Should major corporations such as Kellogg's, Yoplait yogurt and American Airlines receive kudos for sponsoring the Susan G. Komen "Race for the Cure"? Or are they just out to improve their own bottom lines, at the expense of less popular causes such as poverty, homelessness, or HIV/AIDS?
This ongoing debate has heated up recently with a posting entitled "Cause-Related Marketing:" Why Social Change and Corporate Profits Don't Mix, by Inger Stole at the Center for Media and Democracy. Stole argues that Cause-Related Marketing (CRM) may seem like a fair exchange between corporations in search of goodwill and non-profits in search of funds, but the bottom line is that it benefits business much more than it benefits society. Companies choose to partner with nonprofits that appeal to their customers, focusing on symptoms as opposed to core problems. For example, she states that businesses are eager to support popular causes such as breast cancer research, but rarely focus on less popular causes, such as the lack of affordable and adequate health care for women. In this scenario, the corporate sponsor reaps tons of free publicity and public relations activities, which more than offset the money or publicity generated for the charity. In the meantime, corporations continue to avoid their responsibility to pay more taxes to support education, health care, and other social priorities. She concludes that with CRM, business is "having its cake and eating it too."
Stole raises other concerns that also have to be taken seriously. You can see a great summary of her points written by Nedra Kline Weinrich at Spare Change blog. Weinrich sees Stole's position as "a little too alarmist," and argues that CRM alliances "can be an excellent way to reach new audiences and shape their own brands."
Mike Swenson at Citizen Brand goes a step further, disagreeing with Stole's "implication that corporations conduct cause programs only as a means to push their own brand or specific products or services." Swenson claims that his client, Lee Jeans, has never focused on whether or not they sell more jeans because of their signature cause program, Lee National Denim Day. Swenson argues that "it is perfectly fine for companies involved in cause to get credit for the good they are doing whether it be awareness building or fund raising or both." From his point of view, cause marketing is a "win-win" despite the potential abuses.
I guess your position on this issue probably depends upon where you sit. As the owner of a very small retail boutique, I don't have the clout of major corporations in choosing the sexiest causes to support. But that is fine with me. I choose causes that I believe in, and I bet most major corporations do the same. We probably wouldn't have much to offer the Susan Konmen Foundation, but the small, local groups we work with seem to appreciate our support. And we get to bask in the recognition when a customer comes in with the program book for the Lesbian and Gay Chorus of Washington or one of our other CRM partners.
Maybe CRM only turns into a problem when you have more money than values. I don't believe that is true for most small businesses, and would like to believe it is not true for most major corporations, either. Leave me a post here to let me know what you think!
Comments