Bono and Nonprofit Fundraising
U2’s Bono, one of popular culture’s most recognizable icons, recently announced the beginning of the “Red” campaign, to raise money for African aids victims. http://www.joinred.com/home.asp The campaign will feature “red” products, such as t-shirts from The Gap, a line of sneakers from Converse, “red” iPod’s, “red” Razor phones, and Bono even hopes to get a major car company involved to sell a “red” product vehicle. At least 50% of the profits from these products will go straight to Africa for assistance. What are the implications for corporate social responsibility? Cutlip says, “Corporations have always had an obligations to the society in which they operate” (pg. 390). Also in the Cutlip book, on page 450, exhibit 17.1, shows principles of fundraising. Obviously, Bono is running a high profile campaign and has already had some major corporations come on board. How do you see this case fitting into the principles of fundraising mentioned in the book? What principles does this campaign best exemplify? Are there any principles that are lacking or have been ignored? How does this fit into the greater context of corporate social responsibility and nonprofit public relations?
posted by Catherine @ 10/14/2006 05:33:00 PM
2 Comments:
I think there are two ways you can look at this situation. One, you can say that all of the companies participating in the Red campaign are only doing it for the free media and to sell more product – it has nothing to do with helping the community, only with helping themselves look like they are helping the community. Two, you can take the campaign at face value – decide that these companies are trying to help Bono with the Aids problem in Africa and have to take in some of the profits to cover their costs. I think that it is somewhere between the two. In the end, all companies want to make money, but by participating in this kind of campaign they can accomplish many things at the same time. Even if the companies involved in this campaign are not 100% genuine, they cannot be completely at blame. Many charities these days have realized that the best way to get donations is to offer something (usually media) in return and are looking for campaigns exactly like this one. Are the charities reinforcing this behavior by continually coming up with ways to benefit both organizations?
This project may be a new one for Bono, but neither the singer nor the rest of U2 is new to not-for-profit organizations or supporting humanitarian causes. The group was instrumental in the Live Eights concerts held across the world on July 2, 2006 to eliminate global poverty and the social problems that result from extreme poverty. The idea was to rally people at enormous outdoor concerts that featured many of the most popular musical groups (including Madonna, Black Eyed Peas, U2, Snoop Dog, just to name a few) and celebrities to raise money and support for these issues and the petition the then upcoming Great Eight summit representatives to address the problems plaguing Africa and the world. Organized in large part by Bob Geldof, Live Aid was co-produced by the ONE campaign, a coalition of over 70 different humanitarian organizations, which Bono also represented. One’s mission is to rally Americans to fight the global AIDS epidemic and poverty.
Live Eight was a twist on a similar charity event held 20 years earlier, in July 1985. The 1985 concert, Live Aid was conceived and produced by the British philanthropist Sir Richard Geldof. Live Aid featured concerts on both sides of the Atlantic, in Philadelphia and London, in which popular performers such as U2, Madonna, and Queen rallied concert goers to support famine relief in Ethiopia, raising over $283,000,000 for the cause in the process.
These events are just one way in which celebrities do their part to support causes they believe in. Call it Corporate Social Responsibility or just plain good citizenship. The organization or celebrity may receive additional publicity for their actions, but for the most part I don’t believe that’s their motivation for participating in such events. Even if it is, they’re doing far more good than harm, so I don’t see it as a problem. I firmly believe that people in positions of great power and influence also hold a great deal of responsibility to serve as role models for others and are obligated give back to their communities. The concerts and the affiliation of celebrities with organizations such as the UN are just one way in which these well recognized people use their fame for a good purpose. Rather than making me question their motives, I gain respect for these people. Additionally, I doubt that the UN is having celebrities engage in political negotiation on their behalf; they likely leave that up to more skilled, trained diplomats. I see celebrities supporting these organizations functioning in a capacity that brings awareness to the issues, but not in positions to draft solutions to the issues.
This also related to Dr. Robinson’s entry from October 11, 2006. A truly responsible for-profit corporation recognizes its obligation to give back to its community, and these principals should be reflected by all members of management, not just public relations, though Cutlip, Center, and Broom argue that public relations professionals have a moral obligation to society (p. 124). While it certainly doesn’t hurt to have public relations representatives in the board room reminding management about CSR, we should not be the only ones charged with this obligation. In not-for-profit organizations, their obligation to CSR is many times an inherent part of their existence; they exist to give back to their community. Examples of such organizations include Habitat for Humanity, the Humane Society, and the Salvation Army.
Read more about these organizations via these links:
Live Eight: http://www.live8live.com/
One: http://www.live8live.com/
Live Aid: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/thelive8event/liveaid/
Post a Comment
<< Home