Your sentence: “Cause is evergreen, not seasonal; nonprofit partnerships are strategic, not transactional; companies are leaders, not simply funders. was particularly poignant for me.
Great post, Grant. I share your hopes for nonprofit and for-profit partnerships! The good news is that it’s already happening.
The challenge is that “cause marketing” isn’t a term that can really encompass all the cause-related activities that nonprofits and for-profits can engage in. We have all sorts of new language for this: CSR, Shared Value, Sustainability and just PURPOSE.
If cause marketing seems rented, transactional, promotional and campaign-focused that’s because it is! The good news is that there is plenty of room along the cause continuum for all sorts of win-win partnerships. And cause marketing is a darn good place to start or a way to complement a deeper, long-term efforts.
The goal for businesses is to put PURPOSE on the same level of PROFIT. And businesses are because they’ve realized that in the new world purpose comes first, then profit.
Awesome article, Grant. I love the concept of “rented authenticity” vs “owned authenticity” and suspect the distinction you’ve coined will become common parlance.
Thanks for this post, Grant. I am currently working on several CSR programs, with my company as the centralizing platform, and this article is really helpful.
Great article, Grant. One of the risks company’s must pay attention to is when the non-profit they are renting from overstates the impact. Both the non-profit and the company can benefit from overstated results in the short term - so there is some pressure in this direction. In the long run, this will effect the credibility of both. If companies make the shift the owned authenticity, it will be in their interest not just to define what they give, but to measure its impact.
We have developed a online giving model to facilitate goods based giving that provides complete transparency and accountability that eliminates the risk of overstating impact.
This article influenced me a lot! I have been working for a marketing agency that specializes in marketing to morality, so this explained many of the reasons why it is important. At Better Better Better, we routinely use Social Missions to make sure the business, consumer, and society are all benefitting from the enterprise. You can check out our similar article at: https://betterbetterbetter.org/i-dont-care-about-social-missions
I find your support of cause-related marketing highly problematic, especially as the consulting firm you founded and work for stands to gain from promoting products like Pepsi and other campaigns that are essentially trying to drive consumers to consume more of their products. Whilst this area of marketing might stand to direct some of the money away from TV advertising and towards actual causes, the fact remains that these companies are simply trying to adjust their image towards millennials who are potentially more socially conscious in their purchases. As a millennial consumer, I think this makes me trust brands less, and I am not fooled. I would not mind supporting a company like Patagonia in its cause-related marketing (which it doesn’t do), because I know that Patagonia pays its workers living wages and does everything in its power to reduce its harmful impact on the environment. But frankly I see that few, if not none, of GOODCorps clients (except the foundations and perhaps Google), are authentically mission-driven companies. What millennial consumers really need are brands that they can trust and know exactly who and where the money they spend is going to, not brands that consistently leverage advertising to try to manipulate public opinion. Especially if this form of advertising trivialises giving and the genuine suffering of various communities.
COMMENTS
BY karen
ON August 28, 2015 01:24 PM
Your sentence: “Cause is evergreen, not seasonal; nonprofit partnerships are strategic, not transactional; companies are leaders, not simply funders. was particularly poignant for me.
BY GOOD/Corps
ON August 28, 2015 03:06 PM
Thanks so much, karen. I’m glad you found it poignant and appreciate you taking the time to comment.
BY Joe Waters
ON August 28, 2015 04:23 PM
Great post, Grant. I share your hopes for nonprofit and for-profit partnerships! The good news is that it’s already happening.
The challenge is that “cause marketing” isn’t a term that can really encompass all the cause-related activities that nonprofits and for-profits can engage in. We have all sorts of new language for this: CSR, Shared Value, Sustainability and just PURPOSE.
If cause marketing seems rented, transactional, promotional and campaign-focused that’s because it is! The good news is that there is plenty of room along the cause continuum for all sorts of win-win partnerships. And cause marketing is a darn good place to start or a way to complement a deeper, long-term efforts.
The goal for businesses is to put PURPOSE on the same level of PROFIT. And businesses are because they’ve realized that in the new world purpose comes first, then profit.
Joe
Selfishgiving.com
BY Charles Best
ON August 29, 2015 12:55 PM
Awesome article, Grant. I love the concept of “rented authenticity” vs “owned authenticity” and suspect the distinction you’ve coined will become common parlance.
BY Bettie
ON August 30, 2015 06:38 AM
Great article Grant. Nonprofit and for-profit partnerships work for the best for all concerned. Keep up the “GOOD” work.
BY Jason
ON September 1, 2015 07:33 AM
Thanks for this post, Grant. I am currently working on several CSR programs, with my company as the centralizing platform, and this article is really helpful.
Jason
bstowapp.com
BY Patrick ONeill
ON September 13, 2015 05:45 AM
Great article, Grant. One of the risks company’s must pay attention to is when the non-profit they are renting from overstates the impact. Both the non-profit and the company can benefit from overstated results in the short term - so there is some pressure in this direction. In the long run, this will effect the credibility of both. If companies make the shift the owned authenticity, it will be in their interest not just to define what they give, but to measure its impact.
We have developed a online giving model to facilitate goods based giving that provides complete transparency and accountability that eliminates the risk of overstating impact.
BY Eliel Buffer
ON November 21, 2016 12:51 AM
This article influenced me a lot! I have been working for a marketing agency that specializes in marketing to morality, so this explained many of the reasons why it is important. At Better Better Better, we routinely use Social Missions to make sure the business, consumer, and society are all benefitting from the enterprise. You can check out our similar article at: https://betterbetterbetter.org/i-dont-care-about-social-missions
BY Natasha Doherty
ON December 10, 2016 04:45 PM
I find your support of cause-related marketing highly problematic, especially as the consulting firm you founded and work for stands to gain from promoting products like Pepsi and other campaigns that are essentially trying to drive consumers to consume more of their products. Whilst this area of marketing might stand to direct some of the money away from TV advertising and towards actual causes, the fact remains that these companies are simply trying to adjust their image towards millennials who are potentially more socially conscious in their purchases. As a millennial consumer, I think this makes me trust brands less, and I am not fooled. I would not mind supporting a company like Patagonia in its cause-related marketing (which it doesn’t do), because I know that Patagonia pays its workers living wages and does everything in its power to reduce its harmful impact on the environment. But frankly I see that few, if not none, of GOODCorps clients (except the foundations and perhaps Google), are authentically mission-driven companies. What millennial consumers really need are brands that they can trust and know exactly who and where the money they spend is going to, not brands that consistently leverage advertising to try to manipulate public opinion. Especially if this form of advertising trivialises giving and the genuine suffering of various communities.