“…the consumer never knows who is paying how much to whom.”

It is ironic that in the name of “sustainability” we see the creation of enterprises (LLCs) that have less strict public reporting rules than 501c3s, so that the LLC can legally not reveal its expenses, which obviously influence the profit calculation (or, in this case, the donation amount).

These multi-headed relationships between private companies, charitable donations, fundraising, product sales, and nonprofit organizations are the logical result of trends such as sustainability, social enterprise, and embedded giving. They allow for the claim of transparency – and Ogden is right, RED reports more (or rather GAVI reports more) than most of these efforts, but we still can’t answer that basic question – “who is paying how much to whom and for what?” In my opinion, anything that makes it harder to answer that question is not advancing the cause of transparency.

Thanks for blogging about the report – I look forward to reading it.

Lucy

w/r/t your first two comments, i think what’s at issue here is whether the regulatory frameworks should be adjusted so that these disclosures must be made (assuming there isn’t already room enough under the concept of professional fundraiser to include Red).

on number 3, i have to disagree with you. while i don’t expect these types of advertisements to give a full picture of their effects, there should definitely be some degree of proportionality. and for this to be the case, there needs to be more transparency so that consumers can know just how much of their money is going to global fund when they buy Red

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry

1. The Persuaders doesn’t disclose salary and overhead costs. [But Persuaders is not a nonprofit, so I buy their argument that they don't HAVE to. However, I still think they should disclose to encourage trust.]

2. Donations are not itemized by year and corporate partner. [Again, The Persuaders is not a nonprofit, so they don't have to. However, I agree they should disclose.]

3. There are inflated claims of changing the world and saving lives. [Here I disagree. This is an ad, not an academic paper. If I come up with an add that says "there is a 35% probability (95%, CI 33-38) that your donation will reduce the risk of diarrheal disease in a child in Malawi, who then has a 13 % chance (95% CI 10-15) of surviving until the age of 5", would the average viewer still buy a RED product? No. Would they look at you as if you were crazy? Probably. Advertizing is an art, not a an academic paper.]

4. It isn’t clear if the contribution is going from the RED customer to the beneficiaries, or from the company somehow. [Agreed, this is quite murky and RED should make their business model clear.]

If you want to say “AIDS is their problem, not mine” but feel that’s crass, this kind of thinking gives you a way to say “AIDS is a problem but nothing can be done” or “AIDS is a problem but these people don’t do it right so my part is to criticize them, feel smug, and forget I didn’t do anything.” I can’t make this stuff up: http://cpreview.org/issue/dec-2009/africa-disempowered

Perhaps you should sprinkle some praise for their mission and report the amount they have raised (you say they report the cummulative total).

For instance, for every dollar you spend with your Red Starbucks card, 1 cent goes to fund effective clean water non-profits. Then, they could put on your receipt how much you’ve funded (with a rough translation into gallons based on the expenses/output of the water partners) on your receipt just like grocery stores do.

This is just one idea… but it seems like it could work in theory at least.

This isn’t an argument to vindicate (Red), but an argument that any industry where (Red) is the paragon deserves to be shut down.