Our Blog: Think Personality
- RSS Feeds
- Atom
- RSS 1.0
- 2.0
- RSD
- (What's RSS?)
« Online Giving Report | American Cancer Society »
October 17, 2006
Michael Medved Questions Red Campaign
Posted by Kevin D. Hendricks | Filed under: Cause Marketing
While Apple has joined the Red bandwagon and released a red iPod Nano with $10 of each purchase going to fight AIDS--not everyone is so thrilled with the Red Campaign. In case you missed our earlier entry, the Red Campaign is a collection of product offerings from major companies including Apple, the Gap and Converse, where a portion of the profits go to the Global Fund to fight AIDS. It's doing well while doing good.
Radio talk show host Michael Medved apparently dismissed the idea behind the Red Campaign (we're going on blogger reports here, since Medved doesn't offer show archives online), saying that it serves to distract people from the real problems in Africa and simply encourages consumerism.
It's a valid criticism against any cause marketing endeavor. Non-profits and businesses need to be sure that any partnership is going to make sense. There's a certain irony to throwing a black tie dinner at a swanky restaurant to raise money for a soup kitchen. That's a distraction.
But I think Red works for four reasons:
- It's tapping into what people are going to do anyway. I'm going to buy a shirt, I'm going to buy shoes, I'm going to buy a cell phone. What if I can still do those things and support a cause? Everybody wins.
- Red is not encouraging or discouraging consumerism--it's turning it on its head.
- It's not the only solution. It's a solution. Red founder and spokesperson Bono argues that the One Campaign is a solution to work towards the long-term goals of changing policy. Red is simply a sustainable way to bring cash to the table. Will it cure AIDS and solve all the problems of Africa alone? No, and it's not meant to.
- It's not distracting people from the real problems in Africa, it's informing them. By offering the branded line people have to specifically choose to support the cause. The cause is an integral part of the product line and serves to educate.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://thinkpersonality.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb2006.cgi/165
Comments
The arguments against cause marketing usually suffer from an apples to orange comparison. The angle is typically that the company is benefiting disproportionately becuase they are making more money off the product than the cause is making. An article on Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/203.htm) makes essentially the same claim as the Medved article.
What are not caluculated are the numerous ancillary benefits for the cause.
1. The cause usually does not pay for the campaign.
2. The companies promote the cause to their employees and often volunteer in the cause.
3. The campaign reaches into retail and consumer markets where the cause stands out and is not usually seen.
4. Often, fundraising campaigns are also part of the sponsorship deal.
Considering the actual dollar investment of the cause into the campaign (zero) a cause marketing campaign presents opportunities which a cause might not have had.
Posted by: Brett at November 9, 2006 5:09 PM