I’ve watched and listened to the growing debate social media has reinvigorated about the term “cause marketing.” In particular, the term “social media for social good” has been called into question. At the heart of the matter as raised by Beth Kanter is how far companies can go before they demean the nonprofit brand in their efforts to appear (or actually become) “responsible.”
The social media aspect of this debate is only relevant in that it makes partnering and co-branding as easy as a click or retweet. What is important is the increase ease of co-opting a brand into somewhate questionable activity, such as the recent Tide T Shirt campaign to brand Tide, oops, I meant to benefit charity :)
The term cause marketing is often blurred by nonprofits in an effort to keep their perceived integrity. Some draw the line at the point where they receive cash, others at services. Other say the line begins as soon as the wolf is the hen house.
I subscribe to the wolf theory. As someone who has extensive experience in both corporate and nonprofit marketing on the agency side, and as someone who got their start writing journals for nonprofit trade associations, let me be frank: Companies rarely lend their brand or resources to a nonprofit unless they gain something from it.
That’s true whether its karmic do good efforts — the heart of what companies should be doing to be perceived social responsible — to flat out branding. Some companies go so far as to charge their customers and serve as a middleperson between from the consumer to the cause. Whether or not cash exchanges hands is irrelevant. Altruism is a very rare thing in corporate cause marketing.
Nonprofits who say balk at this remind me of a someone who goes on a date then says it wasn’t a date because a kiss wasn’t exchanged. OK, then… Denial is not a river in Egypt.
The nonprofit sector organization that bemoans the demeaning nature of cause marketing and, perhaps its affect on their own brand, needs to look at its choices. Companies will be companies. Some are good, some are not. For every PNC Bank, there’s an AIG. Some understand proper cause marketing and social responsibility, some do not.
The nonprofit sector should take responsibility for who it chooses to partner with and why (hat tip: Allison Fine, lecture, Georgetown University on March 31, 2009). The stresses of fundraising and marshaling resources — even in an economy like this one — do not justify shunning off responsibility for cause marketing sliminess and failures. Nonprofit organizations that don’t organize intelligent programs that manage their brands as well as attract donors risk losing face.
Using another metaphor, if one has a business partner whose behavior is less than appealing, dishonest, fails to fulfill obligations, or even competes in breach of legal contracts etc., one cannot simply blame them. Instead one must ask themselves why they chose company/person X as a business partner. Realize the other party’s behavior can serve as a mirror into one’s own business practices, whether similar in nature, or naive or inexperienced. There’s a lesson to be learned.
My point: The cause marketing questions of late have as much to do with the causes as the companies. It takes two to tango, and acknowledging that will only hasten better practices.
The way I look at it Geoff is that if those corporations didn’t ascribe to cause marketing (and the covert branding usually associated with the campaigns). Then those charities might not make nearly as much money. So I see the corporation and charity mutually benefiting from each other. But that’s just me.
“My point: The cause marketing questions of late have as much to do with the causes as the companies.”
Great point. I’d also add that companies that “get” the social web as an emerging, ongoing conversation will be the best kinds of partners for non profits to work with. If they don’t have much participation in the conversational web, I’d guess they will have a much higher tendency to push their brand.
I’d also add that you quoted Beth Kanter, i’m a huge fan, She is awesome. Everyone should read and subscribe to her blog… http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/
I’ve seen far too many nonprofits prostitute their own brands and reputations for cause marketing without realizing that they need to be strategic about choosing appropriate corporate partners. This goes beyond ethics and social responsibility issues to whether the company and nonprofit are a good fit in terms of goals, culture, the logic of the product and cause match-up, and other fundamental strategy-related issues. A nonprofit shouldn’t throw itself at the first company to propose a cause marketing relationship, but too often nonprofits are so desperate that the short-term prospect of money outweighs any long-term strategic considerations.
@Nedra I think this can be true for businesses, too. We can all be so desperate the first (or any) time that someone throws money at us. But this is often a mistake.
I was taught pretty early on in my career to qualify partners for the right type of business. You have to know when to walk away from a deal because it can break your back. The times when I have accepted a deal because we needed it have caused me endless grief.
The majority of people in the world have the questions “whats in it for me” going through their mind, whether this is at a sub conscious level or more overt, that’s human nature.
I’m interested in understanding how a Company could “wear its heart on its sleeve” with regard to support for a cause, charity etc without being labelled as a hypocrite.
If everytime a Company does something for the betterment of society via a cause or charity they get shot down perhaps they’ll stop altogether and that wont benefit anyone.
I learnt a valuable thing a few years ago “you cant change other people you can only change yourself”. Our view of the world is informed via the frame through which we observe it, therefore it stands to reason that we have the power to alter worldviews, if we wish.
Something has to give first, Perhaps the change comes from us? Our perception of those Companies as hypocritical. Cut them some slack, allow them a shot at being the company we would love them to be.
If instead we label them as hypocrites or worse where is the motivation for them to continue?
Look forward to your thoughts on this question…….
I was going to say almost the same thing as Nedra – who is brilliant, BTW … there’s ethics and responsibility – but there is also the concept of vetting partnerships and thinking strategically.
It’s been unfortunate that the WIIFM (What’s in it for me)companies causes a blanket affect for businesses that are authentic in their cause related effort. I couldn’t agree more with Geoff’s article and the significant comments posted. Hence, as someome who works with businesses to create their ‘giving back’ programs here is what I’ve learned from my experience:
1. There are few enlightened companies that operate and make decisions based on their values;
2. Values-based planning is essential to any giving/cause related/community involvement program which most companies don’t do with respect to developing their giving;
3. Giving is NOT a priority for business and managed as an aside project or rather ‘good deed’ vs. an integral part of their business culture;
4. Most have no idea how to begin selecting a cause of choice and generally ‘the most popular’ is often picked even though it is not in alignment with their business values and goals;
5. Most don’t have a clue how to determine this alignment;
6. Most create their business’s message of doing good from the platform “Look at the $$ we gave,” Look at the # of volunteer hrs we gave,” “Look at all the good we are doing.” When in fact the message should be about the cause and their commitment to solving a social issue;
7. Nonprofits are not as informed as they could be when it comes to cause related partnerships.
Personally, I chose not to work with companies who are WIIFM-ers and you can spot them a mile away. Those projects ultimately fail, are short-lived, go sour and are opportunistic. The operative words in any partnership is alignment and commitment to a social issue.