchasing luxury items. Instead of helping Africans, it allows companies to justify their products under the seeming guise of humanitarianism. Product (RED) fetishizes its products, encouraging consumers to overlook the hidden costs.

(RED), according to its critics, replaces substantive discussions about, and involvement in, AIDS activism with celebrities and glossy magazine spreads. In making such a move, Product (RED) embodies commodity fetishism. It increases the cognitive and spatial distances between the products and the consumers. Consumers are too far removed to ask genuine questions about product quality, labor conditions under which the product is made, or the appropriateness of consumption as a funding vehicle.”

That has been cited as the major problem with (RED), stealthily making the divide between the rich and poor bigger. 

Red-y for change?

A start’s a start. 

Product (RED) can qualify as a marketing gimmick, but the website providing links to Africa’s AIDS epidemic information can also be a starting point for someone. We could criticize it all we want, but with MNCs, it’s the same old vicious cycle.

In such dire circumstances, the percentage of funds received by Global Funds might not even have been donated otherwise. Private consumerism becomes (or seems to be) another avenue of spending money in a good direction. 

But that’s the catch: knowing RED must be a starting point- not the only way to support a cause.

What we ultimately need is more transparency- how do we trust you if we don’t know the percentage you’re donating? Change is possible, but only with more options to donate money directly to the cause, resources for further education, and other avenues to donate. And of course, cut the stereotypical ads, please.

I leave the decision to you, dear reader, of whether Product Red is a scam or a genuine attempt at improving healthcare. 

Either way, I’m hoping we all fake it till we make it.

Related recommendations:

Movie: Dallas Buyers Club (available on Amazon Prime)

Articles: Ethical Consumerism or Reified Neoliberalism? Product (RED) and Private Funding for Public Goods

AIDS And The AZT Scandal: SPIN’s 1989 Feature, ‘Sins Of Omission’