Product (RED)

After reading the article about Product (RED), I must say I am rather confused on how this is considered a charity. In the first month's of its launch, the company made $71 million but only donated about $2.5 million to the charity it was promoting. I understand that it was trying to create a 10 year future for itself and make itself sustainable but at a certain point, you shouldn't be able to say it is a charity. Less than 4% of its initial revenues were given to the charity. This should have been labeled a business that gives to charity, not a charity that must withhold some of its revenues from charity in order to sustain itself. It gave people almost an untrue sense of giving. There should be a certain bar set that a self declared charity must give in order to hold the title and I don't think this percentage of giving is sufficient. Shriver said that it wants the companies a part of Project (RED) to make money of the campaign, and I agree. But I think the money should come from other sources. A much higher proportion of the money coming in for the Project (RED) products should have gone directly to The Global Fund. Then, due to the increased positive marketing, I'd assume higher customer volumes. This should be where companies should take advantage and make more money by being a part of the campaign.

Why do you think Bono and Shriver wouldn't accept the 100% of profits from the campaign to go directly to the cause? Or even anything more than 50%?