Cause Marketing TOday

Both the American Express campaign and the March of Dimes were so successful in part because they were new- no one had done this before, and as a result, consumers weren’t fatigued and desensitized by a seemingly endless array of consumer goods that promise to benefit a good cause. But what about today? In a world where it’s almost more difficult to find a company that doesn’t have something for sale that helps a charity, what companies are able to stand out from the crowd?

 

Fast-forward to the 21st century, and cause-marketing extends far beyond just breast cancer and pinkwashing- numerous other health based causes, as well as environmental, arts, and human rights organizations, all participate in cause-marketing, just to name a few. Three companies that stand out in the cause-marketing conversation today are TOMS, Product Red, and Patagonia. As Ad Age, a trade publication for the advertising industry explains, these companies have “a great story consumers can talk about…supporting causes that are widespread and generic may win the battle temporarily at the point of purchase, but won’t win long term brand love in people’s hearts and minds”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOMS originated as a shoe company with a One-For-One promise- every time one pair of shoes was sold to a consumer; one pair would be donated to a child in need. The idea is that having a pair of shoes would make it easier for a child in an impoverished country to walk to school, play outside, and avoid contracting diseases through open wounds on their feet. The company has since expanded to selling eye glasses, with each pair helping to “restore eyesight” to a person in need through a medical consultation and treatment, as well donating a week’s worth of clean water every time a bag of TOMS coffee is sold.

​

Similarly, Product Red also works with poverty stricken countries, with a focus on fighting AIDS. Founded by Bono, the company licenses out the (Red) (stylized) logo to companies like Apple, Starbucks, Coca Cola, and Beats, just to name a few. Those companies in turn are able to sell products with the (Red) logo, and 50% of the profits from those products go to the Global Fund. Product Red boasts that they have raised more than $500 million since their founding in 2006, and that 100% of the money contributed goes to work on the ground and no overhead is taken. But even companies like Product Red and TOMS, with high consumer approval and praise from their respective industries, are not immune to criticism. Product Red has been called out for spending significantly more money on advertisements and promoting themselves as compared to what they donate. TOMS has faced criticism for being a simple solution to a much more complex problem, and perpetuating a stereotype of poor countries that they are helpless and are at the mercy of Westerners to help them.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

Patagonia, however, has seemingly been immune to criticism of their cause-marketing campaigns. According to Patagonia’s Vice President of Marketing Joy Howard, advertising is Patagonia’s “dead last” priority. Instead, the company has “a mission to solve problems in the world”. Patagonia’s mission statement is “Build the best product. Cause no unnecessary harm. Use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.” One of those solutions is encouraging customers to buy fewer Patagonia products.

 

Like breast cancer, “green” causes that focus on environmental awareness have become incredibly ubiquitous, diluting what the phrase “environmental friendly” actually means and leading to customer fatigue when it comes to “greenwashed” products. Patagonia seems to have been able to get around this, but putting forward a genuine desire to support environmental causes that seemingly should be at odds with the company itself. Patagonia donates 1% of all annual sales to sustainable causes. A donation of this sort is pretty standard of any company looking to better their public image. But Patagonia is also brutally honest with its customers about their environmental impact through what’s been dubbed their “anti-growth” strategy.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

While the goals of Patagonia’s cause-marketing campaigns aren’t to make money, it’s clearly paying off. Almost every clothing brand, and brand of every consumer good, has aligned themselves with a good cause to some degree. But Patagonia’s honest and genuine approach to environmental causes that’s at the heart of their company is what sets them apart from other brands that are just looking for a quick image boost.

 

Cause-marketing isn’t new, and likely isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. It’s good for the companies who see a sales and image boost, and good for the non-profit organizations who are generally underfunded and can’t rely solely on public funding and personal donations. While it is encouraging that some companies are getting cause-marketing right, many are not. And many companies who aren’t getting it right are companies who have aligned themselves with breast cancer awareness.