We sent our blog post on the Starbucks RED campaign to Starbucks last week and offered them space to publish a response. Here is their answer from Vivek Varma, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs:
I suppose I should begin by thanking you for the opportunity to comment. It would have been nice to receive a call first so that the confusion in the Professor’s blog could have been addressed.
But let me layout the facts as we see them:
- Starbucks launched its partnership with (PRODUCT) RED in December 2008 with a selection of beverages that contributed five cents to the Global Fund from each drink purchased. All beverages turned (RED) on World AIDS Day and the company has since introduced the STARBUCKS (PRODUCT) RED Card, which contributes five cents from every purchase to the Global Fund. Starbucks has a multi-year relationship with (RED) and will introduce various (RED) products throughout that time.
- Your estimation of (RED) revenues generated is wrong. The fact is Starbucks has more than 12,000 stores in the U.S. and Canada and the (Starbucks) RED website and barista analysis has led you to an inaccurate conclusion of how many people have bought Starbucks (PRODUCT) RED products. As of March 2009, Starbucks customers have generated contributions equal to approximately 4.2 million daily doses of antiretroviral medicine through the purchase of select (Starbucks)RED products.
- To date, (PRODUCT) RED partners and events, including Starbucks, have generated over $130 million for the Global Fund to invest in AIDS programs in Africa. One hundred percent of this money is channeled to Global Fund-financed grants – no overhead is taken out.
- It is important to consider the collective power of these contributions since each partner brings something different to the table. Larger brands, with lower price point items, will garner more volume while smaller brands may help spread the message to niche audiences and new consumers, all the while raising money and expanding the base of people who are aware of the crisis of AIDS in Africa and willing to do something about it.
- While you call for Starbucks to report its results independently, The Global Fund reports contributions on an aggregate, not per partner, basis. You can always view aggregate contributions on the Global Fund web site at www.theglobalfund.org under pledges and contributions.
I hope this gives proper context to the Starbucks (RED) partnership. I must say it’s disappointing to read the Professor’s cynicism about NGOs and corporations that attempt to contribute to the crisis of AIDS in Africa. We can all do more, of course, but this particular blog is a miss.
11 Comments
While it’s great to hear that Starbucks isn’t red-washing or whatever the term might be for it – at least insofar the level of contributions go, that the spokesman would think that “it’s disappointing to read the Professor’s cynicism about NGOs and corporations that attempt to contribute to the crisis of AIDS in Africa,” should concern anyone who values the contributions of those like Starbucks. If this is indicative of the lackadaisical attitude and due diligence to donor funds, it does not speak well to their efficacy.
Indeed, if anything, you would think that those like Starbucks should applaud the search for accountability that this blog provides – which makes truly successful projects that much more meaningful. That they would think it cynical or worse, find it offensive to do so speaks to either the naivete or plain willful ignorance. Like so many donors, maybe they’re more concerned about giving themselves a pat on their backs instead of doing say, I dunno, work?
Response to "Can Starbucks Buy A 'Saving Africa' Image for a …
[Source: Aid Watch] quoted: While it’s great to hear that Starbucks isn’t red-washing or whatever the term might be for it – at least insofar the level of contributions go, that the spokesman would think that “it’s disappointing to read the Profes…
Way to go Prof. Easterly!
I usually don’t agree about your neoliberal views on the economy, but I sure cannot disagree with the fact that aid has been a poorly performing developmental tool.
I’m really happy that you give organizations or people you complaint about a chance to answer, and I’m surely glad when big transnational representatives say things like “…this particular blog is a miss…” it means that you must be doing something good.
I’m trying to translate what 4.2 million daily doses means in terms of money.
While you call for Starbucks to report its results independently, The Global Fund reports contributions on an aggregate, not per partner, basis. You can always view aggregate contributions on the Global Fund web site at http://www.theglobalfund.org under pledges and contributions.
Why wouldn’t Starbucks want to report its results independently? Something to hide? Would it take too much time to draft a one-page executive summary? Who is hurt by publishing this information?
I agree with Kim, very suspicious.
I never thought of referring to you as ‘Professor Easterly’ but perhaps I’ll start now.
My personal view on the ONE campaign and the Product (RED) campaign is one of distaste. I think they way that they market and pull together is VERY awesome (for lack of a better word). I wish the religious community could pull things like this together. However, the way both of these ‘campaigns’ go about their use of funds is completely counter to my personal beliefs as well as many studies I’ve read. For example, all of the (RED) funds go to the Global Fund. All of these funds are then used for antiretroviral drugs. Every study, including those from the UN say that handing out antiretroviral drugs does nothing on it’s own to curb AIDS. The MAJORITY of funding and projects must go toward abstinence and other programs aiming to curb transmission. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about helping those hurting and I feel for them. But don’t parade the line (as product (RED) does) ‘end AIDS’ when what your doing isn’t even beginning to do that.
4.2 million handouts of antiretroviral drugs doesn’t help end AIDS. Helping people without AIDS/HIV to keep from getting AIDS/HIV will lower the incidence.
Lastly, as Kim mentioned, the harsh tone coming from Starbucks that you would even question their motives and their direct neglect of turning out their own report is astonishing.
I used to just not buy (RED) products, but now I think I’ll not be using Starbucks all together.
Prof, thank you for having the integrity to post, in full, responses from the organizations you critique.
Keep it up!
Quite a bad-tempered response from the Starbuck VP. Is this the best they can do on public affairs?
I think less of Starbucks after seeing that response.
This got me to thinking: shouldn’t we maybe respond to corporate shortcomings in contributing to development goals a little differently than we do aid agencies? That is, when aid agencies don’t deliver, they’re failing at their very job, their reason for being. And because of this, harsh criticism seems to be appropriate.
But when a corporation—that exists to make a buck—exaggerates its contributions and comes up short on impact, perhaps our response should be a little less incensed. I’m not saying that we let them off the hook and sing their praises. Just that we offer our criticisms in a tone that comes across more as offering suggestions on how they can readjust their claims, or better meet these claims, rather than as a venomous attack.
My worry is that if a tone of angry condemnation becomes the norm toward companies that do too little, other companies will see the lesson as: “Better for our business and image to stay out completely, rather than get burned.” I don’t want to scare away modest efforts or remove the self-interest of companies to try and boost their PR through these efforts, even if we feel they are too little and often misdirected.
Development theorists and practitioners alike know the importance of incentives to their work. Does publicly flailing a company for lackluster philanthropy create the right incentives for greater and more effective corporate involvement? Have we really achieved a victory when we attack and get a defensive and dismissive response, or have we missed an opportunity to prod and encourage change?
I’m just thinking out loud here, not stating a position. I’d like to know what others think.
I think Judy makes a good point. I’m still thinking about it and don’t find the situation to be one where you can choose a side (cast a corporation as a profit-maximizer OR hold any corporation who aims to “do something good” to the high standards we’d expect of aid agencies whose primary function is to have an impact when “doing something good”).
Starbucks is an easy target – they’re everywhere and people we know buy their products (and probably, some of us here get a Venti two-bag Awake when we need a fix). Because they’re SO big, I think the standards of truth in advertising are important. Starbucks has great influence and if they choose to misrepresent the impact of their product (in this case, overstate their contribution by omission), I don’t think it should be ignored. When friends of mine show me their Product(RED) Motorola mobile phones or cute inspi(RED) baby onesies from the Gap and tell me they, too, are doing something about AIDS in Africa, it’s hard for me to explain what exactly their contribution is. You see, the folks at Product(RED) have already told them. And, if they were misrepresenting the effectiveness of their consumer products in their consumption use, there is an avenue for structural response. In the case of impact on “doing good”, they could easily misrepresent/overstate and there’s no accountability.
It may be well within their incentive structure to act this way, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So does the Venti Awake these days.
Not sure whether to say “Bill” or “Professor” but either way, a huge thank you for your work here.
One question that I find hard to get an answer to is this one, “how much did Starbucks pay to RED for the campaign?”
I usually don’t agree about your neoliberal views on the economy, but I sure cannot disagree with the fact that aid has been a poorly performing developmental tool.