For those of you who don’t know what cause-related marketing is, it’s where an organization donates a portion of their product/service revenue to a charitable cause or nonprofit organization. This is often seen as an attractive option for larger organizations as they can improve their brand perception, boost sales and lastly receive a tax credit receipt from doing so.
Many articles say that cause-related marketing is a great thing, because essentially “everybody wins”-– the company, consumer and the nonprofit organization! The company receives the benefits mentioned above, the consumer receives intrinsic gratification and emotion benefits as they can now feel as though they’ve contributed to a greater cause, and the charity organization receives a ton of awareness and also receives some of the donations from the product/service.
“A Crucial Catch,” is a month-long breast cancer awareness campaign support by the NFL. Despite how great this cause may seem, there has been a lot of critics– questioning how much good the NFL is actually doing… or are they just “pinkwashing,” for their own personal gain and to just increase their own bottom line?
There has been a lot of criticism on how only 8 percent of all pink products is actually donated to the cause. Since 2009 when launching this campaign, the NFL have donated over 4. 5 million while the league has made over 9 BILLION in revenue just last year alone. If the point of the entire campaign was to ACTUALLY fight cancer, fans would have a much bigger impact just skipping the NFL gear and donating the $100 directly to the organization working to fight cancer.
One of the largest benefits for nonprofit organizations in cause-related marketing is the exposure they get from working with these large organizations. But one issue I want to bring to the table is— HOW MUCH IS AWARENESS WORTH? I mean we all know that Breast Cancer is a huge problem and affects thousands of women every year, we are not blind — we see the yearly campaigns and I think almost all of us can associate Breast Cancer with the colour PINK. But is awareness really worth that much if majority of people already know about the issue and if no/little money is ACTUALLY going to the cause?
Lastly, typically consumers who buy into the cause helps them feel good about “supporting” the quest against breast cancer with minimal time and effort. This could actually have a reverse effect, as they will feel less obliged to donate otherwise as they feel as though they’ve already “contributed.”
In my opinion, I think cause-related marketing is somewhat beneficial for nonprofit organizations ONLY if the cause they are supporting is uncommon. As common causes such as Breast Cancer, already has HIGH awareness, and in turn they just receive less donations as consumers already feel like buying a product is contributing enough (when the cause receives very little from each product.)
What do you guys think? Would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. Is the NFL using this strictly for their gain? or do you think they are trying to make a difference to the cause?
Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2013/10/27/is-the-nfls-pink-breast-cancer-campaign-doing-more-harm-than-good
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/17/nfl-breast-cancer-pink-merchandise-profits
This article asks, “HOW MUCH IS AWARENESS WORTH?” Breast cancer “awareness” would be worth a lot IF the pink ribbon movement and the mammogram industry were to tell women the real facts about breast cancer. In the absence of this, as women hear only a biased whitewashed version of it, it is only worth a lot to these ultimately and truly for-profit industries.
For decades it has been known to science that medical x-rays are the prime cause of cancer, specifically breast cancer (source: The Mammogram Myth by Rolf Hefti). Yet, to avoid culpability the medical industry, along with their allies such as the pink ribbon groups and the mass media, have been merely talking about “risk factors” for breast cancer and ignored and dismissed the actual facts of the causes, claiming they are not yet known.
The criminal charade continues…
Hi Kelly,
I know that the NFL has been actively trying to increase its female audience over the past few years. I have no idea if their Crucial Catch campaign is associated with efforts to target females, but the timing does fit. And, the fact that only 8% of product revenue actually goes to fight breast cancer does make me more suspicious about the motives behind the NFL going pink.
I also agree with your comment that part of the problem is that pink products are everywhere nowadays. To me, pink is still associated with breast cancer, but I admit that the more I see it the less I actually think about what the pink ribbon symbolizes.
Another example of too much PINK: I came across a pink bag of potato chips by Food Should Taste Good, intended to promote breast cancer awareness. When I saw that, I actually thought to myself: “Really?!? You’ve got to be kidding.” I was quite irritated to see this, until I read that the company is donating $100,000 this year to breast cancer awareness. There was no small print about where the money is coming from – it was just stated factually – so it was clear that regardless of whether or not I bought the product, they were making the donation. There was no pressure to buy the chips. This made it seem like a legitimate attempt at increasing awareness, albeit one that was also intended to increase sales, no doubt.
Maybe the NFL should consider the potato chip approach instead. Imagine if five years ago, the NFL said “we’re going to donate $1 million per year to breast cancer awareness.” I think this no-strings-attached statement is much more impressive than what the NFL is doing now, and yet the total value of the contribution is about the same (as the $4.5m that was donated 2009-2013). The one big difference, is that it is a totally altruistic approach, and clearly not the route that the NFL chose to take.