Cause marketing won’t cure cancer. Or end hunger. Or stop domestic violence. Or usher in world peace. Or save puppies from the pound.
I know this because cause marketing is blessed and cursed by having what Malcolm Gladwell calls “weak ties.”
[I immediately connected with Gladwell's concept of weak ties when I read The Tipping Point years ago. Like Roger Horchow in the book, I prefer friendly yet casual social connections. It's no surprise I love cause marketing and social media.]
Here’s how Gladwell recently described weak ties in relation to social media in The New Yorker.
The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you can have a thousand ‘friends’ on Facebook, as you never could in real life.
The ties surrounding cause marketing are equally weak. You check-in at a billboard for a cause and a company makes a donation. You donate a buck at the register to feed homeless families (or was it homeless dogs?). You buy a pair of sneakers and you may or may not know that a percentage supports breast cancer research.
You’ve read this blog enough to know that cause marketing has its merits and raises millions for causes. But it will never be the first, third or twentieth reason people cite as why we cured AIDS, stopped global warming or left no child behind in the classroom.
Why? For the same reason social media will never bring peace to the Middle East, unite Africa or save the oceans. Ultimately, it takes bands of people (offline, not shopping), organized for change, to accomplish these great tasks. Not wall updates, tweets, posts and check-ins. And certainly not pinups, cause products and promotions.
One of my favorite social media experts, Jason Falls, explains:
Social media [and cause marketing] are communications channels, not power structures. The hierarchy of order that produced the civil rights movement may have been helped by social media, but it would have (and did) happen without it, too…. Sure, Facebook messages may be the carrier pigeons, but carrier pigeons don’t win wars.
And pink ribbons won’t cure cancer.
As business practices become more and more transparent, we should expect a significant consumer backlash against the brands that have been exploiting worthy causes to make more profits. This backlash is also likely to hurt many of the well-intentioned brands that have been participating in cause marketing because they care, and not just the abusers. When the backlash comes, it's also going to hurt the many charities that have gone along with the exploitation in order to get major brands to do their fund-raising for them..
Civic marketing will be the ultimate replacement for cause marketing, and it will serve as a safe haven for cause marketers looking to disassociate their brands from the negative image associated with the exploitation of worthy causes.
Civic marketing is when a brand volunteers time, talent or resources to serve the community, and then benefits from the publicity that follows. It can’t become over-commercialized the way cause marketing has, because civic marketing is about "doing" and not about the money. The brands that serve those in need deserve the favorable publicity they get from it, even if they just do it for the publicity, because the good deed actually gets done.
Thanks, Bill. You would probably enjoy Jocelyne Daw and Carol Cone's new book Breakthrough Nonprofit Branding. It addresses a lot of the things you're talking about. I just started it and it's been a good read!
Thanks for stopping by.
I admire and respect Carol Cone. She's definitely one of the best in the field. I was impressed by her recent statement that “Cause Marketing, as we know it, is dead.” This comes from someone who has built her career on traditional cause marketing. I'm afraid that the "death of cause marketing" may in fact be a very astute prediction if selfish marketers don't change their approach.
Ms. Cone also pointed recently out that “Americans seek deeper involvement in social issues and expect brands and companies to provide various means of engagement.” – I agree, but it's not just Americans that feel that way. The world is changing, and marketers will have to change with it to win consumers hearts.
There was a good article by Stuart Elliot on Nov 10th in the New York Times about cause marketing. It’s about the “Girl Effect” program that Nike’s been associated with. This is the way cause marketing should be done, but I’m afraid that many selfish cause marketers won’t be up to the challenge of doing it right. Here's a link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/giving/11VIDEO….
Thanks for recommending the book "Breakthrough Nonprofit Branding." I picked up a copy and so far it's excellent. The "convince the head – touch the heart – engage the hands" approach to non-profit branding makes perfect sense.
Bill–
Thanks for your wise comments. I agree that aligning an authentic social/environmental purpose with a compay/brand is sweeping around the globe. I just returned from Sao Paulo, to present our 2010 goodpurpose research. The major finding was that the developing markets expect companies to put at least as much emphasis on social interests as their business interests. 86% globally feel this way. In Brazil, it is 94%. There is a new "citizen" consumer around the world — one who is much more informed, and in developing countries, closer to social issues — such as the millions who have entered into their country's middle class — which now numbers 100 million in Brazil.