by Jeff Raderstrong at the blog Change Charity:
After deciding to add a bag of (Starbucks) RED brand coffee on top of his vente mocha latte order, area man Bill West completed the final piece of the puzzle to end the AIDS epidemic in Africa…
“This is a great day for humanity,” said Michel Kazatchkine, Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, where Starbucks made the $1 donation–taken from West’s purchase–needed to rid the continent of the disease that had crippled it for decades. “All of our work, all of our time, all of our hopes are now validated by this one last push to end AIDS in Africa.”
…Bono, humanitarian activist and U2 front-man, reached out to the broader global community to recognize the efforts of the people that made it possible.
“It is important to remember what went into this momentous occasion,” said the rock star, one of the founders of the Product RED brand. “The Product RED line successfully mobilized Western consumers to go out and buy things they either already had or only moderately desired under the guise of social responsibility. With out these compassionate consumers, or the compassionate Starbucks marketing directors who decided to give up razor-thin amounts of their profit margin to the Global Fund in exchange for the Product Red partnership, this debilitating disease would still be destroying Africa.”
18 Comments
What an ignorant post. People DO spend big bucks on coffee beans. Starbucks has donated enough to treat 10, 000 people for one year. Yea, that’s nothing. What have you done?
I think it is an april’s fool, or at least I hope so.
Seriously it must be!
This is a must be a sory from The Onion. I love the satirical stories that they do.
http://www.theonion.com
Have people become so stupid that they don’t understand satire anymore? Geez people . . . take a chill pill . . . relax!
Isn’t it more like a 5 cent donation per cup, and then only if you order a certain special few items?
CABarista, this criticism is totally valid. It would be MUCH better for consumers to skip their Starbucks for the day and give all $5 directly to the global fund than for Starbucks to make what is, quite frankly, a lame contribution in light of the volume of business they do. It matters to those 10,000 people, but Starbucks customers easily could have helped 50,000 plus through a direct-giving model.
Great. A forum for writers who can’t get a job with SNL or The Onion.
Humorless people are such a drag. Mark Twain and Will Rogers would be unemployable in today’s world. Societies without humor are scary. Think the Taliban and Nazis.
When satire is too close to reality, it is easy to miss the joke. This satire is not far fetched.
OK yep, got the point of it – but it isn’t comedy, and comes off looking like a slap in the face to anyone who actually bothers to make a conscious decision to buy ethically, rather than a dig at corporations who don’t bother doing enough.
Yes, people, we all understand it’s meant to be funny. The question is whether it’s a valid criticism.
I agree that it would be better if people directly contributed to a good cause. However, we know that corporations, such as Starbucks, are good at getting people to pay for things they would not have spent their money on otherwise. I don’t think there are many people who decided not to contribute to a worthy NGO because they already covered their social obligations through their coffee bean purchase.
Actually, psychological studies tell us the opposite. If you give to fight AIDS through Starbucks you start to identify yourself as an enemy of AIDS. Once you have adopted this identity you are more likely to take further actions.
Bad satire is not funny. This was bad satire.
This is seriously funny! We think buying a cup of coffee and allowing the corporation to donate for us assuages us of our personal responsibility to be a global community. That’s what many folks aren’t “getting”. Clue up!
@Texas in Africa Yes, it would be more effective if the person skipped their $5 venti mocacchino or whatever, and donated directly to the Global Fund instead. But the point is that the person ISN’T going to skip their daily dose of caffeine. They’re going to buy it anyways. It’s much easier to get them to buy the (red) version of the latte they already planned to purchase than to change their entire morning routine and convince them it’s better for forgo the coffee and send $ to Africa instead.
RED tries to alter consumer behavior in modest ways. It’s not about encouraging people to buy MORE stuff. It’s about asking them to buy the (red) version of something they already planned to buy. Then the participating companies pass along $ to the Global Fund.
I really don’t find this satire in any way helpful. What, exactly, is it attacking? The fact that Starbucks isn’t solving the AIDS crisis single handedly? Or is it attacking the fact that a program was set up where people can do something they do every day anyway, and also contribute? I suppose we should just tear the program down and put a big barrel in the middle of the room with the words “donate to Africa” scrawled on the side. Lets do that and see which program raises more money.
Not only is starbucks contributing a percentage of its sales to the fight on HIV, they are also buying beans from African growers to make the coffee with. There is nothing but positive in this arrangement. The buzz surrounding a program like this is not a bad thing, it should be celebrated.
I’m as critical as anyone, but lets try and attack actual problems rather than being critical just because we like tearing things down. This piece said nothing worth listening to.
One more thought.
Yes, 5 cents per drink seems woefully small. You could almost say it’s just giving lip service to RED while capitalizing on the halo of social cause marketing.
BUT
Think about the Walmart model. Walmart makes very slim profit margins on nearly all of their products. That’s how they stay so cheap. The company’s success lies partially in its massive scale of business. A few pennies repeated over a million purchases adds up to a lot of F-ing pennies.
So we can criticize Starbucks for only donating 5 cents per latte. But if it sells millions of those lattes, then it will still add up to a significant benefit to the Global Fund.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. We should still be critical, observant, and vigilant against abuse. But we also have to realize that this is not the best of all possible worlds. It’s simply the one we live in.
I don’t think this article is making fun of Starbucks as much as it is making fun of all of us. Because a portion of the profits go to help the poor, we don’ t have to feel guilty for spending at least $3 for a cup of coffee or buying an $500 RED baby stroller.
Big Corporation Does Less Than It Probably Could To Save World
Seattle, WA. Protesters of RED demonstrating outside a local Starbucks professed shock at what is apparently a dominant motive for business: making money. One such protester, J—- a student of economic development theory at a nearby campus, called it a travesty.
“I can’t believe that people in the corporate world still think mostly about profit. I bet that Starbucks even has financial ‘incentives’ to do charity for chrissake,” he added, estimating that Starbucks could save up to three or four times as many people without going under.
“People shouldn’t get into business for the money,” he said, “unless they plan to use that money for social good.” J—- says that he would like to help out someday when he has skills or money, but that in a way he’s already doing his small part by protesting RED.
Another protester, K—–, declared himself to be “utterly infuriated” by the evil ways that rock megastars like Bono find to spend their time. “It’s just shameful how people like Bono should be spending their time living it up in high style and getting tons of girls, but instead what do they do? They start meddling in all of this business about ‘fighting disease’ and ‘caring about the poor.’ Why do they have to be such jerks?” he asked?
A visiting expert on development economics, B.E., however, had solutions. “The American public needs to understand the nuances about how development works, or sadly enough, all-too-often, fails,” shaking his head and noting that far less than 1% of Americans had ever attended his lectures.
“It doesn’t matter that most Americans can’t name the three branches of government,” he said. “This is development economics we’re talking about. How could people possibly not care enough to educate themselves?”
This article isn’t so much ridiculing Starbucks for donating money to AIDS research as it is mocking the people who buy it. It seems to me that it’s more exposing the fact that people pat themselves a little too hard on the back for buying coffee that may or may not donate a small fraction to a good cause. I’ve always found it sort of ridiculous how pleased Americans are with themselves when they are able to combine consumerism with charity. Get over your false sense of do-gooder-ness and get out there and really effect change. (I was born and raised here and I love this country so don’t even try to attack that. Give me something of substance)
Also @Michael Kirkpatrick
Using Nazis in debate to describe someone you disagree with is not only inaccurate but extremely tired. No one will ever take that seriously.
wonderful that John’s satirical comment is funnier and more poignant than the original post!
my $0.02 on the original issue parodied – nobody argues that the money raised by RED isn’t going where it’s supposed to, and I think that’s the important fact. Nobody argues that Bono isn’t sincere and successful in raising awareness and action related to viable causes. Nobody argues that Starbucks isn’t helping the situation in Africa. If I’m going to get a cup of coffee anyway (just because I want a cup of coffee, not because I’ve chosen to drink coffee instead of supporting some other cause), I vote to spend my $$$ where a bit of the profit might be spent in a worthwhile way instead of going to some local entrepreneur’s Lexus Fund.
One Trackback
[...] weekend, Bill Easterly’s Aid Watchers blog re-posted a satirical article lambasting corporate donations to the global fight against AIDS: [...]