That article got the numbers backward (or more likely, they used the $100M as shock value, not caring about providing facts). In other words, that $100M was nev

That article got the numbers backward (or more likely, they used the $100M as shock value, not caring about providing facts). In other words, that $100M was never spent by (RED). On the contrary, it's an estimate of the advertising value that they would have needed, if they had bought themselves all the publicity that their campaign got. See how it's backwards?