Cause Marketing and Ethical Branding
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-12/cause-marketing-and-ethical-branding
You see them everywhere – pink ribbons, yellow wristbands, and red i-Pods. Avon, Nike, and Apple are just a few of the many companies aligning their products with social causes. “Cause marketing” took off in the 1980’s after American Express teamed up with a non-profit to help restore the Statue of Liberty. Some say ethical branding is a great way to prove a company is socially responsible while increasing profits. Others raise questions about how much of those profits go to charities -- and whether the practice undermines donating in more traditional ways. Guest host Susan Page and her guests discuss the idea of shopping as philanthropy.
Guests
Mara Einstein
Associate Professor of Media Studies at Queens College. Author of "Compassion, Inc.: How Corporate America Blurs the Line between What We Buy, Who We Are, and Those We Help"
Robert Volmer
President, Crosby-Volmer International Communications
Stacy Palmer
Editor, "The Chronicle of Philanthropy"
Related Items
Program Highlights
Consumer goods giant Proctor & Gamble seems to be on a mission. Many P&G brands now claim to have a purpose that goes beyond cleaning clothes or keeping babies dry. Pampers is partnering with UNICEF to provide vaccines to poor children. Tide detergent is providing volunteers in areas hit by natural disasters. And it may be no coincidence that both brands are seeing double digit sales growth. Our guests chat about the "cause marketing" trend and how companies are partnering with charities to meet certain goals.
What Is "Cause Marketing?"
Cause marketing is when a corporation or consumer good ties their sales agenda to a charitable organization, said Mara Einstein. One of the most ubiquitous symbols of this kind of marketing is the "pink ribbon" campaign, where a pink ribbon appears on a product, signaling to a consumer that part of the profit will go to breast cancer causes. One of the biggest problems with this kind of marketing, Einstein said, is that it's not regulated. So while some companies may actually be using the pink ribbon to signal the fact that they give money to breast cancer causes, others may put the same signal on their product for any other reason.
Will People Pay More To Feel Better About A Product?
If two products are side by side and one has a cause attached to it, Einstein said people are both more likely to pay more for the one with the cause attached, and may actually switch to the cause product from the other product. But Stacy Palmer said that most charities don't have a chance at being able to partner with companies for this kind of marketing. "People aren't going to necessarily associate their brands with something that's a really tough problem, helping drug addicts or that kind of thing. So we're talking about a limited number of charities, but those charities that have done very well, some of them are raising a very big share of their money from these deals," Palmer said.
More Regulation, More Information
"I think minimally regulation needs to happen so that people have a better understanding of how much money is actually going to a campaign," Einstein said. She said that some companies also sometimes have a cap on the total amount of money they'll donate to a campaign. When the cap is reached, no more money goes to the charity, but consumers might not necessarily know that, Einstein said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
How much money should I give to charity? I Ludicrous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjBcdfcsgAY
quick comment :
your guests comments about owning a brand because of what is says about you.....her example was a toyota Prius....her comment was "it saves gas (or whatever she said) and it is an expensive car....
IT IS NOT an expensive car. my prius cost 25,000....that is an average or below average car cost....
as you can tell, it makes me crazy when people say a Prius is expensive....you can drive a hybrid, get great gas milage (we get 45-50 mpg) and not spend a fortune.
While I believe in encouraging the good that anybody is doing,my problem with "cause marketing" is that itdisplaces critical thinking about issues of democracy and social progress by reducing citizens to mere consumers of goods and services. Furthermore it also shields from inquiry the very system that may well be causing the poverty,disease and environmental problems,it purports to ameliorate.
I'm further disappointed that this show adresses social ills solely via charity and marketing. HOW about non-commercial organizing of workers and other citizens, such as the Occupy Movement which really gets to the root of issues?
In his apologism for sneaky cause marketing tactics Robert Volmer reminds me of the geeks who write lousy software interfaces then tell confused users to RTFM. C'mon. It's excuse making for deceptive marketing
No normal person likes being duped by big letters that imply a charitable donation only for there to be teeny tiny print which requires extra data harvesting action on your part. This is little different from companies that offer pseudo discounts via rebates.
Any charity that sends me labels and other unsolicited items loses my donations. The waste of money that should be going to the cause is deplorable. I alos try to avoid giving to charities with large "administrative" expenses. If less that 75% of each dollar I give goes to the actual cause, I will give my money elsewhere.
Charlotte,
Texas
Sometimes those marketing campaigns have a set limit, or set amount that they are giving to the charity, which makes me think it doesn't matter if I buy their products or not.
It'll say buy XYZ product and we will give $1 to "ABC Charity" but in small print it says, XYZ corporation will give $400,000 to ABC Charity.
Too much guilt can backfire. I know people who are animal lovers but are turned off by the very, very sad commercial on Comedy Central with the very, very sad music and the pictures of dogs and cats with big, sad brown eyes. I hit the mute button as soon as I can and I am an animal lover.
Going through 90+ year old mother's mail, I notice a preponderance of solicitations for donations from various organizations. Probably this is true for many older persons; please note that many of them aren't likely to go to the internet to check on charities, as you suggest (although some are internet savvy).
Carol Rogers:
I couldn't help but chuckle at your comment. You have (a) achieved considerable financial success or you have (b) never lived in the 50s or 60s. For the great majority of Americans, $25, 000 is a lot of money for a car. My own parents built a new home in 1955 for about $4000 and paid it off at $80 per month in 10 years. A good new car could have been had for around one-tenth of today's prices. You obviously have a different perspective than most Americans.
Very lively discussion. I enjoyed learning more about this topic. Having the balance of views including the author, a member of the media covering charity and an articulate voice representing the business point of view helped. So many times shows only include one point of view or the other panelists are lackluster. This time all three seemed articulate and were fun to listen to.
The large global corporations are in a position to have very positive 'local' effects on important causes. I have given to my favorite causes thru some of these larger organizatiions, because I have been employed by one of them and have found that it is an effective way to make a "small" difference for me and my family!
I find it ironic that many if not most of these corps and their so called non profits and charitable orgs. are helping only themselves. I suggest that people do their research ie. :follow the money on these "charities". Just one example (google how long does it take for disposable diapers to disintegrate) :
Procter & Gamble lobbying against taxing disposables (so as to limit landfill use). Most estimates say it takes 500 years for them to decompose. Some say they never do, as the plastic liner just breaks up.
"Both Procter & Gamble and the cloth diaper industry took a keen interest in the topic in 1990, the year marking the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Worried about the environmental impact of soiled diapers in landfills and tree logging to make disposable diapers, 24 states proposed taxing disposables to limit their use. But Procter & Gamble killed those initiatives with hundreds of millions of dollars of lobbying and advertising to consumers, who were already sold on the convenience of disposable diapers, according to a historical timeline by Mothering magazine.
I'm happy to see that as i write you are addressing Conagra and others...
Thanks!
roni
In 2010, we conducted a Roundtable discussion of marketers for the American Marketing Association on the topic of Cause Marketing: How to do Good & Grow the Business. The findings are published in a White Paper at http://www.zimmermanmarketingresearch.com/zmr/White_Papers.html
Lon Zimmerman, President
Zimmerman Marketing Research
McDonalds is not as bad as most people think. They don't advertize the things they do to make their product more healthy for obvious reasons. But they blend their beef with soy to lower saturated fat and increase nutritional value. Also they add whole grains to their bread in ways that people cannot tell. I think they are doing a huge part of getting Americans to eat healthier without even realizing it.