Tag Archive: Product RED

Can Companies Use Cause-Related Marketing to Help Haiti?

I think they can, but it needs to be done appropriately and with sensitivity.

As we learned in my post What is Cause Marketing? cause marketing isn’t philanthropy first, it’s marketing. And the situation in Haiti requires philanthropy first. And any company that tries to swap that with marketing will be duly punished by consumers.

But just because the recipe calls for a pound of philanthropy doesn’t mean there isn’t room for a teaspoon of cause-related marketing.

Here’s how it can be added to the mix without ruining the batter.

A lot of companies have already struck the right chord with philanthropy by donating millions to the Haiti earthquake victims. Let’s use Startbucks as the example, which has donated $1M to the American Red Cross.

Additionally, some companies, like Starbucks, have carved out areas within their stores where customers can make donations to Haiti.

But how could these companies add cause marketing?

Again, as you know from my earlier post, I view cause marketing in three tactical ways: point-of-sale, percentage-of-sale, licensing.

For Haiti, I think point-of-sale might be perceived as too aggressive and opportunistic. Conversely, licensing is a tactic that couldn’t be rolled out fast enough to meet the urgent needs of the victims.

Neither will work to help Haiti or the favorability of the company that executes the program.

However, I think percentage-of-sale could work. The Starbucks/Product RED partnership is a model. During the month of December, Starbucks donated five cents for every coffee sold to fight AIDS in Africa. The same could be done for Haiti at Starbucks and at other retailers.

But here’s what every consumer would need to know. Regardless of whether you buy the product or not, the company would donate X dollars, a generous minimum donation, to Haiti. A donation that could go up significantly with the small purchasing choices customers make every day.

I like this option because it’s built off of two solid layers of philanthropy, and a good portion of the percentage-of-sale donation comes from the company, not from the consumer’s purchase. Nevertheless, the program gives the consumer a chance to literally register their support for Haiti and to note the company’s efforts.

I read this post to my wife and she said my idea still sounds like a marketing ploy. Maybe cause marketing has no place in helping Haiti.

What do you think?

CauseWorld: Location-Based Cause Marketing

Beth Kanter recently wrote on CauseWorld, which is essentially a “cause version” of Foursquare.

Like foursquare and gowalla, you open the application on your phone and see local businesses (instead of showing everything around you, CauseWorld only shows businesses that you can check into for karmas). Enter the store, check in, and get the karma points offered to you. Once you’ve collected enough karmas you can donate them to a variety of causes. And, of course, you get badges for various activities.

You should definitely read Beth’s post and check out the TechCruch interview with the founder. I’ve been using the iPhone app for over a week and I like it a lot. The interface is very slick and you learn a lot about the charities CauseWorld supports. (Charities that are currently being funded by Citi and Kraft Foods.) But I have my doubts that this niche cause service can really compete against mainstream players like Foursquare, about which, I’ve admittedly written glowingly

  • Right now I’m checking in with both CauseWorld and Foursquare. That’s not going to last. One of them will win out. If Foursquare adds the cause component to it, I’d rather do ten things on Foursquare than one thing on CauseWorld.
  • Niche cause services never seem to take off. I’m not spending a lot of time on GoodSearch, are you? Remember all those portals we could visit before going to sites like L.L. Bean and Amazon, and good causes would get a few pennies every time we bought something? Are you still using them?
  • Thus far consumers prefer to include their causes within a mainstream activity or vehicle. Take Facebook, which has a cause component. While supporting causes via Facebook is still in its infancy, it will grow. I’m not sure the same will be true for a standalone product like CauseWorld.

Think of it in terms of Product RED and its retail partners. Would it be better for RED to have standalone stores filled with cause products? Or is RED better off selling a few products in Starbucks and Apple and Nike? The answer is clear because the mainstream consumerism these retailers offer drives charity sales and RED is the big winner.

Alas, I’m not sure people want a cause world.

But I do think they want a world with causes. And if they can get that on Facebook, or on Foursquare, or in their next visit to Starbucks–things they do everyday for reasons outside of philanthropy–that might preclude a separate tool like CauseWorld.

What do you think?

What is Cause Marketing?

***Note: Please see my updated post! But the comments in this post are certainly worth checking out!***

It’s the beginning of a new year so let’s start fresh by defining what exactly cause marketing is.**

Keep in mind that this is my definition of cause marketing. (There are other definitions out there.)

Cause marketing is a partnership between a nonprofit and a for-profit for mutual profit.

A few things about my definition.

First, my definition is focused on cause marketing, not the marketing of causes. CM for me is not about advertising campaigns for causes.

Just this year I’ve come to appreciate why some cause marketers still use “cause-related marketing” to distinguish transactional cause marketing from cause advertising. While I admire the precision of the phrase, the expression is so clunky I can’t bear to use it!

Second, the word partnership means something. The relationship is work-work and win-win. No one is getting a free ride, an unexpected check, or a cursory thank you in the mail.

Finally, the profit in cause marketing comes in two forms, first for the nonprofit and second for the for-profit.

For the nonprofit, the profit is money AND branding/visibility. St. Jude’s raised tens of millions this fall through Thanks & Giving. Last year, Komen raised around $30 million. Cause marketing also offers causes valuable branding and visibility. There is no better example of this than Product RED, which has built a top philanthropic brand through its pacts with partners like Gap, Starbucks, Apple, and now, Nike.

For the for-profit, the profit is greater favorability with consumers and, potentially, increased sales. The premise is a simple one. Consumers buy from companies they like and respect. Cause marketing is a conduit to earning their favor.

There are three tactical approaches for cause marketing:

Point-of-Sale. For those of you who know me, you know I’m all over this. Just do a search on my under “pinups.” These are programs that happen at the register with pinups, paper icons, scannables, paper plaques, call them what you will. The MDA Shamrocks are the classic example.

Percentage-of-sale. These are products or services from which a dollar amount or percentage of the purchase price goes to a good cause. One of my favorites is the New Balance/Komen partnership. New Balance donates 5% of the MSRP of all items from the Lace Up for the Cure Collection with a minimum guarantee of $500,000. In 2009, Komen received a million dollars!

Licensing. This approach is dominated by the big charities and companies. A longstanding licensing pact is Arthritis Foundation’s Ease of Use Commendation for the Advil Caplets Easy Open Arthritis Cap.

Three clarifications on cause marketing.

#1 – Sponsorship is different from cause marketing. But not in definition. I agree that sponsorship can involve a partnership between a nonprofit and for-profit for mutual profit. The difference lies in execution (i.e. point-of-sale, percentage-of-sale, etc.).

#2 – Cause branding is different from cause marketing. Chris Mann from New Balance makes an excellent point on this in the comments below. Read it and my response. But let me say: Cause branding, like corporate social responsibility, is a strategy. Cause marketing is a tactic that falls under cause branding and CSR.

#3 – Cause marketing is not pure, altruistic philanthropy (gasp!). Like the name says, it’s, eh, marketing (which I define as the things we do to get and keep customers). One of the goals of CM, especially as I define it, is money for a cause. But it’s not the only goal and it’s certainly not given without strings attached, for both partners.

It’s not giving. It’s SELFISH GIVING.

Now that we’re clear on that, what questions do you have?

**Hat tip to @grantgriffith for encouraging me to write this post!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...