Marketing Good
by Liz Bigham
I'll be honest: I'm always willing to pay a premium for products that make me feel virtuous. Eco-friendly? Fair trade? I'm pulling out my wallet. Did you say a portion of the profits will help solve a problem? I'm buying extras for friends and family.
I'm not alone. According to the Cause Marketing Forum, in a survey of 12,000 European consumers, 20% said they'd pay more for a product affiliated with a good cause. The 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study found that nearly nine in ten respondents ages 13-25 would switch from one brand to another (price and quality being equal) based on association with a good cause.
Cause marketing—defined by Business in the Community as "a commercial activity by which businesses and causes form a partnership to market an image, product or service for mutual benefit"—does have its critics. What I call savvy pragmatism—a way to bring consciousness to consumption—others might call hypocrisy, say for example if I believe it truly is possible to buy virtue in a bottle, or if the brand promises me the sensation of virtue simply as a lure to get me to buy more stuff.
The "marketing good" debate played out in just these terms in March of this year. The focus of the debate: (RED), a brand that is licensed to partner companies such as American Express, Apple and Gap to create products with the (RED) logo. In return for the opportunity to increase revenue through sales of (RED) products, partners contribute a percentage of profits to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
On the "con" side of the debate, Advertising Age charged that (RED) had reaped a low return. An organization called BUY(LESS) set up a Web site in which they invited consumers to contribute to charities directly, arguing that "Shopping is not a solution. Buy less. Give more."
On the "pro" side, (RED)'s CEO Bobby Shriver countered that as a result of the campaign, in less than one year the Global Fund had in fact reaped five times what it had raised on its own in the previous five years. He noted that the huge media buzz around (RED) had shone the spotlight on AIDS in Africa in invaluable ways. Consumers like "Albert C." posted to the (RED) blog saying "I will be blunt in saying that I buy (RED) products so that I can be a walking advertisement [for AIDS in Africa]."
I've already owned up to where I stand. For me, whatever the merits of any single campaign, cause marketing can only augment what would have occurred anyway. Aspiring to perfection is great—but meanwhile, better will do. Doing good is not a zero sum game.
And speaking of numbers, the statistics on cause marketing are pretty striking. According to the Cause Marketing Forum, 48% of American and British consumers say they have been motivated by a cause marketing campaign to change brands, increase use, try new products or get information; when told of a given company's cause marketing efforts, they consistently rated the company higher for trust, endorsement, bonding and innovation. 67% of Americans surveyed by GolinHarris agree that "'Doing well by doing good' is a savvy business strategy;" good corporate citizenship influences their propensity to recommend the company, its products and services to family, friends, neighbors or co-workers.
Given the "pro-social" mentality of younger consumers, cause marketing is likely to keep growing. The 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study found that among consumers born between 1979-2001, 61% feel personally responsible for making a difference in the world—and 78% believe that companies have a responsibility to join them in this effort.
When the vast majority of consumers within a demographic say that companies "have a responsibility," there should be no question that it's time to do something.
JACK360° ©2008, Jack Morton Worldwide
For further information about JACK360°: 360@jackmorton.com