One of the biggest selling points for a company to take on a cause marketing program is the boost the campaign can have in the company's public image. The alliance may have that effect, but is that worth the campaign? For those who may be unfamiliar with the PGF, it has been defined as such: The primary goal of the firm is shareholder wealth maximization, which translates into stock price maximization. Furthermore, the firm should not presume it knows how to spend the owner's money better than the owner does. Any investment in a company is solely there to earn the greatest return possible.
In light of this, can cause marketing be justified? Yes, and it is a result of the way the campaign is defined. I may not score any points with the non-profits out there for this, but there is no place for corporate philanthropy. Giving grants away may be a worth while endeavor, but it should be left to the individual, not the firm. Cause marketing differs in that it should be a gift from the consumer. Consider the following types of cause related endeavors:
purchase plus - Round Up: Customer has the option to round up their purchase to the next dollar by donating the excess change to the cause. OR Optional Flat Rate - Upon making a purchase a customer has the option to donate a predetermined amount (let's say $1) to a cause.
product sales - In this case, the $1 donation per purchase is worked into the retail price of the item (cost + donation).
Other options could be cobranded events, programs, or certain licensing agreements. These different campaigns are fully explained and illustrated in a book I highly recommend to anyone looking to consider cause marketing, Jocelyne Daw's Cause Marketing for Nonprofits: Partner for Purpose, Passion, and Profits.
Cause related marketing has shown to raise sales and influence buyer behavior, but we as marketers can not fall to violate the primary goal of the firm. We are after all in the business to make money.
Posts
