1% and red?

The latest from Bono :

[via Bono Sees Red - Jan 26, 2006 - E! Online News]:

The U2 frontman, Time co-Person of the Year and all-around good guy turned up Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to unveil a partnership with several big companies that will sell a brand called Red. The label will adorn Armani and Gap clothes, Converse sneakers and even an American Express card, with one percent of the profits earmarked for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Flanked by Italian fashion designer Giorgio Armani and various suits from the other companies, Bono hailed the private sector for their support and raising awareness at a critical time when governments have been slow to tackle the problem.

"This is really sexy to me. It is sexy to want to change the world," the 45-year-old Irish rocker told reporters.

So basically luxury goods companies are going to use cheap labor, cheap materials to create products they will mark-up 300% and then only give back 1% to charity?

This is what I'd like to know :

(1) Are they getting tax breaks in said African countries in order to manufacture the goods?

(2) What kind of wages and benfits are they offering workers?

(3) How long is there commitment in these countries?

(4) Is it 1% net or gross?

I'd like to believe this is a great idea but it just does not add up.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

» email this story | printer friendly version | 1191 reads

The ad at the top of this blog...

Submitted by Ann Bartow (not verified) on 1 February 2006 - 10:34am.

The advertisement at the top of this blog when I clicked over here was a Google ad for "conservative tee shirts" and the banner ad said "Defeat Hillary" and featured a hammer and sickle. I'm guessing that Google saw the work "red" in the title of the post and assumed you were bashing communism, so your readers would want to buy "conservative tees." Can't help feeling that this undermines your moral authority on this issue a wee bit.

» email this comment | 0 points

Then click on their ads and raise their prices

Submitted by liza on 1 February 2006 - 10:36pm.

The more they get clicked, the higher their price to run here. Price them out.

» email this comment | 0 points

Life is too short to deal with ads that repulse me

Submitted by Ann Bartow (not verified) on 2 February 2006 - 12:24am.

Your understanding of blog ad metrics is different than mine anyway. I will trouble you no further.

» email this comment | 0 points

BTW

Submitted by liza on 1 February 2006 - 10:38pm.

How is my running an ad on this site the same as Fendi using Third World labor with no union contract, competitive wages or benefits?

» email this comment | 0 points

I'd bet some of your advertisers are using Third World Labor

Submitted by Ann Bartow (not verified) on 2 February 2006 - 12:10am.

I'm sure goods I buy and use were produced under expolitive condistions as well. I never said the ads on this site were "the same" as substandard labor conditions, nor anything close. I do think you have a glass houses problem if you are going to criticize Bono for not being committed enough, or pure enough. or whatever your point was about the 1% deal. You are running ads solicting people to work for the CIA.

» email this comment | 0 points

I guess next time I have to put a disclaimer

Submitted by liza on 2 February 2006 - 12:39am.

I do consider myself one of his biggest fans. I just hate these 1% charities. Why not more?

Coming from Puerto Rico where big multi-national corporations were given huge tax rebates until the end of the 90s for the "charity" of creating jobs in the island, I know what kind of impact that has in a poor country.

I still dont get how that equates to running ads on a site.

» email this comment | 0 points

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

—

Lawrence Lessig