Joe Water provided a link on his blog, Selfish Giving, to a Jeff Trexler post on www.uncivilsociety.org, titled, “Charitable causes trivialized” at the Super Bowl”.  In Trexler’s post, he talks about Advertising Age critic Bob Garfield’s video critiquing the Super Bowl ads and “cause marketing gone wrong”.  Trexler says, “Garfield’s take on the Dell Red ad is well worth noting: it turns AIDS into a “chick magnet.” And be sure to watch long enough (around 4:30) for an essential critique of McDonald’s senseless conflation of its “I’m Lovin’ It” slogan with cancer. Garfield’s core point: our “ROI culture” seems to have erased an earlier generation’s understanding of the rhetoric of corporate charity and branding.”

I downloaded the podcast and watched the video myself.  Take a look, if you have not already seen it.  The text below the video states, “”Is it right to turn cause marketing for AIDS or cancer cures into such a hard sell for the Dell or McDonald’s products?”  Good food for thought.  

I believe businesses need to let consumers know how they are supporting important causes.  According to a 2006 poll on Millenials by Cone Inc., a marketing agency in Boston, 89 percent of Americans between 13 and 25 would switch from one brand to another associated with a “good cause,” if products and prices were comparable. Their 2006 Holiday Shopping Survey found “More than six-out-of-ten shoppers said that they are likely to consider a company’s reputation for supporting causes when purchasing gifts this holiday season.”

One way to harness the power of business to support causes is through cause marketing (though there are also many other options for support of nonprofits for companies to choose from.) Cause marketing is defined as “a commercial activity resulting from a partnership between a company and a nonprofit organization to market an image, product or service for mutual benefit”, according to Business for Social Responsibility’s publication from the late 1990s on Cause Related Marketing.  In a typical cause marketing relationship, a company donates “a portion of each purchase made by customers during a specific period of time to an organization representing a cause or issue.”  Some cause marketing campaigns do not “channel money to nonprofits; some engage principally in educational or awareness-building activities.”

So you can choose not to like cause marketing as an approach but you need to realize that such efforts usually have been found to be very mutually beneficial for the business and the nonprofit.  When a nonprofit signs on with a business for a cause marketing campaign, they know full well their name and reputation will be used to increase sales for the business as a way also to generate dollars for themselves.  It’s win/win.

I don’t think either the Dell or McDonalds commercials trivialize the causes these campaigns were designed to support.  And remember these were ads during super prime time not public service announcements run at 2:00 am.  Dell does not try to directly tug at your heart strings to make a donation to AIDS, they are selling computers, raising awareness of (RED) and in the end people in Africa do benefit.  McDonalds is going directly for the heart strings connection through its ad.  Fine way to go and…why shouldn’t viewers know what the company is doing to support cancer victims, such as the one featured in the ad?  Most folks think they only support sick kids.

Seems like lot of hullabaloo going on to me…maybe some tweaks to the “earlier generation’s understanding of the rhetoric of corporate charity and branding” would make it more effective in 2008 as a way to generate resources to take on the world’s problems.

My last post about (PRODUCT) RED talked about the campaign and what it is designed to do, as well as some concerns about how socially responsible the products being sold actually are.  (RED) continues to create a lot of buzz – I think the Super Bowl ads run by Dell computer last Sunday featuring their (RED) laptop brought the campaign front and center as it was such a widely watched event. 

Today there was an article by Ron Nixon in the NY Times  titled “Bottomline for (Red).”  Nixon reports that at one Rwandan Treatment and Research AIDS Center, things have much improved according to the center’s managing director, Dr. Anita Asiimwe.  She “thanks an unlikely benefactor for all these improvements: the American shopper.”  In his article Nixon states, “Just over a year ago, the rock star Bono started Red, a campaign that combined consumerism and altruism. Since then, consumers have generated more than $22 million to fight H.I.V. and AIDS in Rwanda by buying iPods, T-shirts, watches, cologne and most recently — as anyone who watched the Super Bowl knows — laptops, with all of them branded “(Product)RED.”  Nixon then goes on to express concerns that in spite of the clear good from the campaign in Rwanda  –33 new testing and treatment centers built, medicine supplies provided for more than 6,000 women to keep them from transmitting H.I.V. to their babies, and counseling and testing financed for thousands more patients — there are issues with the campaign.  “Detractors say Red has fallen short. They criticize a lack of transparency at the company and its partners over how much they make from Red products, and whether they spend more money on Africa or advertising.”

Depending on the participating company and their (RED) item, there are varying amounts of money allocated from the sale of the product to the campaign.  For example, “1 percent of all spending on American Express’s Red cards goes to the fund, as do 50 percent of net profits from the sale of Gap Red items and $8.50 from each sale of a Motorola Red Motorazr.”

So this is a tough one.  Where exactly is the line between doing well and doing good in the eyes of consumers and companies themselves?  Corporate advertising dollars are used to promote the Product (RED) campaign.  Consumers buy (RED) items made by various participating companies because they want to offer their support of programs in Africa to combat the AIDS epidemic.  And for every item purchased some percentage goes to fund the programs and services.  The company wins – it’s good for PR, reputational capital, and sales to be part of this high profile campaign that IS doing a lot of good on the ground.  The consumer wins – they get a cool product that makes a clear statement about their values and they know their purchase helps fund good things.  Obviously  the company is in this to make money – and why not?  If these products weren’t generating income, many would NOT be donating dollars at this level in a focused campaign as part of an alliance with other companies as a way to counter the AIDS epidemic.  I agree where it gets sticky is in the allocation of resources – how much of the sales earnings go to advertising and how much to (RED) programs in Africa.  But, it is a chicken and egg problem - less dollars for advertising probably means fewer sales which results in reduced dollars to give so fewer people can be served.  

I am all about “all win”, authentic, enlightened self interested involvement by companies with causes and nonprofits/NGOs.  I believe that we need a new paradigm for how better to tap business resources to make things happen locally and globaly to address the social ills of our times — and it’s not all about charitable contributions.  I believe the “unwritten requirement” of having a totally altruistic, charity mindset limits possibilities for businesses.  For me, there is a difference between individual philanthropy and BUSINESS PHILANTHROPY.  Strategic community involvement means building on the core business strengths, mission, products/services, and resources of a given company to make a unique contribution in the world.  Increasingly, companies are choosing to use a commerce model instead of “handouts” which I think helps with sustainability for the effort and introduces innovation into solving social ills.  Clearly the model of charitable contributions alone has not solved the world’s problems.  Let’s try some new things!!