cause marketing

For the last 17 years, Cone's Cause Evolution Study has monitored what consumers expect companies to do in support of social and environmental causes. This year's study shows that consumers continue to see corporations step out in favor of a cause, and their purchasing and employment decisions are increasingly influenced by how corporations align themselves with a cause.

A few data points that speak to this:

• 88 percent of Americans think it's acceptable for companies to involve a cause or issue in their marketing.
• 83 percent wish more products, services and retailers would support causes.
• Twice as many people since Cone's first study 17 years ago say they have bought a product because it was associated with a cause (now at 40%).

As you might have guessed, Millennials (along with moms) are leading the cause marketing charge. While not quite the purchasing power of moms, our cause-conscious generation is growing deeper pockets and garnering greater influence over corporations. Millennials now have about $40 billion in discretionary income, and this number will continue to grow. A company’s social efforts has a greater influence on where Millennials work, what stocks they invest in and what products they buy than it does for the general population.

And it's good for causes too. Eighty-six percent of Americans say purchasing a cause-related product does not replace a donation they would normally make. People said they also want corporations to give them the opportunity to advocate for an issue or volunteer, up 8% and 11% respectively over the last two years. So it’s possible that cause marketing will not only result in a one-time purchase-related donation to a nonprofit, it might also be a channel by which new long term supporters are introduced to a cause – a perk that, in time, might be more valuable than the cash.

The Cone study stats might seem to have made a marketing executive’s decision easy, but supporting a cause is not a fool-proof plan. Just ask KFC. Some cause-brand alliances have generated more controversy than goodwill because they seemed inauthentic or inappropriate. Susan G. Komen and KFC might regret ever having formed a partnership after their campaign to raise $8 million for breast cancer (by selling 16 million buckets of fried chicken) was met with criticism from women, health advocates and nearly anyone who could connect the dots between increasing fast food consumption to increasing obesity to increasing the risk of breast cancer (an oversimplification, but you get the idea).

While it’s nice to see 88 percent of people think cause marketing is acceptable, I’ve definitely heard from the 12 percent. Some, especially in the nonprofit sector, feel a little queasy about cause marketing. They want to keep their causes pure and see corporate influence as selling out. They don't want corporations to use needy causes to try to buy the love of cause-conscious consumers, especially when the amount they are donating is a little drop in the bucket of the increased profits they expect to gain from a white-washed image.

Even if the survey indicates that consumers will respond well to more cause marketing, in reality, it may really be telling us that what people want is organizations that create value for others and are good corporate citizens, not organizations that might be generally harmful to society but then put a special package on their product and market it toward people's heartstrings a month or so out of the year. Millennials might love cause marketing, but they also love authenticity, so they might be the first to smell a brand-cause mismatch and walk away with their $40 billion of discretionary income.

Are corporations sometimes just doing the right thing? I think yes. It's easy to vilify large corporations and assume impure motives, but we have to remember they are run by people too - people who care about profits and serving their shareholders' interests, yes, but also who legitimately care about causes and making the world a better place. Can we blame corporations for wanting to give back and improve their image at the same time, and does one negate the other? The critical point that distinguishes a PR win from a Kentucky Fried flop seems to be the thoughtful matching and framing of the cause support.

One group that wants to encourage corporations to raise both the level and quality of corporate philanthropy is the Committee for Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy. CECP CEOs believe that when corporations design social benefit programs, they should mirror business initiatives in striving to have programmatic effectiveness, fiscal accountability, and good stewardship. Taking this a step further, B Corporations are trying to provide consumers with a holistic good corporate citizen to purchase from, invest in and work for. Recognizing the occasional conflict traditional businesses face between what’s best for shareholders and what’s best for society, B Corporations would be a new sector in our economy with distinct standards and tax status.

What do you think about cause marketing? Is it fair for us to expect corporations to give back – and to give back in a way that we think is appropriate? And should nonprofits be expected to decline corporate donations when they see a mismatch with a potential brand partner?

Evidence points to yes.

I never really thought of just how much doing good has become a general part of our mainstream culture in America until I was speaking with Shira Lazar at a conference, and she mentioned that being in the nonprofit world is actually “kinda sexy now.” I had to do a double-take when she said that to see that she was serious, and internally chuckle to myself a little. I’m deep in this world, and a total geek, so yes, I absolutely think that being in the cause-related field is awesome, but to hear it from her, it really hit me: we do live in an environment now, where doing good has surely gone mainstream.

Then, I tried to think of the factors that prove this, and here is what I initially came up with.

Mainstream media is talking about it.

As in my example above, mainstream media has embraced doing good as an interesting story. Not only do media outlets, like the NY Times and Huffington Post have charity-related verticals and reporters covering the cause-related beat, but it’s also pervading other mainstream media outlets like TV. Major television networks are getting into the good game like never before. For example, the four major broadcast networks – ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC – and other cable channels featured giving and volunteerism in more than 90 shows' plotlines during the Entertainment Industry Foundation’s iParticipate Initiative last October, including shows like Ugly Betty, The View, and Desperate Housewives. The networks have also devoted prime time spots for airing large fundraising telethons. Just in our recent history, who doesn't remember the star-studdeed telethons for Haiti, Katrina, September 11, and the Tsunami. They're also even taking risks on shows and series based on doing good. Although short-lived, the TV series, the Philanthropist, was a pretty big deal for those in philanthropy in 2009. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, a show based on designers racing against the clock to provide home renovations for deserving people, which always ends in a tear jerking story, has been a hit since it first aired in 2003 and is still going strong. And, it's a reality show ... I think we can all agree, if there's a reality show on it, it can be considered mainstream!

Celebrities are doing it.

Interrelated to mainstream media is celebrities; one thrives on the other. There have been quite a few posts over on the Case Foundation site about celebrities doing good and we  will continue to feature great projects we come across, because one thing is for sure - people pay attention to what celebrities do. Like it or not, they have the ability to draw public attention to their interests and influence trends. Who doesn’t know that Bono is tied with relief work in Africa, Angelina Jolie is a UN Goodwill Ambassador, Ashton Kutcher is all over Twitter in support of causes like Malaria, or of Oprah’s Angel Network. Although you may not know exact details of their involvement, there is a general knowledge and common understanding among most of the country of these stars' interests and goings on, probably due to the fact that mainstream media reports on and highlights it.

Social media makes it so easy to join the do good bandwagon.

Or, the Slacktivism argument. As defined by Wikipedia, Slacktivism is “considered a pejorative term that describes 'feel-good' measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction. The acts also tend to require little personal effort from the slacktivist.”

What people have considered as examples of slacktivism include wearing awareness wristbrands that support a cause, taking part in short-term boycotts such as Earth Hour, putting a magnet/bumper sticker on a vehicle. And now, the quick and easy online versions include signing online petitions, joining a Facebook group, tweeting to support a cause, donating small dollar amounts online or via text-to-give campaigns, etc. Although Wikipedia notes that slacktivism has little or no practical effect, the merits and impact of slacktivism has been hotly debated. Here is what Dan Morrison wrote earlier this year in a guest post, that I tend to agree with:

Slacktivism emerged because social media tools gave slackers with a heart an opportunity to get involved on their own terms. It is a mistake to think that slacktivists are just lazy. Some are too busy or uncomfortable getting involved with a cause in a public manner. Texting, tweeting and social media gave them the ability to give during the limited time they had or provided the social cover they needed to get involved. So I think we should ask not what the slacktivist can do for us, but what we can do for the slacktivist.

For some other great takes on the topic, check out these articles and posts:

• Fast Company: Helping Humanity With a Click of the Mouse by Nancy Lublin
• The Seattle Times: Social network campaigns push ‘slacktivism’ to new heights by Christopher Borrelli
• The Huffington Post: Slacktivism Strikes Back by Andrew Sniderman

Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, the fact of the matter is that the internet is making it so much easier to pipe up and say you support a cause. Examples like the prevalence of people sporting the yellow Livestrong bracelets and success of campaigns like the American Red Cross's text-to-give for Haiti campaign that resulted in over $32 million in donations shows that people are doing their small part - en masse.

Big brands are adopting causes.

Cause-marketing is everywhere - big brands are aligning themselves with causes as part of their companies' marketing strategies - and studies show it works. One consumer behavior study conduced by Cone showed "cause-related marketing can exponentially increase sales, in one case as much as 74 percent, resulting in millions of dollars in potential revenue for brands." Cause marketing campaigns cover a wide spectrum from getting people involved with walks and events, like the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer and American Express being a supporter of Taste of the Nation from the beginnings, to actual point of purchase and merchandising partnerships, like Product (RED), which has partnered with so many huge brands like the Gap, Emporio Armani, Nike, Apple, and Starbucks to donate a portion of proceeds from sales to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. Consumers express their power through their purchasing decisions, and inevitably, those purse strings' pulls help drive business decisions.

A new generation of do-gooders.

Just try to throw an aluminum can in the trash and not recycling bin in front of my six year old niece, and she will be all over you with a lecture on where it's supposed to go. It seems that children and teens are being raised with a consciousness about doing good and giving back that is infused in them from multiple angles now.

Volunteering in America claims that 26% of teens volunteered as of 2009, and while volunteer rates among teenagers declined between 1974 and 1989 (20.9% and 13.4%, respectively), the percentage of teenagers who volunteer more than doubled between 1989 and 2005 (from 13.4% to 28.4%). This may have something to do with the trend in schools requiring service credits for graduation from high school, and sometimes even junior high. There is some level of this happening in elementary schools as well, because my brother and sister-in-law never had to teach my niece about recycling. So, something that may have been taught to children and youth mainly by their parents, families and friends, is now being exposed to them via their schools as well.

So, what does all this mean?

I think there is plenty of evidence out that there suggests doing good has gone mainstream. But, the more important question is, what do we do with that? Although it's fantastic that this idea of doing good is part of our nation's general culture and psyche, does it mean that people will lose sight of real impact and will it be an excuse for people to feel like they don't need to do more? How can the nonprofit sector (or all sectors for that matter) really embrace and then leverage this attitude?

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and I will be expanding on the ideas in this post and integrating your comments into a series of posts over on the Case Foundation blog.

I find that whenever I need to say something difficult - like “I totally disagree with you” or “I think you're a jerk” or even “I’d like to go out with you” – it’s always easier to do that while leaning on technology. I'll say things over email or text that I might have a harder time saying in person. Similarly, it’s amazing to see some of the nasty, negative, and frankly, unproductive things people will say in online forums or blog comments when they can anonymously post a cheap shot with a couple of clicks.

I finally got around to watching Up in the Air this week, and its commentary on the sometimes inappropriate use of technology struck me. Even though the characters make a living off of firing people, they were convinced that there are times when face-to-face interaction provides dignity in a way that technology can't. Firing someone via Skype or ending a relationship via text is not ok. When you can easily forget that there's a person on the other side of that social media system, it also becomes much easier to shoot off an impersonal response.

The same can be true for people trying to leverage social media for a cause. I recently heard a suggestion that an important way to reach Millennial donors is to ask them face to face. This seems counter-intuitive at first because we are the digital natives. We are comfortable communicating, banking, shopping, dating - you name it - online, but maybe that's the problem. Online tools can make it too easy to be faceless and treat others like they are faceless as well, so as individuals, we find ourselves not only posting snarky comments, but also saying no, no and no to fundraising appeals, votes in online contests, surveys and volunteer opportunities.

But I should say it works both ways. As cause advocates, social media can also encourage us to exchange people for metrics over and over. People become Twitter followers, Facebook fans, LinkedIn connections, contest votes, blog comments and clicks. We end up getting caught up in popularity contests and demonstrations of our influence and losing sight of the unique value of social media to promote two-way communication and truly involving citizens in our causes and work.

If you're reading this blog, you probably know we think technology is great. And when people use it for good, that's even better. It allows us to connect in cheaper, faster, better ways with people we might have never met, rediscovered or stayed connected to without it. But we also know that technology is best used when it enables offline action, whether that's organizing a Meetup, Tweetup or service project, donating money that will give someone clean water or access to education, or just helping you exchange ideas with someone who may help you to improve the way you function offline.

So how can we maintain the personal interaction that keeps us all accountable to valuing and treating people like we would face to face?

• Get a little personal. One gift that social media is giving us is the trend to move away from anonymous identities like luv4kittens37 to full names, photos and professional associations that encourage people to think of social media as what it should be - an extension of their offline lives, and not an escape where they can do and say things differently face to face. Let’s embrace that and let our personalities come through blending our personal and professional a bit.
• Remember that storytelling is highly important. Kivi Leroux Miller and Nancy Schwartz have both shared helpful tips on how to share the story of your cause to engage supporters. While people will always argue with statistics and generalizations, it’s hard to deny someone’s personal experience, which can often open the door to helpful discussion.
• Know when it's time to take something offline. Many online interactions and projects eventually reach a point at which they need to move offline to continue to be productive. Whether in maintaining an individual relationship or in working for social change, we have to keep an eye out for how and when face to face is the best choice.
• Finally, and admittedly a bit abstractly, each of us has to be responsible for repeatedly reminding ourselves that there is always an offline impact of what we do online – positive and negative. Online donations, votes and volunteerism helps real people just as ignoring and insulting online hurts them.

How else can we balance the full advantage of technology while holding on to the value of sitting in a room with someone?