|
<< Previous
Excerpts Contd...
Problems with Global Fund
In May 2002, Global Fund had agreed to fund
loveLife with a five-year, US$68-million grant. The first phase of
the grant (US$12 million) was made available to loveLife in January
2004. In May 2005 the Secretariat of Global Fund recommended
discontinuing the second phase of the grant to loveLife...
An Innovative Marketing Program
|
Despite the criticisms, marketing experts opined that loveLife was an innovative
program. loveLife had smartly leveraged on the ideology of globalization and
commercialization to present the lifestyle which it advocates as a 'brand' for
young people. The loveLife brand was promoted with the same international
branding techniques and intensity as any other popular brands among the youth.
The messages were indirect and hardly touched on the major elements of HIV
transmission and sexual practice. Instead the issues were addressed in the
context of lifestyle issues. Celebrated author Tina Rosenberg said that loveLife
seemed like a "cult" brand. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the World
Bank said that loveLife has been discussed as a model for HIV/AIDS prevention
campaigns...
|
|
Criticisms of Lovelife
loveLife critics questioned the effectiveness of the program. They said that
more research was needed to measure the true impact of loveLife. Some of
them viewed the Global Fund's decision to discontinue funding of LoveLife as
an indication that the campaign was ineffective...
Lovelife's Response
In response to these criticisms, loveLife maintained that its programs were
very effective. Harrison accused critics of having a "one-side" view without
taking into consideration the complexities of HIV prevention and loveLife's
contribution in the field. He claimed that there were "positive correlations
between participation in loveLife and lower rates of HIV."...
|
|
Outlook
loveLife had conceded that Global Fund's decision to discontinue funds
would pose a challenge to the program. Matlhape said that loveLife's
campaigns, particularly the NAFCI, would suffer because of the Global
Fund's decision. She said, "Think about all the people in rural
communities where HIV-prevention messages have to be reached. Losing
this amount of funding limits our ability to respond to these
initiatives ... It's (NAFCI) that component of loveLife that we will have
to revisit and see how we proceed." However, Matlhape also made it clear
that the funding withdrawal would not come in the way of loveLife's
goals in any way... |
Exbihits
Exhibit I: loveLife Logo
Exhibit II: Some of loveLife's Controversial Billboard Ads
Exhibit III: Map of National Distribution of loveLife Service Facilities and
Outreach Programs
Exhibit IV: Some Outdoor Media Ads of loveLife in 2004
Exhibit V: Some Outdoor Media Ads of loveLife in 2005
Exhibits VI (A): Some Outdoor Media Ads of loveLife in 2006
Exhibits VI (B): Some Outdoor Media Ads of loveLife in 2006
Exhibit VII: Some Outreach Facilities and Activities of loveLife
Exhibit VIII: Youth Magazine: Uncut
Exhibit IX: Screenshot of the loveLife Website
Exhibit X: Factsheet on National Survey of 15-24 Year Old South Africans about
HIV and Sexual Behavior
|
