Apple sent me an email last week with a picture of their (PRODUCT)^RED iPod Nano. My sister-in-law came over for dinner last night with her (PRODUCT)^RED bag from Gap. These things made me curious, mostly because the products were well designed. I read this explanation on the (RED) web site this morning:

“(RED) was created by Bono and Bobby Shriver, Chairman of DATA to raise awareness and money for The Global Fund by teaming up with the world’s most iconic brands to produce (PRODUCT)^RED branded products. A percentage of each (PRODUCT)^RED product sold is given to The Global Fund. The money helps women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa.”

In addition to Apple and Gap, companies like Motorola, Converse and American Express are now offering (RED) products. Considering the amount of need in Africa, it probably makes sense to tap into our ravenous consumer culture to supplement aid there. Lots of people will probably buy Apple’s(PRODUCT) ^RED iPod. They will pay $199 and Apple will donate $10.

I really do see the good in this. I will likely buy a (RED) product at some point in the near future. I wonder, though, who will feel the most (direct) benefit from (PRODUCT) Red? Is it the retailer (profit), a child in Africa (medicine) or the consumer (new product + good feeling)?

Of all the subtle motives that advertisers play on, none may be more powerful than allowing the consumer to think, “I’m doing good by buying this product that I don’t really need.” There is nothing better (from a business perspective) than a customer who feels morally good about purchasing a product.

The most powerful aspect of (RED)’s campaign will likely be awareness. The amounts donated per product are pretty small, but people who otherwise would not know (or care) about women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa will become walking advertisements for the problems (RED) is trying to address.