Much has been written over the past few weeks about the seemingly poor return on investment made by the RED campaign.
In our neck of the woods, the charge has been led by Piers at PSFK. And the arguments made may well be true (you can read a RED response to an article in Ad Age here)
But Grant McCracken suggests another angle: that RED died on the sword of cynicism and scepticism; that enough of the right kind of (cool) people dissed the concept even before it started, making it a 'no go' by association for many others.
I can definitely see some truth in that, from my own reaction: great idea...but maybe a bit naff to be seen carrying/wearing something so blatant.
As one comment on Grant's blog says, the whole thing was just seemed too polished. Which raises an interesting question about grass-roots activism: can it ever be imposed, or even strongly facilitated from above, or must it always come from those working at the coal face (which Bono is arguably; it possibly just doesn't feel like).
But maybe there are also times when we just need to park the inner sceptic and cynic and embrace positively things which work for the greater good.
UPDATE
In his comment below, David from Where's The Sausage, points us towards some calculations he's done, which paint a very different picture of RED's performance. So maybe '"RED's not dead" to quote David...just in danger of being killed off. Definitely Worth a read if you don't want cynicism and scepticism to win the day!
