I've loved the debate this week about cause-related marketing created by an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Professor Angela Eikenberry, assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.
I've long been conflicted about cause marketing, which Professor Eikenberry calls "consumption philanthropy," both recognizing a certain place for it in our consumerist society, but wondering about its potential to distract us from real social issues. Professor Eikenberry makes a good case that cause marketing has at least three negative consequences:
- distracts the giver from grappling with the issues: "...consumption philanthropy—which usually takes place as individual market transactions—distracts its participants from collective solutions to collective problems. This distraction steers people’s attention and collective resources away from the neediest causes, the most effective interventions, and the act of critical questioning itself."
- distances the giver from the beneficiary: "...a person who uses a charity-licensed credit card to pay for an expensive meal, and thereby sends a percentage of his purchase to a cause that fights hunger, may no longer feel obligated to find out who is hungry or why they are hungry. Without this knowledge, he may feel less empathy for poor people, and therefore less compelled to change the conditions that caused their plight."
- diverts the giver's attention from the environmental and human impact of producing the products that are sold in the name of a charity: "...it obscures the ways that markets produce some of the very problems—physical, social, and environmental—that philanthropy attempts to redress."
The comments resulting from this article are as interesting as the article itself. One of the people who disagrees with Professor Eikenberry is Joe Waters, a cause-marketing expert. He has continued the discussion on his blog, Selfish Giving, to great effect.
I'm grateful for the healthy debate the article by Professor Eikenberry has created and urge you to follow it.
*Quotes from article.
Comments
“Consumption philanthropy” is likely the wave of the future. In the current economy – and in better times – consumers are more likely to participate if it becomes part of their lifestyle and weaved into daily actions. Smaller daily organic actions will have a greater impact than a singular deliberate donation.
And in terms of “distancing the consumer from the beneficiary”, not everyone will have the same relationship with the nonprofit. Some will have greater intimacy with the cause. Should nonprofits have a conscience about taking donations from “distanced consumers and donors”?
Thanks for your comment, Craig. I really don’t know…I just fear that buying a red ipod assuages any guilt we might have about not taking more substantial action about causes we care about. But, then, if we’re going to buy an ipod anyway…why not? I just enjoy learning about the causes I’m thinking about supporting and then doing so with full awareness and intent.
I find it to be much more complimentary.
For instance – the ActiveCause partnership with RecycleBank. RecycleBank Rewards members receive incentives for recycling at their home in 100 communities throughout the U.S. A large percentage of those RecycleBank members donate the funds they acquire to charities on the ActiveCause network.
Not quite the same thing as the RED Ipod. But perhaps I would have never have given to the causes affiliated with RED anyway. Perhaps my deeper interest is in the local animal shelter – that’s where I volunteer and donate more actively. But I happen to buy a RED Ipod in one of several scenarios 1) I am a mindless consumer on autopilot 2) I love Bono, the GAP, etc 3) I have a passion for the causes RED stands for 4) Any combination thereof.
Several things just happened 1) I got a new Ipod – which I was buying anyway. (Those dollars would have never have gone to a charity. As someone had argued on another blog.) 2)Some benefit went to the cause affiliated with RED 3) I have a greater awareness of philanthropy in general and possibly in the individual charities affiliated with RED 4) Every time I go to the gym with my new RED Ipod, everyone notices and I notice that my Ipod is different. Perhaps provoking some follow up Googling for information on the RED Ipod – which creates more impressions and perhaps some awareness and some follow on action.
So I would think of it as a “sales” pipeline. Impressions – >> Awareness – >> Action.
Hi Im swedish, has all I need, and like to add something for 200 kids in a school in Kenya. I like the word consumption filantrophy… meet me on Facebook La Unica Kenya or just at the english blog http://www.betyder.nu (ww.means.now-in swedish) Come join this cause