Assistant Professor Angela Eikenberry has written a thoughtful and provocative article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review entitled The Hidden Costs of Cause Marketing. In it, Professsor Eikenberry makes her case against cause marketing or “consumption philanthropy,” as she calls it.
Consumption philanthropy individualizes solutions to collective social problems, distracting our attention and resources away from the neediest causes, the most effective interventions, and the act of critical questioning itself. It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless. And it obscures the links between markets—their firms, products, and services—and the negative impacts they can have on human well-being. For these reasons, consumption philanthropy compromises the potential for charity to better society.
On both Twitter and in the comments section to her article, Professor Eikenberry and I debated the benefits of cause marketing, something I’d like to expand upon here.
First, Professor Eikenberry argues that cause marketing distracts our attention from the neediest causes. This no doubt seems the case from the St. Jude’s, the Komen’s, the American Heart’s of world that seem to monopolize the public’s attention with their campaigns. But I believe cause marketing reflects a reality more than it contributes to it.
The fact that some causes get more attention than others is simply an unavoidable fact. Before cause marketing arrived on the scene in the early 1980’s there wasn’t a philanthropic Eden where charities were given equal time and equal resources. Causes like The Muscular Dystrophy Association had star power and network agreements that raised tens of millions of dollars for a relatively obscure disease, all at the cost of funding more important causes. Nevertheless, star power and TV ruled the day.
Also, doesn’t the money that flows to a major fire, earthquake or other disaster scene sometimes come at the expense of funding more worthy, but less media-worthy, charities?
In short, cause marketing doesn’t create a rivalry among charities. It reflects that reality.
Yet another reality about cause marketing is that while it may enhance it doesn’t create powerful brands. As a matter of fact it’s usually just the opposite. Brands like St. Jude, Komen and AHA had already overshadowed other causes before they ever took up cause marketing. The fact that they were so well known to begin with was their main reason for entering the cause marketing space.
Second, Professor Eikenberry chides cause marketing as “making virtuous action easy and thoughtless”. I have to admit that when I’m shopping and someone asks to give a buck at the register I don’t give it much thought beyond that I know I’m helping a good cause. But does all charitable giving have to be moving and thoughtful? If so, the good news is that most is. A nonprofit generally raises only 5 to 15% from corporate giving, INCLUDING money raised from cause marketing. So even if cause marketing is “easy and thoughtless,” and that’s making a big assumption for all those people who carry their cause items to or donate at the register, it really doesn’t represent that much. Even cause marketing powerhouse Komen that raises close to $40 million from cause marketing raises ten-fold that amount from other sources.
Finally, Professor Eikenberry says that cause marketing obscures the link between markets and consumers in ways that can be harmful to human beings. Like all the “cause crap” I see in stores that ends up in landfills. This bugs me too, Angie. Fortunately, many cause items are useful parts of everyday life. Like you, I have an iPod (which I would be hard pressed to live without!). I bought mine in red to benefit Product RED. I like soup. I buy the brand with the pink ribbon. I needed a new vacuum cleaner. What the hell, no one will see me: I bought a pink one from Oreck that supports Komen. The point is that there is a lot less waste out there than you think.
Also, cause marketing just isn’t percentage of sale, it’s also point of sale, which involves selling pin-ups at checkout, and licensing. Now, pin-ups are wasteful, but folks like St. Jude are leading the push with paperless point-of-sale program. And, well, licensing is a great area of cost- and consumption- effective growth for nonprofits, as the folks at the Arthritis Foundation have shown us with their easy-to-open medicine bottles.
Yes, we need to raise awareness of the plight of the neediest charities. I know, I work for one: a safety-net hospital that is blessed with grateful patients, but not the grateful patients with money most hospitals have. But removing cause marketing from the toolbox of fundraising tools isn’t going to help. It’s the right tool for too many situations.
There’s room out there for the easy gift–for the buck or two at the register or the ten bucks that goes to Product RED when you buy a red iPod. There’s plenty of thoughtful giving that happens within and without cause marketing. Finally, the wasteful side of cause marketing is small and societal pressures are pushing it toward less not more. (Believe me, I hear it from my own sponsors and one way we’ve responded is with smaller pin-ups and more targeted shipments to conserve resources.)
Professor Eikenberry calls her article “The Hidden Costs of Cost Marketing,” but cause marketing is a lot more transparent than other forms of philanthropy. Gifts aren’t negotiated behind closed doors, in someone’s posh office or over a t-bone steak at some swanky restaurant. Cause marketing gifts are given, generally anonymously, by consumers like you and me at registers across America in full view of the world. They are open, public and optional.
Like jazz and baseball, cause marketing is distinctly American. Born from Wall Street capitalism and heartland generosity, it reflects our market culture and is a natural way to support our favorite causes. And while Professor Eikenberry shows the ways to making cause marketing better, there’s one thing she can’t hide: the costliest thing would be not to do it at all.
Comments
I heartily agree, Joe! Representing one of the ‘little fish’ in the gigantic ocean of causes myself, it’s hard to get the message out against all the whales. However, that’s what makes the battle that much more worth fighting. The big charities with their money and super star supporters shine attention on all causes and have taught people that it’s important to give and support their neighbors in times of need. We didn’t have to spend millions educating them that charitable giving is a good thing, but we are now able to take advantage of the charitable wave that’s currently running throughout our country and the globe. Thanks to the big charities, we small nonprofits can get down to the business of telling our story.
The great thing about using social media to boost the brand is that it is an equalizer and even the little fish can play, and play WELL in the same ocean with the whales. We can finally be heard and be seen, and if we do our jobs well, donors will respond. We never would have had supporters outside New Hampshire before SM – it has opened a whole new world for us and we are thrilled to finally join the game with our bigger mentors in the effort to serve those whose voices so often cannot be heard.
Permalink
Thanks for your comments, Renee. I too feel the heat from the big charities, especially when it comes to cause marketing. But instead of pointing to it as an unfair advantage, we’ve tried to replicate a lot of things they do, with some success. We now raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from cause marketing. While this isn’t the millions that a Komen or Share Our Strength raises, it is additional income and we are happy to have it.
The key was to do what they do, but on a local level. I’ve hightlighted a lot what I’ve learned in my “Six Figure Cause Marketing” program.
I think the same is true of social media. While it does help level the playing field, we can learn a lot from the bigger/better charities that invaribly do it best.
The key to all of this, Renee, is brand. Whenever folks asked me what they can do to enhance their cause marketing I have the same response: do whatever you can to enhance your brand. Because with a powerful idenity that people know and connect all is possible, and immeasurably easier.
Permalink
Joe,
I really appreciate your thought-provoding response to my recent article in Stanford Social Innovation Review.
You raise some really excellent points. I agree with you that cause marketing reflects the reality of brand competition as well as one of the shortcomings (in one perspective, its great attribute from another perspective) of philanthropy more generally; which is that philanthropy is a somewhat faddish enterprise. That is, philanthropy is voluntary and thus driven by what individual or corporate philanthropists see as important. What philanthropists see as important or donation-worthy is not necessarily where their donations may be most needed from a societal perspective and this may be exacerbated with cause marketing because it’s not just what is in fashion but also what is lucrative that gets attention. Coming from Nebraska and its long populist history, I’m just not very keen on having corporations or big celebrities decide what cause is valued and what is not.
This is why, I think, we need to be realistic about what philanthropy can do to address certain societal problems and what we might need government to do to address some problems (such as supporting basic human needs). Perhaps the same can be said for cause marketing—maybe there are times when it works well to use among other methods. We should be thoughtful about when and where this might be appropriate. I’m not sure that our writing and thinking about cause marketing thus far has done a very good job of this. There are also many empirical questions I wonder about related to cause marketing that need to be addressed to do this. For instance, you say that “the wasteful side of cause marketing is small” but do we really know this? So far, I haven’t been able to find strong evidence for or against this assertion but I’d sure love to know. I’d be happier if it was true, but I’m still skeptical.
I also don’t agree that it is an unavoidable fact that “some causes get more attention than others.”It is I guess unavoidable if we choose to stay on the path of the status quo in philanthropy and cause marketing but we do have a choice about whether or not we stay on that path. Social media may be one way to get out of this trench.
The ease of embedded giving, as Lucy Bernholz describes it (http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2007/11/buzzword-6-embedded-giving.html), is also still worrisome to me. It might not be that large now, in comparison to other giving, but it does appear to be growing and becoming increasingly pervasive. We don’t know how much of an effect it’s having on giving except a small amount of evidence to suggest that it might actually serve to crowd out other types of giving. I think this is an area in need of more research (spoken like a true academic I know!) as well.
Finally, I do appreciate your point about the transparency of cause marketing related to other types of philanthropy. The sneaky backroom deals where a few big time donors decide who gets what is not very appealing. On one level, cause marketing does seem more transparent (I’m not sure every cause marketing relationship is completely transparent) and democratic in that anyone with an extra dollar to give can take part in it. But is it really open and public if the company or grocery store sponsor first decides on which causes will benefit? Most people will not have a say in this initial choice of who or what gets on the list of acceptable causes. Neither is there much discussion about the issue or problem in need of being addressed and the best way to address it.
Permalink
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Angie. I appreciate your feedback.
I can appreciate your misgivings about what philanthropy, and cause marketing specifically, can accomplish. But for the safety-net hospital I work at the ROI is real for us.
Let me give you an example.
If you scroll down a little bit on my blog you’ll see a blog post on a POS program that a bunch of Boston retailers are doing to raise money for our prescriptive food pantry at Boston Medical Center. Angie, in the past year we’ve since visits to this pantry increase my nearly 50% and we’re projected to serve 74,000 people this year. Thus far, this cause marketing program has raised over $100,000. That’s real money in keeping that program alive, especially when we had to absorb $140 million in budget cuts this year, and will need to deal with another $220 million dollars in cuts next year.
Does cause marketing solve the bigger problems, no way. Does it keep bellies full, you bet.
You’re right about hard data on the wasteful side of cause marketing. It’s difficult to say. But the waste in cause items is like the junk in the goody bags of every kids party go to: it has to stop.
It’s interesting about social media. I don’t think it will be the great equalizer! Just like blogging wasn’t! The big, well-funded, well-known players will use it better than others and will own the space. Look at St. Jude on Facebook. They are already doing a pretty good job!
I don’t know who Lucy is, but I don’t think cause marketing will crowd out other forms of giving. It’s just another form of giving, and a limited one because the most active companies are some of the biggest companies in the U.S. Working with mid-size companies is a tougher sell. We find that even here in eastern Massachusetts where we have lots of companies to work with. Yes, lots of companies, but a very small group that really “get it” and capable of executing.
One last point on your transparency comment. Most retailers I work with don’t pick a charity based on their preferences, they pick one on their employee and customer interests. And, of course, people are welcome to just say “No.” And frequently do!
Permalink
Wow! What a great discussion. More open discussions like this are what is really needed to make a larger and better difference for so many worthy causes.
It led me to recall a post I had written that weighed Cause Marketing against the Primary Goal of the Firm. From the organization’s side, big or small, their primary interest is to look out for their own cause and they shouldn’t be expected to do otherwise. From the side of the partnering business there are different issues at stake, and, admittedly, it isn’t for everyone. A company could take on a cause marketing program to boost it’s public image or bottom line, but if it doesn’t meet the primary goal of the firm, which is shareholder wealth maximization, which translates into stock price maximization, then it is not good business. Furthermore, the firm should not presume it knows how to spend the owner’s money better than the owner does. That is why I don’t believe there is a place for corporate philanthropy. Giving grants away may be a worth while endeavor, but it should be left to the individual, not the firm. Any investment by a company is solely there to earn the greatest return possible, which is what defines the difference cause marketing can provide.
The company’s leadership, with market research and consumer input, should know their own customer base well enough to determine what may work best at stimulating revenue and thus providing the greatest support to the cause. As a result the organization itself matters less than the cause.
Expecting that non-profit organization to mesh with the moral standards and philanthropic desires of every shareholder is unrealistic. And with the low voting results provided by shareholders for new board members, I doubt they would be any better for “Which organization should we choose for this campaign?” Just make sure it makes them wealthier, because the beauty of this system is that it can do good on both fronts.
Permalink
I’ve heard this argument before, Roger! If your post includes a more detailed discussion of it I hope you’ll post the link.
One of your comments is that you “don’t believe there is a place for corporate philantropy.” I wish you could have been at Cause Marketing Forum’s annual conference a couple weeks ago and heard the presentations from different companies, especially Timberlands. They were just the model of how a a company can weave cause into their DNA. At one point I thought: “My God they do so much how do they stay in business.” Later I realized that it was all that they do that had helped their business thrive. Just an incredible story, and perhaps not applicable for every business.
It’s interesting that you talk of maximizing the ROI for the company because when I go out and talk to companies that’s all I talk about. The marketing is first; the mission is second. What we’re doing is getting more and more businesses to add cause marketing to their marketing mix and to do that they need to see the bottom-line benefits.
Thanks again for commenting.
Permalink
Cause marketing is just a small piece of the larger issue Professor Elkenberry poses about business and charity – should they mix and by mixing them do we compromise the potential for charity to better society? I’m not sure that we can pin all that on cause marketing. I’m sure some cause marketers would love to say that, but as Joe said, it’s just a tool. I hear similar questions about the role of business and society when I talk about corporate social responsibility. It’s an interesting academic discussion but in practice I think it’s safe to answer that we’ve moved beyond it. Sure, there are lessons to be learned but as Joe wrote, not doing it would be the costliest thing of all. The next generation of philanthropists and consumers aren’t questioning whether they are hurting society by purchasing the chocolate bar whose proceeds go to farmers in Africa. They purchase the chocolate (once they’ve checked to see it has the fairtrade label), volunteer for the local animal shelter, and sign up to join the Peace Corps where they tweet about the communities they are working with in the hopes of raising some money through the groups Facebook page. How we give to charities is so much more multifaceted than it ever used to be. That’s the amazing thing – we can do so much more, so much faster, than ever before. Just because I purchased the red iPod doesn’t mean as Professor Elkenberry suggests that the moral core of philanthropy is being devalued. Perhaps, its just evolved.
Permalink
I think you make a good point, Jen. Too often people take a very narrow perspective on cause marketing and say: “Well, if that’s the only way people give, that’s not a good thing.” And I would agree with them! But that’s not the only way people give. They give in many different ways of which cause marketing is just one–and a small on at that. Yes, it may not be as pure, as authentic, as altruistic as other forms of giving, but it’s another way, not the only way–and to that I am the first to say thank goodness!
Permalink
Joe, Angie and All:
This is a great discussion! Glad that Joe and Angie got it started.
Just a quick addition. It appears that most of Angie’s paper focuses on “transactional cause” … which got labeled “consumption philanthropy.”
As most of us know, there are other forms of cause marketing.
A couple of case studies for prior HALO award winners help illustrate the point and perhaps demonstrate that rather than creating waste, cause marketing can help clearn it up.
One of the better ones that I remember is the Return the Warmth campaign of Keep America Beautiful, Sam’s Clubs and Aquifina. http://bit.ly/12vxqk The campaign urged consumers to recycle water bottles at Sam’s Clubs. (189 million of them) It then recycled the bottles and made them in to fleece jackets (25,000 of them) which were donated to kids who couldn’t afford winter coats.
Other examples can be found here:
http://bit.ly/15mwP5
Regards,
Steve Drake, aka causeaholic
Permalink
Great point, Steve. Not all cause marketing is transactional. That’s why purists still call transactional cause marketing “cause-related marketing.” But the point is well taken.
Permalink
Hi Joe and all,
What a great discussion! I wanted to just add a few more points in response to recent posts–my additional two-cents worth.
I think Jennifer is right that things are changing among new philanthropists. But, I hope that we never move beyond the point of discussing and researching if these new ways of doing things are good, bad, or other. Who benefits, to what degree, etc.? Let’s ask the questions and do the research to find out the net costs or benefits if we can, rather than just assume that all is good, and make decisions from there.
It also worries me if “The next generation of philanthropists and consumers aren’t questioning whether they are hurting society by purchasing the chocolate bar whose proceeds go to farmers in Africa.” Indeed, they may be hurting Africa when they do not mean to (on this subject check out Dambisa Moyo’s new book Dead Aid, which makes a very convincing case against aid to Africa). I am the person that Jennifer describes—tweeting, doing activist work online, etc. etc.—but I’m not sure I really am making the world better off by doing all of these things. I hope so, but I don’t really know. I will keep trying to figure out if these things really do make a difference.
And you know, I don’t think I’m saying in my piece that it’s wrong to buy the red Ipod if you really need an Ipod (I would buy the Red one too if I were going to buy an Ipod). I don’t think that is the point. The real point is do you really need the Ipod? Could that money be better spent elsewhere for “better” purposes—like giving your $200 to charity directly? Does the Ipod really help connect us to the travesty of AIDS in Africa? Could the Ipod do more to help educate and connect you to this problem? How was the Ipod made and who suffered or benefited from its creation? There’s just a lot that goes on behind the Ipod that we might consider before just assuming that it’s good and charitable to buy an Ipod.
I also don’t think what I am saying is applicable only to transactional causes. While the specific HALO cause Return the Warmth Campaign Steve mentions is a great story—plastic bottles being used to make jackets going to needy kids is really wonderful and to be applauded—it doesn’t, for example, raise any issues about the big box eyesores and over-consumption created by Sam’s Club (which probably sold a lot of those plastic bottles to begin with) or what appear to be the many problematic labor, economic, and environmental practices of its owner, Wal-Mart.
Best,
Angie
Permalink
Great dialogue in this comments section thus far and I respect and appreciate that Angie continues to discuss her POV.
At the risk of being somewhat repetitive the one point I want to make is around basic human nature in the United States. Cause marketing enables brands and consumers to give and get by definition. And I feel it’s naive to think that those dollars either from the sponsoring corporations or from people’s pockets are cannibalizing philanthropy or charity. This goes against all we know about American human nature. Rather companies and individuals will either do both cause marketing and philanthropy/charity, or just cause marketing because there’s something in return (incremental sales, brand halo, product or service bought). But from a giving mindset perspective these are not from the same wallet; point being that typically cause marketing is not chosen over philanthropy, it’s chosen as the only way they want/can participate in social change. So rather than deride it we should realize that in many cases if it didn’t exist those contributions wouldn’t be made; not that they’re preventing more or somehow “better” contributions. This reminds me of the early debates around art vs. advertising. Yes they’re similar and feed each other but serve distance purposes and and help not hurt each other.
Permalink
Joe, terrific post and discussion.
I agree with you. Would it be nice if 100% of people were fully engaged in charitable giving? Sure. Dream on.
Bringing more dollars to important things is worthy. The worry I have is that in chasing the dollars, organizations might be giving cover to corporate bad actors. Organizations have a responsibility to make sure that the company they partner with shares their values and, to some substantial degree, isn’t using the cause as a way to distract consumers from bad behavior.
As we saw with the Dove/Greenpeace example, cause marketing can also open a company up for more change. Dove does this great campaign for real beauty. But Greenpeace saw that they were involved in the clear-cutting of forests for Palm Oil. Greenpeace used the cause marketing campaign of Dove as a lever to bring change to the other issue.
In our more transparent world, you have to walk the walk.
Keep up the conversation!
Permalink
Thank you all for contributing to a great discussion. In particular I loved Brian’s comment about consumers not making these gifts from the same wallet and that cause marketing is not chosen over philanthropy.
I very much believe this to be true. I would also argue that individuals like ourselves, who already are committed to the deeper level of awareness and strategic involvement in how our dollars or time are best spent will actively seek out cause-marketing opportunities and promote them to others when making our purchases (well, maybe not as much as Joe!). This still represents some very positive incremental giving.
For those who are less inclined to be deeply involved, cause marketing at a minimum allows for some type of involvment. Even if it’s not the purest & most effective way to give, I look at it as an introduction (or dare I say “gateway drug”) to the larger realm of impactful philanthropy. Most of those folks likely won’t take it any further, but I would also argue that many of them probably wouldn’t have donated or volunteered in the many other ways that Susan and all of us would prefer.
This is a similar arguement I make when there is the annual story & uproar about what companies spend on marketing their cause efforts, or to produce in-store materials, etc. The point that is often missed is that if companies weren’t allocating these funds to support their cause marketing efforts, it’s not like they would instead be giving them directly to the charity, etc. They would in almost all cases be using those same funds on advertising their products in a more traditional way. You would still have the same amount of funds spent and the same amount of wasteful materials produced, but you’ve then lost the benefit of awareness & dollars to their cause partners. Cause marketing is certainly not perfect, but by comparing it to the ideal situation we miss the point.
Permalink
Dear Joe and et al:
Great discussions of course!
I agree that cause marketing reflects what is occurring in the marketplace in terms of how competitive it is in getting your share of the pie, however big that pie is.
My comments is that I see many similarities in the big charities like Komen as I do with corporate america and the the likes of IBM — such as having backroom deals to promote and sell Intel processors over AMD processors. And so to get to my comment, I feel that there will be a point when charities and non-profits will need and to demonstrate how they are “sustainable” in all their efforts and operations as to prove that they aren’t wasting precious resources, plus contributing appropriately as what Corporate America is trying to do today. It’s not going to be easy…yet transparency and sustainability will be helpful in developing trust in this crazy world.
Permalink
Angie:
I believe that most of your piece is, in a word, drivel.
I was part of the team that developed “cause-related marketing” for American Express. I worked at Ogilvy & Mather at the time and created the advertising that supported the launch of this effort. By the way, as you bandy about the phrase, “cause-related marketing,” you might be interested to know that this phrase is actually trademarked by American Express – a trademark that they have never enforced. Virtually no one is aware that Amex holds this trademark and they have, in effect, given it to people to assist in explaining this marketing program. So much for corporations never acting in a benevolent way.
Your argument is so full of fallacies that I don’t know where to begin. At almost every step of the way, you have drawn the incorrect assumption based on anecdotal and/or flawed research or simply on faulty logic. So, let me start to refute your arguments at a random point:
“The sheer volume of pink products seems to lead many consumers to believe that breast cancer is the most pressing health problem facing women today.”
This argument is based on your belief that cause-marketing may draw attention away from the most serious health concerns. By this flawed logic, someone (who this would be is unclear to me) should create a list of the world’s most pressing concerns. Then, all of the resources of philanthropy and giving should address this one problem until it has been eradicated. At this point, all funds would then be directed to the next item on the list, and so on. You seem to suggest that any awareness given to anything other than the most serious cause would distract from that one cause.
On the contrary, cause-marketing can be used to bring attention to a problem that people did not know even existed. For instance, Tide Detergent created its “Loads of Love” campaign. A purchase of Tide would help fund their program of bringing mobile washing machines to help after a major disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina. Had it ever occurred to you that getting clean clothes was a major problem for people who had just survived a disaster? It hadn’t to me and I suspect most other people. Tide was able to bring attention to a little known problem and help solve that problem at the same time.
Did this distract people from their concerns about AIDS in Africa? There is no reason why it should. These are two separate and distinct problems that can be solved by two separate and distinct methods. They are not equivalent to most people. Nor, as you would seem to suggest, are they mutually exclusive.
Another point of yours: “A 1999 study that cause-marketing campaigns hinder future donations to charities because consumers think that their purchases are donations.”
Where is the flip side of this position? How many people have become aware of a problem through cause-marketing and contributed either time or money to solve that problem, when they would never have done so before? While some may give less to a particular cause than before – and I doubt that research – how much more has been given by people who would never have thought to contribute to that cause at all? In other words, there might be someone who makes a regular contribution to breast cancer research (Oops, I forgot that is not the most serious health risk to women.) and would donate less because they believe that they have given through the purchase of a product. But how many more would never have donated to breast cancer research at all? Let’s look at the US postage stamp that benefits the Susan Komen Fund. Of the millions of people who have chosen to buy that stamp, how many would have made a contribution to breast cancer research by other means? I suspect that, statistically, very few. So, while there might be some decline in giving by some people, it is far outweighed by the incremental giving that is created.
Next: “Participants are less likely to volunteer for a charity after calculating how much money they earn per hour than they are after merely reporting their annual salary. Putting a price tag on time, it seems, makes people less willing to give their time away for free.”
Since I donate my time to help VolunteerMatch.org – yes, I volunteer – let me respond to this absurdity. I have never calculated the actual number of hours that I have donated to them. Neither have I ever thought about my regular yearly salary on a “per hour” basis. Thus, I have never thought to monetize my volunteer time. Why should I, unless compelled by a research study? Certainly, the government does not approach volunteering this way. By the logic of this study, people would calculate their per hour salary and then multiply that by the number of hours that are volunteered. They could then, theoretically, deduct that amount of time from their taxes as a “charitable deduction.” But neither people nor the government think this way. People in this research study have been put into a situation that is not real and then been asked to respond to it. In fact, do parents calculate the time that they spend with their children in this way? Does a father who skips a business meeting to attend his son’s Little League game then send his son the bill for his time? Nor does a parent ever say to their children, “You know, you have cost me $126,567.13 in lost salary to attend your school events.” Most people do not monetize the amount of time that they give to a cause that they love and care about. In fact, a Stanford study showed that the time that people spent volunteering was the time that they were most proud of. People count the emotional gratification they get from volunteering far more than they count the cost in terms of paid man-hours.
At any rate, I shall spend no more time on this now. I do, however, challenge you at any time and anywhere to debate this topic.
Jeff Atlas
Permalink
Joe and Angie (and all),
First of all, congrats on having the guts to dialogue about this (Angie – this goes mainly to you).
Cause marketing, in my opinion, is the right tool for many situations. And BMC has many great examples of successful campaigns. Halloween Town, for example, was a success on three fronts:
1. BMC raised money to help their patients, who were grateful.
2. The retailers gave their customers an opportunity to wrap social giving into their routines – and they felt grateful for that opportunity.
3. Dialogues around important issues were nurtured for BMC, the retailers, and everyone who gave.
Now, Angie – I agree wholeheartedly with your concern that cause marketing can make “virtuous action easy and thoughtless”. But I think this affect has nothing to do with cause marketing as a financial vehicle. If anything, it has more to do a lack of sincerity in the hearts of those implementing cause marketing strategies.
And that is why this discussion is important!
We need to always check the freshness of the sincerity in our hearts. Are we putting the cause first? Are we creating meaningful dialogue about the cause we’re raising money for? Or are we just trying to pay bills and promote our bar of soap.
John
Permalink
I’m following this debate with interest and have encouraged my readers to do so as well….Have to admit I’m conflicted. At one time I raged against out-of-control consumerism, but time and age have softened me. It’s hard to say that causes that have been helped by cause marketing shouldn’t have taken the money. The most telling argument by the professor, for me, is the uncertainty about production that may or may not cancel out the good of the cause.
Permalink
Production of cause marketing items is troublesome, Joanne, but keep in mind that many cause marketing programs don’t involve major production costs. Point-of-sale programs like the pinups I talk about on my blog are becoming more “green” and sometimes involve no paper “icon” at all.
Permalink
Joe et al:
I’m so inspired by this discussion that I weighed in on my on blog, causemarketing.biz.
Warm regards,
Paul
Permalink
Thanks, Paul. We all appreciate your extended input!
Permalink
Why is a market strategy that links the purchase of a company’s product with a cause under so much fire?
Corporations have long been involved in supporting their communities as a natural course of doing business. Intrinsically, successful brands understand there’s an obligation to address social concerns. I think public scrutiny over the practices of “cause-marketing” exists, in part, due to the transparency of the label itself. Would monies be considered better-spent if we used Joe’s term “selfish giving”? Cause-related marketing IS an expense and it’s expected to show a return. But that’s actually the point.
In fact, CM is only costly when done wrong. Like when brands link their lowest performing product to a cause in a failed attempt to boost sales. Or when a non-profit allows a brand to warp the purity of their message in an edgy mash-up campaign.
Of course skeptics can find fault with the hype and over-optimism of cause-capitalism. It’s not a charity program with a one-time check that we’re talking about here. Cause marketing is a spark to a new conversation and engagement.
Without a highly evolved & creative partnership between brand and cause, millions of non-profits around the world would be struggling to earn mainstream support or awareness to the huge array of societal pains they seek to serve. A brand’s marketing dollars in a successful cause-related campaign has true, measurable impact.
Tie your gift of Selfish-Giving with a green, red, yellow or pink bow. We don’t care, we value the action most of all.
~Lee (@KooDooZ)
Permalink
I appreciate the ardent discussion that’s going on here and agree with so many of the points already addressed. I could dive into any one of them at length, but as so much has already been tackled at length, I’ll just focus on this: “It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless.” Ouch. This statement continues to ruffle my feathers. Ever drop a few coins in a Salvation Army red kettle? Not exactly cause marketing, per say, but it illustrates a point. Tossing spare change into a bucket (often before or after shopping). This is about the easiest action someone can take to support a cause. So is it thoughtless? Last time I checked, this simple charitable action netted the Salvation Army a record-setting $130 million dollars this past holiday season, driven in part by access to retail stores, events and promotions through corporate partnerships. I don’t want to put words in their mouths, but I suspect The Salvation Army would have some insights to share on whether making virtuous action “easy” for consumers is a “thoughtless” approach.
-Sarah(@sarahkerkian)
Permalink
Well the crowd has certainly responded to this one! Thank you Angela for providing the stimulus to start the discussion and bravely taking a lot of abuse in the process.
Based on the very strong points made already and the fact that the train has already left the station when it comes to cause marketing, I think it’s more important to shift focus to the question of how we make cause marketing better as opposed to whether it is intrinsically a good or comparing it to other philanthropic options.
While we’ve certainly seen a lot more bad campaigns come to light lately, on a whole I think that those of us in this space are striving to raise our game. There is also no question that consumers are becoming more interested in the details of a company’s efforts and more savvy about what good programs look like. If you’re just greenwashing or slapping a charity’s logo on your product it’s not enough. While I think it’s next to impossible for even the most sincere of companies to avoid any criticism, I’ve found that consumers are generally looking for the following:
1) Are you genuine?
-Does what you are saying match up with what you are doing across all of your businesses and does it align with your overall mission & strategy? Unilever was the most visible & high profile example of companies that have had issues with this recently. Their Dove Campaign for Real Beauty was powerful and really connected with women. Unfortunately, that effort was tarnished when consumers realized that the Axe brand (also owned by Unilever) was running advertising that objectified women & promoted a lot of the same stereotypes about women’s beauty that the Dove Campaign was designed to address. Ultimately, New Balance is in the business of helping people live healthy and active lifestyles. Our partnerships are aimed at getting more people to exercise and experiencing the physical and mental benefits that come with doing so.
2) Are you transparent?
-When it comes to cause marketing, this means detailing exactly what % or $ amount from you products’ sale goes to the charity ideally on the product packaging and through all other marketing vehicles around the promotion. Even better to include minimum guarantees & maximum donation amounts to the charity. Also, it’s seems like a no-brainer but it’s of course important to name the specific the charity that is benefitting from the sale of your products, rather than saying something like “breast cancer research”.
3) Are you consistent?
-As I mentioned above, it’s important that you pick a cause that makes sense for the business & industry you are in. That also helps you maintain long-term partnerships and extend your involvement through the company over time. The length of time that you’ve supported a cause is a sure sign that you are genuinely committed and not just looking to right whatever “hot” cause is out there for a short-term marketing gain. The 20 & 10 year partnerships I work on here at New Balance with Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Girls on the Run are good examples. It’s also a good practice over time to make sure that your support of a cause extends beyond just one area of the company like the marketing department to include employee involvement, charitable giving/community relations, etc. Like Joe has pointed out with Timberland, when you do so it becomes truly ingrained in your culture like Komen has for us. I can tell you that it’s the #1 thing we hear during interviews on what people find exciting about joining our company (besides free shoes of course).
Thank you all for the work that you do in helping us raise the bar. I know most of this isn’t new ground for many of you, but as our little discussion is drawing more attention I thought it might be helpful to get any newcomers pointed in the right direction.
Permalink
Joe (and Angie),
This has been a fantastic discussion around all of the areas I attempt to address in my Cause Marketing series (http://tr.im/causemarketing) in one singular post!
You’ve both effectively articulated the key issues around cause marketing and philanthropy, and raised some important points.
The one area on which I would like to focus, however, is not around justifying cause marketing itself, as I truly believe there is merit to making philanthropy “easy” and accessible for consumers, and don’t think it devalues the cause or the act of giving in the process, but around the way a company structures a program or allocates dollars to the chosen cause.
I’ll use my favorite causewashing giant, Starbucks, as an example to illustrate my point. First of all, I think it’s great that they’re incorporating causes into their POS as their volume of sales does stand to benefit their partner causes, but to Angie’s stance, does that dilute goodwill or customers’ *personal* contributions to the cause?
The answer to that lies in how transparent the brand has been in the campaign, and the communication around the impact of their efforts with participating customers. You have to do some digging to find out that Starbucks only donates five cents per cup of [$4] coffee to ProjectRED as they don’t promote that aspect in their marketing efforts. So, in most cases, consumers walk away thinking that they have just done their part and donated the equivalent of a cup of coffee, or $4 dollars, to the cause. In that scenario, would it not have been better for them to simply forgo that cup of coffee and give the $4 directly to the cause?
Or, if they knew it was only a small amount of the total sale, perhaps they would supplement their donation directly now that the campaign generated awareness of the cause.
I believe that cause marketing is critical for helping nonprofits generate exposure in the market, and POS donations are certainly bettter than no donation at all, but it should be a *supplement* for giving, not a replacement. Again to Angie’s point, we don’t want to breed a society of lazy givers by letting them kill two proverbial birds with one stone in every transaction, but I believe the answer is not around eliminating cause marketing programs, but making the education and communication elements of them stronger.
The campaign should tell you as much about the cause (if not more) than about the brand as a springboard to promote consciousness and giving long after the cause-related activities end.
As always, it boils down to intent. If companies are simply linking to flavor-of-the-month charities for the halo benefits to their brand, their investment — and hence, ability to make a tangible difference — will be limited. But if they develop fully integrated programs aligned with their mission, and that involve employees, stakeholders and the community on a continual basis, they will have the structures in place to make regular, change-driving contributions, cultivate cause champions and share the results of their efforts to fuel ongoing participation.
I think the biggest distinction is developing cause alliances over isolated ad hoc initiatives with random charities. It’s better to give $10,000 to one carefully selected, synergistic cause, for example, than $1,000 to 10 different charities with little to no connection to your brand, or the customers you serve.
At the end of the day, the key is not to make causes trendy or promotional, but to help develop a community of socially conscious consumers who adopt giving as an integral part of their lifestyle, and through whom we can create measurable change. So whether that consciousness is sparked at a cash register or charity fundraiser, it needs to ne nurtured, and that’s the missing element in most cause marketing campaigns.
Thanks again for the thoughtful dialogue around this important issue.
Best,
Gennefer
(@Gennefer)
Permalink
Hi all – I think I’ve said everything I have to say about embedded giving over at philanthropy2173.com. One note I’ll pick up from John’s post is the idea that cause marketing/embedded giving is transparent. I disagree. Just try finding out what company X did with the money you gave at the cash register or that came from the vacuum cleaner you bought. Following these dollars is nearly impossible. Project RED is the exception that proves the rule, and some who’ve tried to follow RED partners giving (e.g. Starbucks, see Bill Easterly’s blog) have found it awfully hard to follow that money.
One other element of this – the customer gives the money. The company takes credit for the charitable contribution, the marketing bump, etc. For anyone trying to be smart about their own giving this kind of embedded giving makes it really hard to track what you are doing, can’t deduct it from taxes, hard to budget in, etc. etc.
Glad the discussion continues to engage!
Permalink
Thanks, Lucy. You’re right. In many percentage of sales programs, there is very little info on how much will go to the charity. I hate when I see an item and it says “a portion of proceeds will go to…” What the heck does that mean? How much? Why can’t you just say it?
Keep in mind that while the customer gives the money to the company, the company is not entitled to the deduction in taxes. But the company does get the bump in marketing, but I think with good reason. Putting together these programs isn’t easy or cheap and the company putting the effort into their employees making an ask at the register, for example with a point-of-sale program, is far more valuable/lucrative than anything they could ever give from the corporate checkbook.
Permalink
Joe,
Great article and great blog. I found you through Joanne @ About. I see so many of my colleagues and friends have already replied at length.
I had originally commented on Angie’s article after seeing the Chronicle’s post on 6/3.
“In the absence of people’s active and effortful moral engagement, corporations and their profit-driven needs set the tone for acceptable ways of being philanthropic.
This assumes that the consumers have no decision power with brands. In our collective years in working with big brand marketers and communicators, we see now more than ever that consumers, their choices and passions are what drives brand decisions. Key initiatives usually include “local community involvement and activation”.
Consumers – and that includes nonprofit consumers – are in the driving seat. It’s up to all of us to provide information and transparency for those consumers to make smart decisions about where to put their time, energy and money.
I’d actually like to see cause marketing increase but further democratize where the dollars go.
Best,
Craig
@craigalberino
Permalink
I disagree with the statement “cause marketing is a lot more transparent than other forms of philanthropy.”
How many companies that promise a percentage of your purchase will go to a charity actually tell you at the point of purchase display or on the product label how much of your actual purchase will go to that charity? And how many tell you that they will give up to a certain dollar amount without reading the fine print?
Also, how many companies promise a gift but drag their feet doing so until every last widget is sold?
That said, I think it is a component of philanthropy because it meets a need of some donors who are motivated by giving through their purchases.
@davethecfre
Permalink
Thanks, Dave. One thing I want to make clear from my earlier comment is that transparency is a problem with percentage-of-sale programs or cause items. I believe transparency is less of a problem with point-of-sales programs, as I highlighted in my post.
Permalink
Thanks everyone for jumping into the fray, and special thanks to Joe for keeping the discussion lively. I had hoped for some discussion when I wrote the article (with editorial assistance from SSIR)—and boy, this is a discussion! BTW, for something that might cause you even more heartburn, check out the original article from which this SSIR article was inspired (abstract here: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/52/7/974). Also, besides, Gennefer’s CM series, check out Samantha King’s book Pink Ribbons Inc.: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy (she devotes a chapter to the breast cancer stamp and raises several critiques about the pink campaign).
The main thing I want to point out, especially in response to Brian, Chris, and Jeff’s post, is that I don’t think we really have the data and information available yet to fully know what the effects of cause marketing or consumption philanthropy are in relation to issues I raised in the article and beyond. Perhaps you all know of some good studies out there that definitively contradict my arguments? If so, I genuinely would love to see them, please send or post.
The research that I’ve been able to find is mostly about how CM benefits corporations, but not much seems to be out there to really know how or if CM affects other giving and relationships between consumers and the cause (is it a “gateway drug”? does it really spark new conversations engagement?—this hasn’t happened for me personally but I wouldn’t make a judgment about it just based on my experience), the opportunity costs for nonprofits to do CM (as opposed, for example, to spending time building relationships with other donors), etc. What little research is out there, that I cite in the article, suggests there is some crowding out going on, for example. I agree that the research that is available is highly inadequate but it seems to be a place to start beyond just relying on our individual experience. The issues I’ve brought up may prove to be fallacies, but so far, there seems to not be enough data to say this yet. I’m planning to do research in this area so if you have ideas for questions to address, sources for data, or want to partner on a study, let me know.
Building on Chris and Gennefer’s points—CM could be made that much stronger and perhaps be done even better by understanding its short-term and long-term impacts on these and other areas. Rather than end the conversation because you don’t agree with my assertions, let’s go out there and find out what is really going on. I frankly hope you are all right about the net benefit of CM, but I think we need to do the research, get the data, and make decisions about how to use/improve CM based on the best information we can get.
Angie
twitter: @aeikenberry
Permalink
Dave & Lucy’s comments perfectly capture some of the issues that I’ve tried to raised around best practices and being specific about exactly how much per item is donated, what is minimally guaranteed regardless of the # of sales & if there is a maximum cap on the donation. I’ll personally admit that I don’t like that our current donation is based on a % of wholesale price (we did this because we can track it best) but starting in 2010 we’ll move to a percentage of the MSRP so every consumer will know exactly what the donation amount it per item.
Also wanted to quickly address Lucy’s point on the consumer making the donation. There is a bit more to that story – while the donation does come out of profit from the sale & therefore is ultimately paid by the consumer, we as a company make much less off the sale of that product than we would from the same product if it weren’t associated with a cause. This is actually something consumers should make sure to keep an eye on. I have seen cases where companies have raised the normal price on items to cover the donation – that is someone taking advantage of consumer goodwill and they should certainly be criticized.
Good companies aren’t taking a free ride off the backs of consumers when it comes to cause marketing programs. We commit to sacrificing profits as a result.
Again, I’m not challenging that other forms of philanthropy are often more transparent & more impactful than cause marketing. We should however be sure to recognize the positives of increased awareness, employee egagement, and transfer of marketing knowledge that come hand in hand with these partnerships.
Permalink
Wow, what an interesting discussion!
In one way, I support cause-marketing because I believe that nonprofits need to listen and respond to their donors’ preferences. Whether or not it’s the right thing to do, or even a viable long-term strategy, nonprofits need to find financial support wherever possible to stay afloat in this competitive environment.
In another way, I think trends like these are confusing charity with consumerism. Are we giving because we believe in the organization and its mission? Or because it’s convenient? Philanthropy, I think, should be a thoughtful practice – one that exemplifies the individual’s hopes, goals and values, and I wonder about the implications of cause-related marketing on this practice.
What does this mean for the future of philanthropy? Will people still want to give when the organization does not offer anything in return, except a “thank-you?”
Now we can get i-pods or shoes or even toilet paper when we contribute to a cause. What happens if you get is a tax-receipt and a form-letter in the mail? Do we always need to get something in return?
Permalink
PS Very interesting site! Glad I found it!
Permalink
Kudos to the good Professor & Joe for stirring up such a lively discussion!
From the establishing of her premise to the stating of her conclusion, I have one point on which I agree with the professor, and two points that I strongly disagree.
She rightly is concerned that “the act of critical questioning” isn’t taking place among consumers who are interacting with a brand or company through cause marketing. In one of her comments here she says it worries her that, “‘The next generation of philanthropists and consumers aren’t questioning whether they are hurting society by purchasing the chocolate bar whose proceeds go to farmers in Africa.’ Indeed, they may be hurting Africa when they do not mean to.”
This is a valid and excellent point that brands, companies & cause marketers should keep in mind when choosing to associate themselves with a cause. Beyond the bottom line ROI, they need to thoroughly research the impact, both positive and potentially negative, on the social issues before getting involved. Once the decision is made to move forward, they need to be strategic in their approach to educating buyers on why it’s a good idea to make a purchase to support their particular cause. Most consumers buy based on emotional connections, not logical thought. Marketers have no control over human nature – no one can make anyone else think critically, or do anything else for that matter. But they can responsibly influence buying decisions without having to resort to manipulative psychological tactics. Businesses that help raise awareness, inform, and educate about a cause in a collaborative way provide a valuable service to our communities. In the hands of a responsible organization, authentic and transparent communication will go a long way to mitigate the lack Professor Eikenberry is anxious about.
The real problem I have is with what I perceive to be a judgmental premise that forms the foundation for a flawed conclusion.
At street level, even the term “consumption philanthropy” appears to an attempt to disparagingly get in a dig at a practice she feels is worthy of growing suspicion of it’s merit. She then goes on to state how cause marketing is “distracting our attention and resources away from the neediest causes”, and how “It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless.” Based on these judgments, she concludes that, “For these reasons, consumption philanthropy compromises the potential for charity to better society.”
Such thoughts fire up certain questions in my mind like:
So, who decides what the “neediest causes” are? Who is final arbiter of what cause is the neediest? Is there some elite council somewhere decreeing which causes are worthy of attention and those that should be tabled because they’ve had their fair-share in the spotlight? People connect with causes they care about, and people connect with companies who care about the causes they care about. Are we saying individual conviction must submit to some pre-determined slate of causes deemed needy? Since when did companies and individuals lose their ability to decide which causes are the neediest to them?
As far as “devaluing the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless”, so what then? Virtuous action should be arduous and absorbed? Wow. If I am able to teach my children to engage in virtuous acts as a free-flowing, carefree part of their daily lives, I would consider my parenting to be a success. Please excuse my bluntness, but such a statement sounds like pontificating. There is no moral supremacy in making virtuous action difficult, and no shame in making it easy.
Enabling people to effortlessly contribute to a cause they care about by buying a product from a company or brand they identify with doesn’t devalue a cause’s mission, it enhances it. Sorry professor, but to downplay the contribution that cause marketing makes to the philanthropic efforts of companies and causes “compromises the potential for charity to better society.”
Twitter: @DaveWebb
Permalink
What a lively discussion!
Cause marketing, I admit, does need to be looked at with a more critical eye. We as consumers seem to be bombarded with causes to support, especially in the grocery aisles. It can be difficult to see which companies are making a genuine effort and which brands are doing it just because everyone else seems to have aligned with a cause.
I work for a nonprofit called First Book where we have consistently relied on funding from cause marketing campaigns to build our brand and raise awareness for literacy. While Professor Eikenberry argues that cause-based marketing devalues the brands, I believe that when both the consumer brand and the cause create effective messaging around the promotion, there will actually be a meaningful partnership, where both parties win. For example, First Book appears on the Cheerios box through a campaign called Spoonfuls of Stories. This promotion, now in its 3rd year, was created with careful planning and branding with Cheerios so that everyone benefits. Cheerios has seen a boost in sales, and First Book has gained exposure to the right demographic.
The problem of “consumption philanthropy” occurs when the campaign seems completely random with little relation between the brand and the cause, resulting in consumer confusion. When this is the case, the consequences will be apparent.
Bottom line: cause marketing needs to make sense for all parties involved. In my opinion, this is the only way for there to be long-term gain and the costs of cause marketing will be nominal.
Permalink
Jane, thanks so much for weighing in. It’s good to hear from a large nonprofit that has worked extensively with cause marketing. I love First Book (did you know that Reach Out And Read was founded right at Boston Medical Center?!) and enjoy following your work!
Permalink
Hi Joe and all-
Thanks to Brian Powell (@goodconcepts) for inquiring about any Cone (@ConeLLC) research on cause marketing affecting philanthropy. Thought you may be interested in seeing the data points here, too, as the lively discussion carries on.
(From Cone’s 2008 Cause Evolution Study, a part of the “Past. Present. Future. 25th Anniversary of Cause Marketing” report)
After learning about a corporate partnership, Americans indicate they are more likely to support a charity in the following ways:
-tell a friend about the charity (42%)
-donate money (36%)
-participate in charity’s programs/events (29%)
-volunteer (23%)
Speaks to more than just the funds it can generate, but the powerful awareness-building potential of cause.
Permalink
I confess I don’t understood what Professor Eikenberry means when she writes that cause marketing ‘individualizes solutions to collective social problems.’ Or, at least, I don’t understand how cause marketing is any more guilty of individualizing solutions than normal charitable giving when something north of 80 percent of all charitable donations in the United States come from individuals and bequests.
If I buy a carton of Yoplait, send in the lid and thereby make possible a 10 cent donation to Susan G. Komen for the Cure, how exactly is that gift more individualized than when an annual donor, say, writes a check for $200 to a hospital, or a ballet company, or a church, or the scouts, or a food bank, or a disease or relief charity? Especially since that annual donor was almost certainly solicited for that gift. Nevermind that the solicitation didn’t take place in our modern temples to consumerism, the grocery stores, a practice which Professor Eikenberry evidently deplores.
Her other objections to cause marketing remind me of a panel I was on about 18 months ago on the topic of corporate philanthropy. One of the other panelists said: “I have concluded that there is no altruism in corporate philanthropy.”
Maybe not. But does that matter?
Here’s how I respond: any insistence that we give purely ‘from the heart’ is in no small way cultural.
Under his entry for “tzedaka,” Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book ‘Jewish Literacy,’ recounts a hypothetical developed by Dennis Prager and presented to thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish high school students.
It goes like this: Suppose a poor man approaches two men of equal wealth in desperate need of food and money for his family. The first person cries out in shared pain at the man’s situation and gives him $5. The second person does not respond emotionally. But because he feels obliged by his faith’s command to give 10 percent of income he hands the man $100 before rushing off.
Prager then asks the students, who did the better thing? Rabbi Telushkin reports that between and 70 and 90 percent of high school students say that the man who gave from the heart did the better thing.
But that sensibility is largely foreign to Jews. Tzedaka literally translates to ‘justice,’ although it’s usually rendered as ‘charity.’ Jews, says Telushkin see tzedaka as “a form of self-taxation, rather than as a voluntary donation.”
Says Prager: “Judaism says, Give ten percent—and if the heart catches up, terrific. In the meantime, good has been done.”
Telushkin says that one of the reasons why rich Jews favor naming rights following large gifts to charity is to keep the feet of other rich Jews to the fire. Raised in a different tradition, some Christians don’t understand that.
And yet, the Christian writer C.S. Lewis comes to a similar conclusion on the subject of charity in his book, ‘Mere Christianity.’
Charity has come to mean what used to be called alms, Lewis says. The reason is easy to tease out. If a man has charity, giving to the poor is one of the most obvious ways to act charitably. Just as rhyme is the most obvious thing about poetry, making it easy to confuse the two.
Instead, charity means love. Not the emotion, and not necessarily affection, but a state of will. “The rule for all of us is perfectly simple,” says Lewis. “Do not waste your time bothering whether you ‘love’ your neighbor; act as if you did.” The result is a virtuous cycle. You do something out of love… this act of will… which then often leads to affection. The affection in turn makes it easier to perform other acts of charitable love.
Let’s ask this question then: Does it matter whether or not there is now or ever has been altruism… or to use Professor Eikenberry’s formulation ‘virtuous action’… in corporate philanthropy, and by extension, cause marketing?
Not to the people who ultimately benefit from it.
Permalink
This has been a great read, and the passion is inspiring. If only we were all good, everyone, all the time. Here’s hoping that my good intentions for rounding up to the next dollar really does benefit the JDRF, but that my purchase of all those things packaged in plastic doesn’t do any harm (wishful, huh?). That driving to the Race for the Cure has a net positive benefit. And passing on the bell ringers because I just sent a check to the youth organization comes out in the wash. We have a lot to think about and more to do. Love to you all.
Permalink
Thanks to all of the contributors, it is a great conversation to follow.
I have been working at Sustainable Business department of a global brand and I have involved in many cause marketing projects as well as many other types of collaborations with NGOs.Cause marketing is something that needs to be done very carefully and it should not be seen as the replacement of corporate responsibility efforts. Cause Marketing for me is a brand differentiation opportunity and has to be managed and resourced by Marketing teams (with consultancy from CSR department)
I understand the concerns of Prof. Eikenberry but I think those are manageable risks. I do not believe Cause Marketing should be the only way that a company responds to environmental and social causes, but it can very well be a part of the portfolio. GAP’s involvement in RED does not take away their responsibility of taking care of workers in their supply chain and I do not think they argue that.
In my company, if there is a cause marketing campaign, it is managed by the responsible commercial team and they do not put their hands in Corporate Philanthropy pocket to off-set their contribution to the cause.
Prof. Eikenberry is pointing out the consumer point of view and the risk of consumers feeling good just by shopping but not getting involved in other actions. I think this risk is equally an opportunity for the companies and for the charitable organizations. Cause marketing campaigns have potential to be created in a way that allows companies and charities keeping the connection to the consumer even after the purchase and helping them take action on behalf of the cause -obviously with not all of them but with the ones who would make the extra efforts-
Marketing teams are getting very experienced on keeping the on-going interaction with the consumers so why could not they do it for the cause marketing campaigns.
We will see very bad and good examples of cause marketing going forward and only the good ones will stay alive.
Permalink
what is somewhat disingenuous about some of this discussion is the fact that we have no idea what corporations actually take away from the earth and from people. we are largely clueless when determining impact and the true costs of operating a business…
given all of this, it seems rather facetious to ’support’ a cause by getting people to buy more of your products. if corporations want to make a difference, how about actually changing the way they work instead of promising some slice of their profits to the cause? instead of donating to clean water causes, how about running campaigns about the impact of bottled water? how about (visibly) participating in causes as opposed to just ’supporting’ it? it feels like abdication of responsibility at a corporate level: “look, we gave so much of each dollar to a cause, aren’t we great?” while at the same time not examining the circumstances that create that cause in the first place, and how they contribute to it.
this is not to say that cause-marketing is bad, or that it isn’t a brilliant way of raising awareness. it’s just that in comparison with other possible kinds of action, it’s such a pale and feeble effort…
we shouldn’t be trying to diss cause marketing: we should be trying to figure out, what next cause marketing should be just one tool in an arsenal, not an end in itself…
Permalink
Arvind, I think you are absolutely right! And I think people do mean to remember that cause marketing is just one thing–and a relatively small one–under that larger umbrella of corporate social responsibility.
I realize that the benefits of cause marketing are really miniscule–important but small–compared to the collective good that can be accomplished by companies, their employees and their shareholders. The question is not “What?” but “What else?”.
Permalink
What a great read. I believe any business that supports it’s community should be elevated above those that don’t.
These days it’s fair to say Businesses don’t have bags of money simply sitting around to give to those that ask for some. However there are businesses who are still prepared to support their local school or sports club who’s parents or team members have been supporting their business. Which is fair enough. Most didn’t have an effect process to achieve this so after recieving input from various retailers and communitity groups. WIN WIN Connections was created to stream line and make it easier for both parties. My point is giving doesn’t have to be difficult but it must be done. Anything positive is better than doing nothing at all.
Permalink
I was just reading an interesting article about Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize winner for economics) — who 39 years ago faulted 'cause marketing'
He called corporate social-responsibility programs "hypocritical window-dressing" that "harm the foundations of a free society." Friedman had made many of those arguments in his 1962 book, "Capitalism and Freedom." But their appearance in a popular journal moved the debate to the front burner and led eventually to "cause marketing," the name given to merging products with causes.
Just thought I'd share his POV:
http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/200...
Permalink
3 Trackbacks
[...] you can read the post “Defending Cause Marketing” at the blog, Selfish Giving, because this post is thought-provoking as well; and, by the end, you [...]
[...] To some activists, they doubt the intentions of those promoting the cause – whether it be companies or individuals. Having thousands of people talking about the travesty of a real issue is nowhere [...]
giving to others…
Good article but I m not sure I agree with all of it….