Opinion
Assertions
11/23/09: As usual, Vinu Joseph’s observations in this issue’s
Expert Opinion column are
spot on. I was struck by his thoughts on the
changing role of cause marketing, with the tide having turned from corporations hitching their wagons to the stars of large, successful causes and instead serving as the driving force in partnership with a cause selected more for its mission than its size. This is
good news for all involved. It is a
return to the roots of cause marketing, as
American Express–the company that coined the term–was the engine behind the partnership with the Statue of Liberty restoration efforts, which vaulted CRM into the national and corporate conscience. More importantly, the trend of marketers being
proactive in their choice, implementation and activation of cause partnerships is much more likely to create promotional platforms that
engage customers and consumers, rather than being
passive piggy-backers misguidedly hoping a cause’s coattails will be enough to prompt product purchases, loyalty and image transfers.
The Expert Opinion column’s “
what’s next?” question also got me thinking about whether cause marketing will, or can,
cross a threshold it has rarely even approached in its 26-year history. Specifically, do corporations have the heart and the stomach to
tackle issues beyond those that can be considered
safe? Raising the question does not imply that the fights against disease, childhood hunger and other “marketable” causes are
less important than any other issue. But clearly there are
serious societal ills that have
never been addressed by cause marketing: Homelessness, substandard healthcare and education, drug abuse and crime are examples.
No doubt many
obstacles stand in the way of these issues serving as cause marketing platforms. They deal with
messy,
ugly problems often involving our most marginalized citizens. Addressing their short-term challenges and finding long-term solutions doesn’t take place in a far-off laboratory, but instead involves
politically charged real-world action, around which there are many
divergent opinions and the risk of very
public failure.
It is
risky, to say the least, to
associate a brand or company with issues that are so troublesome, confusing and often overwhelming. So it may be
too much to ask corporations–and especially their marketing operations–to jump into issues that are so large and so complicated, and for which there are no simple solutions.
However,
wouldn’t it be great to see at least
one company try? To say, “We believe the way to build our brand equity and loyalty is to be the company that is trying to do something
truly important”? I realize it doesn’t take much to suggest this from this outside–it’s always easy to gamble with someone else’s money–however it is still a
question worth asking. There have been some that have taken steps in this direction, such as
Johnson & Johnson’s landmark
Shelter Aid program 20 years ago, which linked nine brands with the issue of
domestic violence. While not attempting to “solve” the issue, the program was
groundbreaking for not shying away from the unpleasant subject of battered women and the need to provide them with shelters and a national hotline. This bold choice earned
market share gains for each brand, including a dramatic increase in sales for Stayfree products.
Are there
companies today
willing to take a similar
chance?
Jim Andrews