I was just perusing my classmate Kim’s blog, which was recommended to me a while ago, when I stumbled upon this post relating to cause-related marketing; specifically, Toms shoes (https://blogs.ubc.ca/kimgraves/2010/09/22/cause-marketing/). Now, I mean absolutely no offense to Kim at all when I say that I disagree with her standpoint on the benefits of cause-related marketing; I did enjoy looking at her blog and seeing the inventive ads that she had found. Still, there are some points about the idea of cause-related marketing that just do not sit well with me as an individual.
Within itself, the idea of products being marketed to fund a cause is seemingly a wonderful idea; after all, if a product is going to be purchased by a consumer, then why not allow the profits to benefit a non-profit organization or fund vital research? However, the problem arises when firms intentionally or unintentionally use the cause that is being championed as a method to enhance their own profits first and foremost. There are examples of firms latching onto the causes of non-profit organizations to try and improve poor company images or public relations. There are instances in which the advertising costs for the initiative are higher than the amount that is donated to the non-profit in the end – although definitely not lower than the firm’s overall profit from the initiative. And, most significantly, the amount being donated is often only a fraction – say, 5% – of the cost of the product being sold.
I understand that firm’s must seek to cover their own costs first, but at the same time, the amount of business that cause-related products is significant. From my own experience running events, when it is stated that an amount close to 30% of the proceeds are being donated to a charity, attendance has improved significantly, sometimes by as much as 50%. Are businesses, and not charities, the ones who are benefiting from these initiatives?
Of course, any non-profit organization appreciates a significant donation, and any money is better than none. As well, consumers are much more likely to purchase a Project(Red) iPod Nano for $189.00 than they are to donate a portion of this amount to a non-profit organization. Despite the argument that the middleman should be eliminated, the presence of this corporate middleman clearly is helpful.
What I am trying to say is that while they ARE making a difference, for many of these firms the difference they are making is miniscule compared to the potential impact they could have. I am not opposed to cause-related marketing as a practice; rather, I am simply asking consumers to view the practice with a bit more skepticism to ensure that the dollars intended to go to a charity actually end up there.
There is now a growing trend of corporate social responsibility, which is putting more pressure on firms to truly devote their efforts to social growth, not to simply pay lip-service by donating 1% of product sales and convincing consumers that they have made a significant difference in the world when there is so much more to be done. Firms like Toms Shoes, which offer one pair of shoes to developing communities for every pair sold, are an example of the former, and their success will hopefully act as an inspiration for other firms engaged in these kinds of initiatives.
Or maybe me and my Toms-shod feet have just been a victim of cause-related marketing.
