Public Relations Commentary

Increasingly, public relations pracititioners have to know not only how to write for the Web, but also how to manage and respond to blog postings. This blog was created to use in my public relations courses to help my students prepare to blog and learn how to respond to others in a virtual yet professional manner.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Cause Related Marketing

Cause related marketing… I was aware of the ideas and actions but not necessarily aware of the name and the consequences involved. I was intrigued to its new hold on consumers, like we don’t already have enough reasons to get sucked into the marketing and advertising campaigns as it is and now they want to connect our emotions to causes.
It was interesting to see how CRM affected all types of groups from consumers to NPOS and corporations. It affects consumers since it allows us to support social causes or allows us to feel warm and fuzzy since we see something that is of interest to us and we can urge ourselves to purchase the product. For instance I am constantly getting VISA applications; join and you’ll win 2 free round trip tickets to your favorite location. And today if you join with this credit card you’ll get an Anne Geedes calendar. Babies and credit cards, a very unique and unrelated relationship.
For corporations they can link themselves to a needy cause or NPO and can increase their positive appearance to consumers. It seems to be a win-win situation for all the players but I agree with the author of the article who criticizes CRM and says that “CRM threatens the integrity of contemporary society by absorbing charitable giving into strategic marketing exchanges.” Instead of genuine charitable giving, one is inclined to give because it’s connected to a cause or brand they are interested in and they can kill two birds with one stone by buying the product: they get the product and are able to donate on the side.
From research CRM has increased budgets and awareness for NPOs but it has also brought along a lot of ethical questions. Sometimes the corporations might false advertise and spend more time marketing than donating or will renege on their contributions, and unethical actions outside of the relationship also reflect back on the NPO. Encompassing the Kantian moral commitment, CRM benefits all, even though people might be giving out of obligation they are still giving. So does it matter what insights them to reach into their pocket?
That involves a huge step into ethics and I don’t believe corporations like to take a journey down that road but I believe that NPOs should consider the risks before entering into CRM. NPOs are supposed to stand out from corporations not just in the profit making aspect but also in their relationships and reputation department. NPOs are trying to help others and make a difference and who how can that be achieved if ethics are pushed under the table just to raise more funds… but maybe that is too ideal in nature since NPOs also need to survive and research clearly proves that CRM raises revenue.

2 Comments:

  • At 9:59 AM, March 24, 2008, Blogger Jon Weiner said…

    Along a similar line, I thought the article "What is Cause Related Marketing" was pretty interesting in that I knew the basics about what CRM was, but did not really think about the ethical implications. Like Anna said, on the surface it seems like a win-win, NPOs get support and organizations get to build a little credibility by backing a socially important cause.

    Like the question raised by nature conservancy article from the Washington Post raises, How much influence do you allow the companies partnering with your organization to have on the NPOs operations and decision making?

    We've talked about it many times in class, NPOs operate in the business world, and are increasingly run just like a for-profit businesses if they are going to survive. This concept of CRM sort of highlights the difficult market in which lots of these NPOs operate - balancing their cause with business operations.

    I found it particularly interesting that several mutual funds are now investing in companies that back NPO causes through CRM - as consumers prefer to buy from socially responsible companies if all else is equal. By accepting some of these partnerships though, the NPOs are having to cater to several new interests other than their own cause - supporting companies, mutual fund investors, consumers of unrelated goods, etc.

    The tone of these articles seems to suggest that in order to do some greater good, NPOs are willing to muddy the water a little bit by accepting corporate backers with different goals to attract more funds. Like the Nature Conservancy situation articulates, this comes with its own set of consequenses. How far are these individual NPOs willing to bend to put themselves in a situation where they can do more for their cause?

    That is an individual question for each to consider, but as long as the goal of the organization is not lost in the fundraising partnership shuffle, I don't really have too much of an ethical problem with it. Like Anna articulated in her Kant reference from her original post - even though the new funds are coming for new reasons, they are still coming.

     
  • At 9:41 PM, March 24, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If you'd like to read about some more examples of cause marketing, especially smaller nonprofits are using it, check out my blog, www.selfishgiving.com.

    Joe

     

Post a Comment

<< Home