Sent to the Boston Globe this morning.
Dear Editors,
The Sick of Pink article in yesterday’s Globe Magazine was unfair to socially responsible companies in general and to New Balance, an outstanding corporate citizen, in particular.
The whole story reminded me of another. A winemaker who despite having some of the best casks of wine in his town would nonetheless sample each one until he found a poor vintage for himself. A friend of the winemaker once asked a servant what his master was doing. ”Looking for bad when he is surrounded by good.”
That’s exactly what critics of New Balance are doing. They’ve bypassed all the good things New Balance has done (the good work of its foundation, the millions of dollars New Balance has raised for Komen’s, the invaluable awareness they’ve brought to breast cancer, etc.) and chosen instead to focus on the thing that didn’t quite taste right.
A couple things to remember.
New Balance is a big company and sells a lot of sneakers. While I’m sure the Lace Up For the Cure line is a winner for both New Balance and Komen, overall it’s just one small piece of the sneaker company’s success. In short, you can be sure the Lace Up line has been a better performer for Komen than it has been for New Balance.
Another thing to consider is that most people who buy “pink” products aren’t just buying them for the ribbon. Besides the die-hard supporter, who would really spends a $100 on a pair of shoes just because it has a pink ribbon on it? Let’s not go overboard. The cause connection is just one factor in the consumer’s buying decision, especially if we agree with the writer that we are awash in “pink” products to choose from.
Consumers buy New Balance shoes because they are well made, have an excellent reputation, are made for performance and comfort, and, if they buy them locally, perhaps because they are produced by a Boston-based company. The fact that they support Komen is another great reason to buy them. But it’s one reason, not the only reason. And I believe Komen gets their fair share of the sneaker price, plus a generous donation from New Balance. How much more should New Balance, or any company, be expected to give?
Companies should obey the law and register with the Attorney General’s office. They should also be clear on how much a nonprofit will receive from a cause-related marketing program. But good companies like New Balance that do good deeds for the right reasons shouldn’t be second-guessed and chided for what they DON’T do, or be held to unreasonable standards.
The risk is that very soon we’ll all be complaining that companies like New Balance don’t do anything at all.
Joe Waters
I would like to see Jay Leno do a segment of "Jaywalking" with asking people what the pink ribbon meant. My guess is many people wouldn't know. Where the article had merits on highlighting that some women are tired of seeing a sea of pink in October, it segued into bashing those who are responsible for it. It probably should have asked them their opinion on the point of the article.
I was surprised to see the piece in the article about registering with the bureaucracy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. How many small businesses today can afford to do that?!
mp/m
I too can understand that not every person with cancer loves to be bathed in a sea of pink ribbons in October. But the thousands of people we had yesterday at Boston’s Strides for Cancer Walk might loudly disagree.
I thought the point on registering with the state was a red herring. What’s worse, New Balance not registering or not donating millions of dollars to fight breast cancer? Are we really going to shame them for not registering their good deed with the state? Maybe the state of Massachusetts should look at its own employee giving program and the abysmal money it’s raised for causes. I’m sure it’s in line with the law and even politically correct. BUT IT DOES NO GOOD. That’s ultimately how companies and governments should be judged. Not on how well they fill out the paperwork.
I don't know, Joe. I'll play the Devil here. I like the awareness aspect and appreciate organizations helping to spread the word, but awareness [and even good intentions] only goes so far. Is it right for a group to benefit from affiliating themselves with a cause, but it doesn't benefit the cause financially [equally]? I mean, seriously, $100k donated over 4 yrs? How does that compare to how much they generated through revenue. I can see why it honked folks off. I agree that the registering angle was a red herring. But I also get mad when I see folks using the ribbon [or any other cause label] and slap a "we're building awareness…and you should be happy" on it. Meh.
Jeff, I agree with you that awareness is sometimes not enough from companies. Frankly, they have to put their money where their mouth is! This is also where consumers need to be more vigilant about cause-related marketing programs. I am very much in favor too of clear messaging on how much exactly is going to the cause.
BTW, I think you misread the money generated by New Balance. It’s capped at a million dollars a year, not $100,000.
Agreed. Transparency is as important offline as online.
And the part i was reacting to was this: "(The New Balance Foundation, a separate entity set up to make charitable donations, has given more than $100,000 over the past four years to local breast cancer initiatives and gave $100,000 in 2007 to Komen.)
Yep. I see what you’re talking about. But that’s just the dough Komen got from the Foundation, not cause marketing, which, as I said, was a million a year.
It also brings up a good point. If companies only made donations from their checkbooks, giving would be pretty unimpressive. It’s just not in the bottom-line of most companies, especially consumer goods and services companies.
The real opportunity for nonprofits is when companies give them access to their customers in the form of a percentage of sale or point of sale program. Think about it. Would Product Red had raised $130+ million if they had relied on corporate checkbooks? No way! Also, could Chili’s Restaurants write a $9 million dollar check to replace what they raised asking their customers to support St. Jude last year? Again, no way.
While cause-related marketing is certainly good for companies, it’s also the best way for companies to support nonprofits. Think access to shoppers not money, because that’s where the real money is.
This would be a great conversation to have over a couple of beers Joe, but I know how difficult that is to do with you, so let's continue here!
I think the message from the story has been lost, both in this conversation and how the story itself digressed. The "complainers" as you called it are breast cancer patients and survivors, not just some random people. They have lost the connection with the pink ribbons as the meaning for them has been lost. If everything is pink, then how does it stand out?
There are more than likely people who will by something because of its tie to the charity. There are also some people who will buy something because of the color. You brought up Red – I bought a red iPod Nano because of the color, not the cause – I couldn't stand the other pastel colors. Ok, it helped a cause, but that was not my intention. Also with Red, and I brought this up before, did Starbucks need to make red aprons for its baristas to wear for a short period of time, where buttons would have probably have been as effective, not to mention cheaper?
I think there's a balance here. Some people would probably prefer to simply write a check rather than to buy something they don't want. There is a place for old-fashioned donations as well, as unimpressive as it may be perceived.
mp/m
And that's the point behind cause marketing, Mike. It gives donors another way–an optional way–to support their favorite causes. If you hate the ribbons and products, don't buy them, don't wear them.
I recognize I'm late to the discussion on this one… I'm very interested in this debate. (disclaimer: I'm a 3x cancer survivor including breast cancer)
I know cause marketing is excellent way to allow companies and consumers to work together for the benefit of another party. However, when the market becomes saturated with reminders about the cause, I think it's hit the point where "action marketing" needs to kick in. We're past the point where simple awareness will do anything for this cause; there has to be a way to take it to a new level. How can companies like New Balance take it further? They have raised a great deal of money for Komen…what's the next logical step in the evolution of cause marketing? I'm hoping to see companies begin to think beyond awareness and start thinking about actions for their causes.
Thanks for your comment! You should check out the work that MS&L is doing around Social Activism Marketing. You can connect with @bigguyd on Twitter to learn more as he is a VP there. They believe the whole next wave of cause marketing will go beyond the transactional stuff I do and move more toward the "action marketing" you spoke of and was illustrated during Obama's campaign.
Definitely check it out. I seem to remember they have a pretty good Youtube video that illustrates their point.
Transparency is the issue, here and everywhere, all the time. Consumers are rightly skeptical as they/we are bombarded with marketing messages. It pays to read the fine print and differentiate between building awareness and providing direct support for research, or similar.
The best companies, in my opinion, are committed to their customers and the causes they, and their customers support. "Commitment" to me is synonymous with being transparent, or impeccable with your words. When a company isn't transparent and clear in their communication, I become suspicious of the single initiative and the company in general.
The conversation, here and in the Globe, illuminates the issues on all sides and elevates our awareness. Thanks for taking a strong position, Joe.
Thanks for the comment, John! I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I too am fully supportive of transparency and consumer awareness. Consumers need to understand what cause marketing is and is not. It’s everyone’s responsibility to educate and be educated.
I won't buy anything from anyone who sponsors Susan G Komen foundation. They give money to planned parenthood. I don't care how many breasts they pretend to save, it is not worth the cost of an innocent human life.