Everywhere you go at the moment you get a big red nose in the face. I wanted to report on "consume your ethics", and charity consumerism seemed paradoxical and interesting.
Comic Relief is an annual national charity event culminating in a comedy telethon. The money raised gives thousands of people who face discrimination, injustice or poverty the chance to transform their lives. Without question I am in complete admiration of Comic Relief's charity work and the 450 MILLION! that they've raised to help people in both africa in the UK. Over 50 million Red Noses have been sold since red nose day started in 1985 to raise funds. This year if you arn't taken by the 'nose' (of which there are 3 variants) or you want to show further support, you could also purchase: 'A set of all three noses, The red nose deeley bopper, Red nose charm, The gggliing giggler, The magnetic car nose, The perfect little pin badge'. Or if your a fashionista who doesn't think a big red nose will suit your look there are 11 different T-shirts available (celebrity endorsed) (and designed by Stella McCartney) - Momentary commodity driven gratification and when the hilarity wears off, (excluding the select individuals that save their 'noses' with the view to them becoming their grandchildren's ebay generated inheritance) they go in the bin. Only this year are the noses recyclable (if you take them into Sainsburys).
Skipping the issue of virtue-washing, targeting children and celebrities basking in PR, we are continually fusing shopping wth giving. Apple and (Project)RED generates donations to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and Swisstool sell a pink swiss army knife with proceeds going to Breast Cancer Campaign. I can’t help but believe that donation through buying goods serves as a distraction from what we consumers should really be thinking about. I applaud Comic Relief's philanthropic efforts, but maybe our morals are being manipulated. A Red Nose is not just an emblem to show support or help spread the message, its abit of a gimmick. Why do we need a gimmick to make us donate? It seems to stand that the western population need coaxing by a Comic Relief carrot with the promise of a good time to actually give the time to apprehend the real crisis. Embedded-giving takes the focus away from the real concern and its backstory. It over looks the issues; rather than donors getting closer to what is needed and how their money is used, they’re getting farther away. Is it a meaningfull way of generating money?
It's interesting to note that consumer gratification seems to be needed as an incentive to donate. Our ethical conduct is strenghtened with the offer of goods, and it is not yet recognised as unethical to buy into throwaway marketing tat. Is it right of comic relief to be what seems slightly perverse and hypocrytical in their approach to fundraising - or are we all consoled by their admirable efforts to do good so its okay?
Comic Relief is an annual national charity event culminating in a comedy telethon. The money raised gives thousands of people who face discrimination, injustice or poverty the chance to transform their lives. Without question I am in complete admiration of Comic Relief's charity work and the 450 MILLION! that they've raised to help people in both africa in the UK. Over 50 million Red Noses have been sold since red nose day started in 1985 to raise funds. This year if you arn't taken by the 'nose' (of which there are 3 variants) or you want to show further support, you could also purchase: 'A set of all three noses, The red nose deeley bopper, Red nose charm, The gggliing giggler, The magnetic car nose, The perfect little pin badge'. Or if your a fashionista who doesn't think a big red nose will suit your look there are 11 different T-shirts available (celebrity endorsed) (and designed by Stella McCartney) - Momentary commodity driven gratification and when the hilarity wears off, (excluding the select individuals that save their 'noses' with the view to them becoming their grandchildren's ebay generated inheritance) they go in the bin. Only this year are the noses recyclable (if you take them into Sainsburys).
Skipping the issue of virtue-washing, targeting children and celebrities basking in PR, we are continually fusing shopping wth giving. Apple and (Project)RED generates donations to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and Swisstool sell a pink swiss army knife with proceeds going to Breast Cancer Campaign. I can’t help but believe that donation through buying goods serves as a distraction from what we consumers should really be thinking about. I applaud Comic Relief's philanthropic efforts, but maybe our morals are being manipulated. A Red Nose is not just an emblem to show support or help spread the message, its abit of a gimmick. Why do we need a gimmick to make us donate? It seems to stand that the western population need coaxing by a Comic Relief carrot with the promise of a good time to actually give the time to apprehend the real crisis. Embedded-giving takes the focus away from the real concern and its backstory. It over looks the issues; rather than donors getting closer to what is needed and how their money is used, they’re getting farther away. Is it a meaningfull way of generating money?
It's interesting to note that consumer gratification seems to be needed as an incentive to donate. Our ethical conduct is strenghtened with the offer of goods, and it is not yet recognised as unethical to buy into throwaway marketing tat. Is it right of comic relief to be what seems slightly perverse and hypocrytical in their approach to fundraising - or are we all consoled by their admirable efforts to do good so its okay?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.