Brigid at Actually Giving doesn’t think cause marketing gifts are real gifts. ”Despite what consumers (and the product marketers) would like to believe, these transactions are simply Not Gifts.”
I don’t buy that. There are just as many people that give as sincerely and generously at the register as there are people that give in other ways. Does a giving, caring, charitable person become less so when they’re shopping?
Actually Giving has a few other complaints. One has merit.
A donor can’t choose which charity to support. No one is forcing consumers to support cause marketing programs. It’s a simple yes or no. However, I do understand this can be a little more difficult with percentage-of-sales programs. But remember the donation from a percentage-of-sales program generally comes from the company, not from the consumer, and is usually set at a fixed amount before anything is sold. Sure, there’s the promise that increased sales will offset the company’s donation, but that doesn’t always happen. In short, the company is making the donation not the consumer.
Even if a company does see increased sales, it generally won’t support a cause with OPM (Other People’s Money). Companies know that this isn’t the right thing to do. That’s why they give millions of dollars of their own money away to charities.
Donors don’t get the tax deduction. Good point, Brigid. A good business idea would be to create a card that consumers could carry with them when they shop that would record cause marketing donations for tax deductions.
The world’s problems won’t be solved increased consumerism. No kidding. Fortunately, many cause products are everyday items like sneakers, paper towels and underarm deodorant. Not sure I want to live in a world without that kind of basic consumerism. Why not leverage it for good?
Buying fried chicken won’t help women with breast cancer. The Komen/Kentucky Fried Chicken partnership is a bad example of cause marketing. There are many other good promotions that are making a difference.
Ralph Waldo Emerson set a high standard for his gifts. “The only gift is a portion of thyself. Thou must bleed for me.”
Brigid has a different standard on what a gift is, and it doesn’t include the gifts people make when they support a charity at the register.
I try not to tell people what qualifies as a gift. That’s up to them and, ultimately, I’m just happy they gave. I simply say thanks.
**Thanks to Heidi Massey for inspiring me to write this post!
FREE Newsletter
Thought-provoking post, Joe. A few comments:
-In this age of "slactivism", where consumers are asked to "vote" for a cause every time they turn around using the path-of-least-possible-resistance, I think point-of-sale cause marketing programs raise the bar a bit and ask consumers to participate with their dollars (not just their clicks) for a cause. No, it might not be a cause to which they would've thought to donate originally, but assuming they have a decent trust relationship with the retailer, it may open their eyes to that cause. A gift is still a gift. We've entered the age where we must vote with our dollars in support of practices and principles with which we agree. Is there any clearer way to send a message?
-While giving $1 at the register may not be the end-all-be-all gift, it also hopefully raises awareness. Maybe it's $1 at the register one day, but the corporate partnership lends enough credibility to the cause that their awareness of that particular cause increases and the next time they see the cause elsewhere, they're more inclined to give. It's about baby steps in awareness and in action. Cause marketing is a great way to make this happen.
-I couldn't agree more with your point, Joe, that consumerism happens anyway and that we might as well take advantage of it. Back to the point about voting with our dollars, the more we send clear messages to companies about which products and practices are important to us, the more we as a society move to higher ground.
Thanks for a great post, Joe!
Thanks for commenting, Megan. I think if we can just all embrace cause marketing as a real part of the giving mix–but certainly not the only way people should give–the world would be a better place! Cause marketing will help us achieve that a few cents or a few dollars at a time.
I agree with Joe and Megan on this (as I often do with their posts on these subjects). I believe that consumer-facing microdonations (with or without corporate matching offers) can and should be embedded into as many of our everyday transactions as possible, and that making these contributions to charities of one's choice should be as convenient and prevalent as leaving a tip at a restaurant. By empowering consumer charity choice but creating bias for corporate-sponsored charities through corporate matching, companies of all stripes can deliver authentic, impactful and customer resonant cause marketing and other CSR initiatives in a way that creates a bona fide win-win-win. People will vote with their dollars if it is optional, convenient, user-directed and tax receiptable, in trusted environments where they already do business. Fortunately, there are new technologies that enable companies to embed this capability into any online environment and when they get more take-up and profile, cause marketing and community investment will be forever better for it.
I agree with you on the online potential, Bryan. It really has the possibility to change things for the better.
Another great post. I am sure we all define “real gift” differently.
Cause marketing is extremely successful in engaging new donors. It teaches individuals who have never given before a quick and easy way to do so. CM also has huge benefits in regards to CSR and perception of corporate partners within a community. Is this giving? Is this a true sense of the word philanthropy? Maybe not, but it does have significant benefits.
Where I’ve had the biggest challenges in CM is with donors who feel invested in your organization because they made a purchase at major retailer X during campaign season. I saw a great deal of this when I was working on Go Red. Donors “gave” through a purchase at Macy’s and then couldn’t understand why they were not immediately connected to our organization – they weren’t on donor lists, they did not get a thank you, they did not start receiving regular communications, etc.
Regarding tax deduction issues – that is opening an entirely different can of worms. When individual make a CM purchase that benefits an organization, they are getting something in return. Perhaps it’s a coupon book as with your meal deals program, maybe a ribbon they can wear on their lapel, etc. The fair market value of what the purchaser/donor is receiving would need to be assessed and subtracted from the amount that they “paid” directly to the charity. More often than not, donors are getting more than they pay for in terms of their donation.
You bring up a good point on the tax deduction issue, Jen. This certainly comes into play with percentage-of-sale programs when people are buying items and a small percentage is going to the charity. But with point-of-sale, I'm not sure a coupon book really qualifies as "getting something." It's a good point though. Have to look into that.
Great point, Jen, and one I was trying to make above. We need a better way for donors to keep track of cause donations at the register, a card or something that logs the transaction and, yes, the potential deduction.
Great post Joe and thanks for bringing this up. For me this is 2 seperate arguments. One is of semantics. Is someone that buys fried chicken "giving"? Probably not the best word use. But they are supporting, which at the end of the day is what we all want people to be doing. When people take advantage of cause marketing relationships (whether by their choice or not) they are supporting the cause. Are these sacrificial gifts? No, which I assume to be Brigid's point. We do want more people giving, but these two types of support aren't mutually exclusive.
If I understand how most are structured, it seems cause marketing partnerships are built to access money that otherwise would not be available, the company would not be cutting checks to the level they are through these partnerships. As a fundraiser I have trouble seeing that as negative.
Thanks for adding to the conversation, Patrick. I guess my issue with Brigid is she questions the generosity, the intent of shoppers donating at the register and I don’t think that’s quite fair. Can we just dismiss hundreds of millions of dollars every year as just transactional giving?
Seems like this discussion bubbles up every now and again trying to rank different methods of giving by how important or pure they are. Generally they miss the point which others have made here that most $ given by companies through cause marketing would have been spent on regular marketing vs. going to a charity. Bottom line is that real corporate $ live in marketing budgets not foundation or corporate giving, so if you want greater impact for your cause you ignore cause marketing at your own risk. Cause marketing may be lower on the engagment scale for the consumer/donor, but it is an entry point to start and build relationships (leading to future "real" gifts). Also, let's not forget that from the company's perspective it's most certainly a gift…and a big one at that!
Excellent points, Chris. I like your point on the "engagement scale" and while cause marketing may be on the low-end it has its place. I also think a dollar to charity is, well, a dollar to charity and a good thing.
Thanks Joe. To put it in typical development terms, you wouldn’t say that event fundraising isn’t a gift, but in many cases people only participate in event because a friend asked or their company/school is doing it and many also don’t fundraise above & beyond the registration fee. In essence, they are simply purchasing a race t-shirt, food & giveaways. Is that very different from what I do when I buy a pair of New Balance Susan G. Komen shoes? I could choose a different race just as I could choose a Nike Livestrong shoe instead. Savy fundraisers know that donors who support you in multiple ways are more committed and valuable in the long term. Cause marketing is just another quick and easy way for donors to do that.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joe Waters. Joe Waters said: Gr8 comment, Chris. Thx. RT @ChrisRMann: Commented on Why Aren't Cause Marketing Gifts Real Gifts? / Selfish Giving http://bit.ly/cIb7Lp [...]
I agree with Joe on this one.
I wonder what would qualify as a real gift? It seems that because the money generated by cause marketing campaigns isn't selfless, that it doesn't qualify. I would contend that no gift is completely selfless, even if what you are looking for is a smile on a child's face. There's some way in which we all benefit from helping others. We want to help others because our brains are hard-wired to do so, like eating chocolate. It feels good. The benefit for the receiver is apparent, and the benefit for the giver better be hidden or else it's labeled as selfish. But the truth is there's a range of benefits, from the warm-fuzzies to increased sales. I don't have a need to create a hierarchy here. It seems to me to be a win-win.
Personally, I am glad when everyone leaves the table satisfied.
Hey Joe! I'm glad to see your thoughts on my post.
You are right that there's many ways to define a gift. I have two: "Real" gifts are exchanges that generate goodwill. This is notable from capitalist exchanges, which generate wealth. I also have a practical definition, too, which is whatever the IRS recognizes as a gift for charity.
In my opinion, cause marketing does not meet either of those definitions. Buying stuff generates wealth (for the seller), not goodwill. And of course the buyer doesn't get a tax deduction.
That said, cause marketing has its (ever-growing!) role in nonprofit world, a role that you excellently advocate here on your blog. It's just that the transactions within cause marketing, to me, fall within the realm of capitalist exchanges instead of gift exchanges.
To take a different angle: I have a background in nonprofit theater, and in that industry there is a clear distinction between revenue generated from donations and revenue generated from ticket sales. The first are gifts. The latter are purchases. Both are key for the bottom line. But only the gifts are about promoting the value of performing arts. The ticket sales are about having a great time on a Saturday night.
Cause marketing is fantastic in revenue generating, I just don't see that revenue stream as giving.
**And also thanks to Heidi Massey for promoting the converation!
Hey Brigid, thanks for igniting such a great discussion! I appreciate you taking the time to write. I respect your opinion. You should also check out another post I wrote called “Defending Cause Marketing.” Use the search box at the top right. I had some great comments and it all started with another post like yours that I think you would enjoy it. Check it out!
Joe, I meant to mention this while the debate was ongoing, but the comments about cause marketing donations not being tax deductible gifts are not necessarily correct. We have a number of clients who have structured their contributions to be effectively unconditional gifts to the consumer (think cash rebate of a portion of a purchase price) that the consumer then willingly gifts to a charity. They can and do receive a tax receipt for the donation. So long as it is a gift to them it can be a gift to a charity. Now if we could just get every loyalty program in the country to enable the same functionality…:) Keep up the provocative chatter, Joe!
Thanks, Bryan. When it comes to point-of-sale, it's clearly tax
deductible if the consumer obtains a receipt that clearly states the
donation. I thing the challenge is when goods are received so your
points below are well taken. Thanks for the education!
Joe, glad you wrote this too (thanks Heidi for the apparent push). Bryan, good to see you perspective here; I’m looking forward to seeing how Benevity and similar platforms affect the commerce process and cause-related campaigns and impact donated funds.
@PhilanthropyInk, that’s so interesting about the desire/interest of consumers to be connected to the cause through their purchase. Did you/will you alter the campaign to facilitate this for people who want it?