It seems only fitting that in October we expose a few witches, a few frauds, to redeem cause marketing–especially during this month of “pink” when scams abound.
But unlike my foreparents in Salem let’s be sure we’re condemning the right heretics.
That’s why I think Tim Ogden’s rating system for cause marketing programs could be the beginning of much needed standards for businesses and causes to follow and for consumers to use when they evaluate campaigns.
Like all of us, Tim’s tired of programs that are more like gimmicks, and he has proposed a 5-star standard for cause promotions.
Tim’s goal isn’t to turn these cause promotions into better programs. Oh, no. These are sinners in the hands of an angry God. “Any program that doesn’t meet all of these standards should be shunned” (although Tim admits this isn’t quite realistic).
Nevertheless, Tim means business. So do I.
First Standard: The program says exactly what charity will receive the funds, with enough information for a person to find and investigate the charity on their own.
This is what we all want. There’s nothing worse than supporting a cause and then reading “A portion of the proceeds from this products will support cancer research.” Really, which organizations?
Second Standard: The program says exactly how much money the charity will receive (either in total or from each purchase with a projection of the total and any minimum or maximums built-in.) Note that percentages, especially such nebulous percentages as “2% of the profits”, do not meet this standard. Tell me the money.
The program has to be transparent and tangible. Yes, and get rid of the “X% of the profits.” Tell me in plain English what the donation will be! A penny? A dime? A buck for each item sold? Or will a flat donation of $X be made at the end of the program?
Third Standard: The program says when the charity will receive the funds.
Great suggestion for disclosure, but this can be tricky. I suspect a lot of the bigger causes already have dates for when funds are due in their contracts with partners, but I admit I usually don’t. But I think having an “expiration date” for the promotion shows consumers that you are committed to ethical, transparent and impactful giving.
Fourth Standard: The program says what the funds will be used for or if there are any restrictions on the use of funds. This is especially important when brands link up to very large charities that do lots of things in lots of places (e.g. Save the Children, United Way, World Wildlife Fund). This star isn’t about the good or bad of restricted funds, it’s just asking for full disclosure on the terms of the funds and what they will be used for.
Will the money be unrestricted (can be used for anything the cause chooses) or restricted (limited to a specific program or type of expenditure, like food or medicine). This is good information for the donor to know.
Fifth Standard: The program says why the charity was chosen. I don’t expect any program to meet this criteria, but I think its important to push corporations with charitable programs to using the resources at their disposal to help the general public find good charities. Corporations invest millions of dollars in these cause marketing campaigns. The least they could do is spend some of that money doing due diligence on the charities and telling the public what they find.
I don’t disagree with Tim on this, but I’m not sure it belongs as a standard. I think good cause marketing programs are nuts NOT to include this storytelling component. I’m not sure it should appear on the tag of a cause product, but it should be somewhere. It seems less like a standard and more like a reminder–one that partners would be foolish to forget.
I like every one of these standards so I decided to put them to the test with my most recent cause marketing program.
Here’s what I came up with for a rating.
Standard 1: Plenty of information here on us and The Kids Fund, the program within the hospital that the funds will support. But we didn’t include a web site so consumers could get more information. Bad, Joe. ¾ Star
Standard 2: Nope, nothing. We thank shoppers for their support, but never specifically say that 100% goes to The Kids Fund. I think point-of-sale is different in that people expect all the money to go to the cause because there is no product involved. But that’s not enough. We should tell them and assume nothing. ¼ Star
Standard 3: No mention of when my charity will receive the funds. Rats. No Star
Standard 4: Yes, the pinup says what the funds will be used for: a variety of necessity items from eyeglasses to home medical equipment for the hospital’s pediatric patients. It goes on to mention other programs the funds will supprot. Gold Star
Standard 5: No, the pinup doesn’t say why the charity was chosen, but iParty, the retailer involved, has a longstanding commitment to our cause and has gone to great lengths to share with their employees and customers why they support my organization. Star
Total Score: 3/5 Stars
Clearly we have some work to do–sadly, I’m unsure if Tim will talk to me if we ever happen to meet–but at least I know what the expectations are. That’s why an easy, common sense cause marketing rating systems like Tim’s is so useful.
What do you think of Tim’s standards? What would you add, change or delete?
Tim and I need your help. As he points out in his post, we need to work together to set the standards of what is and isn’t a gimmick. October is full of tricks disguised as promises, ribbons and pink teddy bears. We need to drive these out of cause marketing.
This is one witch hunt that has just cause.
Joe,
I will talk to you if we ever have the good luck to meet–I look forward to it.
Everyone else,
Let me reiterate what Joe said: We need your help. Tell everyone you know who might have an interest in this about these posts. Give feedback on the rating system. Rate yourself or others.
Finally, in terms of Joe's comments on Point 5. I agree that such information can't be on a label or at the point of sale. But it should be easy to find via the company's or the campaign's website. I think this is the most helpful thing a business can do for charity–help the public identify the best charities. That's far more meaningful in the longterm than any fundraising program.
Phew! That's a load off my mind, Tim. I hope we do have the good fortune to meet someday! I love your post on cause marketing ratings. Long overdue. Good point on Standard 5 and it should be standard practice on corporate web sites.
Hey Joe. Love the post as always. I couldn't agree more about the need for a rating system when it comes to cause marketing. Each October it saddens me to see how many companies are simply turning their product pink with no real benefit to the community.
Tim, great work in developing a much needed rating system that can help educate the public. Pinktober isn't the only time of the year this rating system is needed. I'm happy to spread the word and hope others will too.
Clark
Keeping programs honest and transparent is a good thing. I am excited to represent a brand that offers non-profit organizations an even better opportunity than it offers me to earn income: no cost to start, no purchase required by the non-profit, and a free website to generate funds.
Not only do I love this rating system but the application of using it to rate yourself. The honesty shared here is a fantastic example of what the focus should be, the cause.
I must also echo point 5. Most often there is no explanation and so I just assume because ti makes for good marketing and some of the value is lost, I would rather go straight to the cause and skip the corporate. If I understood better the "why" I would be far more inclined to support the relationship directly to reinforce it.
Thanks for the post and info Joe.
Good point on the "Why." It's so important in deepening the message and building a stronger connection between the consumer, the brand and the cause.
The best cause campaigns never need to ask why a company partnered with a particular nonprofit, and vice versa. The relationship should make sense on its own merits, without the need for explanation. While developing ways to make cause marketing campaigns more transparent is needed, the proposed set of rules does not address a more critical issue: avoiding the likes of KFC/Komen partnerships. We can develop all the transparency standards we want, but what will eventually bring down cause marketing as we know it today will be the proliferation of illegitimate partnerships disguised as cause campaigns.
I agree, Anthony, that the fit of a cause marketing partnership should never need explaining. It should be self-evident. And I think the example you use of Komen/KFC is an excellent one because that one never fit!
As a small business owner who has initiated numerous, albeit small, cause-related marketing campaigns, I take issue with Standard #2. Large retailers may have the financial assets to set minimums or give flat donations. But, for small and medium-sized business, the standard does not reflect the financial realities we confront. Pinups and a percentage of all sales have consistently worked for us and our nonprofit partners because the cause relationship is based upon customers and sales. If we are to be judged by a standard that would only benefit large companies with big pockets, our efforts, as a small business, to help local causes and better our community would come into question. If you are to develop standards for cause-related marketing, ensure that you keep small businesses in mind instead of discouraging small businesses to give up their cause campaigns altogether.
A very legitimate concern, Forrest. That's why small businesses can stick with either customer-supported programs or point-of-sale programs that benefit a charity only on a per-product basis. For example, when iParty did a promotion with The Glynn Group several years back for 'iPartinis" we received $4 from every $8 drink sold. We raised some great money, but it was dependent on the drink being sold and there was no guaranteed donation.
Sounds like a great promotion, Joe. Something along those lines may work for some small businesses, but not others. The idea of creating a "new" product or to focus on existing products to benefit a nonprofit has been of interest to me, yet every way I have analyzed it, I would be able to make more of an impact with a percentage-of-sales campaign. My main point is that the standards that the industry is looking at establishing should not necessarily demonize campaigns with a percentage of sales going to the nonprofit. Granted, a "percentage of proceeds" or a "percentage of profits" is the wrong approach that a business could take because it is misleading. But, I also see abuse and deception in companies articulating a dollar amount in cause campaigns.
Take for instance an online legal company which recently partnered with the Red Cross for an emergency preparedness campaign. (http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/10/09/g473447/legalzoom-supports-the-american-red-cross-for-national-preparedness-mont) The company clearly mentioned that $1 would be donated to the American Red Cross for every estate planning document sold on the site. But, what they didn't tell customers is that this contribution was a mere 1.44% of the cost of a Will.
This begs an important question. If we are to create a cause standard focused on articulating an actual dollar amount, do we then in turn open up new transparency issues? There are companies, like ours, who want to legitimately solve social issues. There are others who will look for ways to gain marketing potential with the lowest amount of expenditure possible.
I agree with you Forrest. We need transparency, legitimacy, but also great sincerity with our programs. Perhaps our standard needs to include something on how well donation compares to purchase price. Maybe we take a "Biggest Loser" perspective. It's not how big the donation is, but how big was the amount it came out of! Hmmm….
Now that's an interesting concept, Joe! I look at the popularity of sites/apps like Groupon. Businesses are willing to discount more than 50% of the service/product price all in the name of crowdsourcing and gaining new customers. Businesses ought to look at cause campaigns in a similar light. It is not only an investment in important causes, but also a vehicle to crowdsource. Just look at Chipotle's latest cause campaign with Jamie Oliver. They get it. If only I had thought of it first!
[...] probably a good idea (hat tip to Joe Waters for bringing this rating system to my attention in his blog post). Both of the grocery retailers above would probably score very poorly on Tim’s scale for their [...]
As one of the greatest skeptics in the space, I think this would be great. Embedded giving, err, cause marketing, is growing and showing no signs of going away. It would be great to see these ratings adopted and used voluntarily to improve this practice. Proactively learn the lessons from scandals in every other space and use them to the benefit of the causes, the marketing and the consumer. Well done, Tim – and thanks for picking up on this over here