Guest Columnist | How Motorola started selling morality

The advertisements for Product Red are nothing else if not striking. A faded blood-red background plays host to messages printed in broken black block font:

"As first world consumers, we have tremendous power. What we collectively choose to buy, or not to buy, can change the course of life and history on this planet," one such ad reads.

A bold statement, to say the least.

Meanwhile, the homepage for Microsoft's "i'm" initiative is a little less forthright; phrases like "the sky's the limit" are wrapped around pictures of kids playing soccer and beautiful mountain scenes.

But while the two campaigns differ in aesthetics, the approach is the same - charity as a marketing strategy.

Product Red solicits companies such as Apple and Armani to release Red-branded products. Forty percent of the profits from these products end up in the coffers of The Global Fund, which fights AIDS and other diseases in Africa.

For its own part, Microsoft offers a plan similar in spirit: Sign up for the initiative, and, each time you start a conversation through Windows Live Messenger, a "portion" of the program's advertising revenue will be donated to your choice of 10 charities, such as the American Red Cross.

Other examples of companies using charity as a means to goad consumers to purchase their products or use their services are fast becoming ubiquitous, from Yoplait yogurt to the Home Depot.

Spending on so-called cause marketing runs billions of dollars each year, and it's easy to see why - such campaigns are good for public relations.

For example, the 2006 College Explorer Study of the much sought-after 18- to 30-year-old demographic found that 33 percent of respondents preferred brands associated with being socially responsible in some way.

"It's a booming phenomenon," Marketing professor Deborah Small said. "Everyone's doing it."

On the face of it, cause marketing seems like a great strategy. It's win-win - consumers get products they like, companies get added profits and charities get more money with which to do good deeds.

In a utilitarian sense, it's great.

But underneath the flashy ads and optimistic copy lies the basic truth of the matter, which is that companies are preying on your sense of good will and caring in order to increase profits.

Product Red's manifesto reads, in part, "You buy Red stuff, we get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. [Africans] take the pills [and] stay alive. . If they don't get the pills, they die."

The implication is clear: If you choose a non-Red-branded product over a Red one, you're contributing to the death of Africans.

The potential for inflicting consumer guilt to increase revenue is huge, and it's troubling.

Companies tend to prey on insecurities through ads - perfume companies hope glossy pictures of beautiful models will trigger low self-esteem about your attractiveness, for example. They try and make you feel bad for not being sexier, slimmer or hipper.

But what happens when companies try and make you feel bad because, well, you're a bad person?

In that case, it's tough to defend choosing a nice new Samsung cell phone over Motorola's competing RAZR if it means more pain and suffering for Africans. And how can you use AOL Instant Messenger when Microsoft's client can fill Unicef's coffers?

All this is based on a similar kind of guilt - that of spending money on luxury goods when, across the world, people are starving.

According to Small, research shows that cause marketing is more effective when bundled with goods that are purchased more for pleasure than utility - high-end electronics or brand-name clothing, for example.

"It reduces guilt," Small says of buying expensive products when portions of the proceeds go to charity. It's the "desire to balance virtue and vice."

Another Product Red advertisement reads: "Meaning is the new luxury." But it's not - luxury is still luxury, while meaning makes us feel better about having it.

And once we subscribe to this mentality, we're doing worse then letting corporations guilt us into buying their products - we're allowing them to define what it means to be moral, altruistic and charitable.

So, don't rely on companies to solve the world's problems. Buy the products you want, and make sure you're donating a relatively comparable amount to the causes you find important.

Moreso, realize that money's not enough. To be truly engaged with a solution to global problems, volunteer your time with appropriate non-profits and push for social and political change.

You might not get a shiny new red iPod out of it, but you'll probably feel pretty good anyway.

Jeremy Baron is a College junior from New London, N.H. and is editorial page editor of 'The Summer Pennsylvanian.' His e-mail address is jeremycb@sas.upenn.edu.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.