I think they can, but it needs to be done appropriately and with sensitivity.
As we learned in my post What is Cause Marketing? cause marketing isn’t philanthropy first, it’s marketing. And the situation in Haiti requires philanthropy first. And any company that tries to swap that with marketing will be duly punished by consumers.
But just because the recipe calls for a pound of philanthropy doesn’t mean there isn’t room for a teaspoon of cause-related marketing.
Here’s how it can be added to the mix without ruining the batter.
A lot of companies have already struck the right chord with philanthropy by donating millions to the Haiti earthquake victims. Let’s use Startbucks as the example, which has donated $1M to the American Red Cross.
Additionally, some companies, like Starbucks, have carved out areas within their stores where customers can make donations to Haiti.
But how could these companies add cause marketing?
Again, as you know from my earlier post, I view cause marketing in three tactical ways: point-of-sale, percentage-of-sale, licensing.
For Haiti, I think point-of-sale might be perceived as too aggressive and opportunistic. Conversely, licensing is a tactic that couldn’t be rolled out fast enough to meet the urgent needs of the victims.
Neither will work to help Haiti or the favorability of the company that executes the program.
However, I think percentage-of-sale could work. The Starbucks/Product RED partnership is a model. During the month of December, Starbucks donated five cents for every coffee sold to fight AIDS in Africa. The same could be done for Haiti at Starbucks and at other retailers.
But here’s what every consumer would need to know. Regardless of whether you buy the product or not, the company would donate X dollars, a generous minimum donation, to Haiti. A donation that could go up significantly with the small purchasing choices customers make every day.
I like this option because it’s built off of two solid layers of philanthropy, and a good portion of the percentage-of-sale donation comes from the company, not from the consumer’s purchase. Nevertheless, the program gives the consumer a chance to literally register their support for Haiti and to note the company’s efforts.
I read this post to my wife and she said my idea still sounds like a marketing ploy. Maybe cause marketing has no place in helping Haiti.
What do you think?
Donating to Haiti and/or giving customers the opportunity to donate is the right way to go in my opinion. Celebrities — like what Lady GaGa is doing with the t-shirt — are probably the only ones that can delicately use cause marketing and also sell a product. Attaching cause marketing to anything else just feels exploitive unless its an organization that's already been doing work there.
You had to go and agree with my wife didn't ya? Now I have a whole night of "I told you so."
Thanks for the comment, girl.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by changefeed and Noland Hoshino, Melissa Radin. Melissa Radin said: Joe Waters Blog Can Companies Use Cause-Related Marketing to Help Haiti? http://ow.ly/16nQKo [...]
I'm siding with your wife =)
I'm of the opinion that a huge need (Haiti) requires equally huge sacrifice (by Starbucks). For example, Mobile Giving Foundation releasing all of their fees for text-to-give, or ad agencies donating ad space to World Vision.
I feel that Starbucks would have been better off having a flash sale of sorts, where coffee between the hours of 8:00AM and 8:15AM would benefit Haiti 100%. This could potentially bring a slew of supporters to stores, creating community and proving that Starbucks is a place where people come together. This could have potentially driven even more value to Starbucks albeit not so much in the $$$ value itself.
I just don't see percenage-giving being that effective at proving to the customer that the company is putting philanthropy first. Unless the percentage is 100%.
Gee, James. I knew Sue Anne would sell me up the river…but you too?
Actually, what you're saying is a great idea. It's also cause marketing and percentage of sale. But in this case 100% of the proceeds would go to Haiti. It's brilliant.
The company helps out an urgent need, the customer is incentivized and rewarded, and there is no lingering aftertaste that the company didn't do the right thing. I like it.
Now following your wisdom on Twitter.
Joe – I think cause marketing is needed for Haiti. And percent of sale is a good approach. But Haiti will need help for years to come – and that's where percent of sale and licensing can be brought into the fold.
You know better not to show Deb your blog. Remember we already talked about that?
Good point, John, on both fronts.
I definitely should have listened to you on not showing Deb my blog.
Can Companies Use Cause-Related Marketing to Help Haiti? http://tinyurl.com/y8lfogc
RT @surveyforgood: Can Companies Use Cause-Related Marketing to Help Haiti? http://tinyurl.com/y8lfogc
I think consumers are looking for ways to show they care. By buying products and knowing that a % of the sale goes to a very worthy cause, consumers can make a small change that in aggregate can make a big difference. I agree that this can only be done in ADDITION to a generous contribution on the part of the company regardless of purchases (eg $1million philanthropic contribution + cause marketing).
I think you're absolutely right, Linda. Only with a huge commitment up front can you then use your storefront as a rainmaker for Haiti. People will just questions your sincerity too much. Thanks for visiting.