Co-donation and cause-related marketing were big in 2009 and may become bigger in 2010, according to expert marketing analysts at the consumer trends firm trendwatching.com. It’s all part of the hot trend that trendwatching.com dubs Generation G (for generosity): consumers are switching their buying habits and brand loyalties to support companies that “do good” and demonstrate a motivation beyond greed and profit.
Co-donation combines consumption with philanthropy. When consumers buy a product or engage in other product-related activities (such as visiting a website and voting on charitable ideas), corporations will donate money, products, or in-kind gifts to charities, which are either preselected or chosen by consumers. Cause-related marketing is the act of promoting a product or brand through the charitable cause(s) its maker or promoter supports.
For instance, this year Pepsi is directing the $20 million it normally spends on ads during the Super Bowl into its Pepsi Refresh program instead. The program asks website visitors to nominate and vote for charities that deserve a grant award. Pepsi will select thousands of these charities to receive awards that range from $5,000 to $250,000.
“Philanthropists in Corporate Suits,” a recent article from Marketing Week posted on the trendwatching.com website, says Pepsi’s initiative is one of the more high-profile of a wave of initiatives that pair consumer preference and corporate cash to make donations to charity.
This trend raises a variety of possibilities for philanthropy and nonprofits:
- Is this trend just a passing whim of corporations, as likely to fill a nonprofit’s coffers this year as it is to leave them empty next year?
- How much new money will nonprofits receive from these efforts?
- in addition to cash, will corporate initiatives also steer a number of new donors or constituents to nonprofits, representing new potential long-term donors that nonprofits might gain?
- What level of control do nonprofits have over the messages that support corporate initiatives? Could these messages be contrary to a nonprofit’s mission, or perhaps reinforce the mission and spread it to a broader audience?
- How informed are these initiatives? Do they represent the thoughtful deliberation of professional grantmakers, or might they become suboptimal investments that don’t yield much impact relative to their size?
The article details at least one example, however, that seems to show reason for optimism. Since 2006, Pampers has teamed with Unicef to address maternal and neonatal tetanus. For every pack of Pampers consumers buy, Pampers donates a dose of vaccine.
This is promising for at least three reasons:
- Both organizations shared the same objective before teaming up. Pampers and Unicef had independently developed a mission to help babies develop healthily.
- The initiative involves collaboration. Pampers approached Unicef well in advance of the initiative, and they spent time discussing partnership opportunities before settling on tetanus as a major issue they both cared about and could successfully address.
- And, they’ve committed to the long-term. Since 2006, they’ve vaccinated 45 million mothers and their babies. They’ve been so succesful that they’ve expanded their goal to completely ELIMINATE tetanus by 2012.
The initiative certainly demonstrates that co-donations and cause-related marketing can result in successful philanthropy. However, whether this is the exception or the rule is far from certain.
The relationship might not have been long term if the vaccinations or the delivery of them hadn’t worked. Unicef and the mothers and their children might have been left without financial support or vaccinations in 2007. And, many corporations haven’t been, and aren’t likely to be, as deliberate about empowering their nonprofit partners or having missions and goals that truly reinforce each other.
Critics say co-donation and cause-related marketing initiatives potentially obscure the voices of other causes that might actually be deserving of greater support (e.g., while tetanus is eliminated, AIDS and cancer continue to kill). They also say that these initiatives distort consumers’ charitable motives, in essence rewarding market-oriented behavior that has no link to the charity it’s supporting and the potentially negative impact of markets on society.
While I agree with the critics’ arguments, I believe the possibilities are too great for philanthropy to take the high ground and discourage these initiatives. A charity’s message could really gain impact by partnering with a like-minded corporation that shares its goals and is truly willing team up for the long term. More study is needed to determine whether this occurs often, or whether partnerships like that between Pampers and Unicef are anomalies.
I’m very curious about the results and would welcome others’ opinions and would love to be notified of any existing studies of this.
 12-8-09.jpg)