If you didn’t see an advertisement for Gap (PRODUCT) RED last year, you might have been living in a cave. The latest trend in “cause marketing” made a big splash in the United States after its debut in the United Kingdom in March with the American Express Red Card. Our generation has been bombarded with “charitable” advertising to help fight numerous global issues such as world hunger, poverty, cancer and AIDS.

There’s no doubt that corporate campaigns such as these have helped raise money for global poverty issues – American Express donated $600,000 to the Global Fund just six months after its launch. It also made a profit of $1.8 billion during that time. The Gates Foundation contributed $500 million without using a marketing campaign.

The cause that started it all, Live 8 – sponsored by the G8 Summit to address issues of poverty in Africa and global warming – boosted record sales for some performers by more than one thousand percent. Governments around the world use events such as these and popular products to raise money for a global relief fund but have failed to make their projected goal time and time again – yet the advertising continues.

Companies make an incredible amount of profit from these kinds of advertisements by bringing in a new client base of “ethical customers.” Using this technique, American Express, The Gap, Converse, Motorola, Apple and many others have reeled in consumers with the guise of an honorable motivation, while marking up special RED products to high prices and targeting middle-class America with celebrity endorsements.

While not a scam through and through, the intentions of these corporations are skewed. Many more people could be helped by making donations to respective charities and funds than by buying a new iPod or a pair of Gap RED jeans priced at just under $200.

Not only are these products helping consumers nationwide fall deeper into debt, but they’re catering to a social class of trendsetters. When a product denotes high fashion and status, the reason for purchasing it becomes nothing more than an attempt to show off your wares. Unfortunately, this isn’t a new concept to the business world.

In 2004, the LIVESTRONG wristband became incredibly popular. Even with the controversy and accusations that Nike was using sweatshops in the manufacturing process, profits soared throughout the year. Mock wristbands were produced by many other companies, diluting the stream of charitable donations with frauds as it became hard to tell which bands actually contributed to a cause.

This didn’t halt sales – the bracelets became a national trend among teenagers who bought them not to help fight poverty or disease, but to be fashionable. Scarily enough, the boost in bracelet sales corresponded with news reports that high schools were banning colored wristbands because they implied the wearer would perform sexual favors.

Despite the guise of corporate responsibility, companies that indulge in these kinds of campaigns are guilty of conning consumers around the globe by using influential people as endorsements. The message may start with a pure intention, but companies will steadily make more profits than they donate. There will never be a way to make charity remain a virtue when the end doesn’t justify the means.

Like every trend, this one will fade, and we’ll be faced with another incentive to try to help the rest of the world – with humanity taking a backseat to corporate well-being once again.

The only way to combat charitable marketing and to get the money where it needs to be is to eliminate the middleman. Millions of people bought cause-based products as gifts for the holidays with the intention of giving back to society. Direct monetary donations to a charity of your own choosing are much easier on your conscience – and your wallet – and help the money go directly to people who need it the most.

– Lucille Van Scoy is a sophomore in anthropology from Newton