So I’m recommending you read Getting Attention’s Nancy Schwartz’s excellent analysis of the Komen vs. Planned Parenthood debacle from the perspective of what makes for effective (and ineffective communications) and smart fundraising (on Planned Parenthood’s part) in response to threat.

Tom

P.S. Stuff ‘em Planned Parenthood!

Marketing professor Aradhna Krishna conducted studies involving 300 college students to see whether consumers who bought products linked to a social cause would reduce subsequent donations to that cause. She found that charitable giving is lower if consumers buy a cause-related product — even if the consumer planned to buy it, anyway, regardless of its link to a cause.

“Consumers appear to realize that participating in cause marketing is inherently more selfish than direct charitable donation, reducing their subsequent happiness (versus a direct donation),” Krishna says. “Unfortunately, this doesn’t prevent them from substituting it for charitable giving, which reduces the overall charitable donation.”

I’m not sure a study based upon 300 college students would lead me to abandon cause marketing, but I have often wondered about this question:

Does buying something that generates a donation really count as a donation? Can we possibly look at this as an individual’s ‘trainer’ contribution — a promising step toward making a ‘real’ cash-out-my-pocket contribution?

Or should we regard these as faux contributions, lacking sufficient altruistic grounding to qualify as genuine donations?

I know I’ve heard Roger complain about all those “damn tee-shirt buyers” at a prominent nonprofit I dare not mention!

Yet I suppose at the end of the day, if the mission of the charity or cause is indeed further fueled by tee-shirt sales, and there’s no significant opportunity cost (i.e., the staff wasn’t distracted from its direct mail and online fundraising program … and didn’t waste a fortune trying to convert reluctant merchandise buyers), then the more fuel the better, wherever it comes from.

What do you think … Is any giving good giving?

Tom

Eden Springs supplies 416 million litres of water per year across sixteen European countries. They tout their ‘clean, green’ credentials.

They’ve launched this promotion aimed at individuals who are using personal social net sites to raise money for their favourite causes and charities. In briefest terms, as an example, if you’re collecting friends to sponsor ($$) your run for, say, UNICEF, you can ‘apply’ to Eden Springs and they might provide your ‘hydration’ for the event in exchange for you publishing their ‘badge’ on your website or fundraising page.

I do like the idea of getting one’s brand associated with personal fundraising campaigns … this promotion accomplishes that. It works for Eden Springs.

But, what do you think? Is Eden Springs getting more out of this than the participant? Nice for the individual to get the water. But is this really helping the cause?

Tom

P.S. Sorry, if you do want to take up this offer, it appears they’ll only deliver to UK work addresses.

Here’s what MTV says:

“What Act is really about is you. Seriously. Every campaign we’ve launched and change we’ve made is because you watched, listened, chatted, blogged, tweeted, posted and acted on things that matter. So this blog is meant to recognize you for all that.

We might post about your school, or your community, or even you, or someone like you. We’re not sure who’ll make it on Act yet. We just know it’s gonna be epic when they do. And hopefully it’ll inspire more people to do some good along the way.

Of course Act will recap the latest news and events, and tie it all in with music, celebs and a few unexpected perks. But first, we need your feedback. You can start by answering a few questions for us: What organizations, school clubs, or campus leaders should we profile? What cause do you think needs the most action right now? Which celebrity do-gooder are you most inspired by?

We’ll be updating the site with new stuff daily, so make sure to check in on us often. See you soon.”

Sounds like an invitation at least some Agitator readers should be taking up!

Tom

Says Edelman:

“People all over the world are now wearing, driving, eating, and living their social purpose as sustained engagement with good causes becomes a new criterion for social status and good social behavior,” said Mitch Markson, Edelman’s chief creative officer, president of its brand consulting group and founder of goodpurpose. “This gives companies and brands associated with a worthy cause an opportunity to build long-term relationships with consumers that, in turn, allow them to feel valuable within their communities.”

The study results suggest that in both harsh and rebounding economies, brands will continue to benefit from identifying and contributing to a positive social purpose that makes sense for their business, with 64 percent of people globally saying they would recommend a brand that supports a good cause (up from 52 percent in 2008, and in the U.S., up 16 points from 47 percent in 2008 to 63 percent this year). In addition, 63 percent of all respondents are looking to brands and companies to make it easier for them to make a difference, with Brazil having the highest expectations at 86 percent.

“People are demanding social purpose, and brands are recognizing it as an area where they can differentiate themselves and in many parts of the world, not only meet governmental compliance requirements, but also build brand equity,” said Markson. “This year’s study shows that if companies respond intelligently to the sea change in consumer attitudes, brand loyalty among consumers – even during seriously challenging economic times – will actually grow. Even better, consumers will want to share their support for these brands with others.”

Cause marketing is an arrow in the quiver that most nonprofits should be exploring, but it involves more than just looking for cash.

As Edelman further notes: “… brands must look beyond traditional corporate social responsibility programs in which they simply donate money to a good cause … 66 percent of people believe that it’s no longer enough for corporations to merely give money away, but that they must integrate good causes into their day-to-day business.”

Tom

Forbes asked three “digital experts” — all NYC digital agency types — to pick the twenty best ever social media campaigns.

Two of the twenty had charity tie-ins (asterisked below).

How many of these registered on you (before “refreshing yourself by visiting the link)? Here’s the list:

1. Blair Witch Project
2. Blendtec (my favorite … destroys everything from Barbie doll to a vuvuzela … sales up 700% since 2006)
3. Old Spice
4. Burger King: “Subservient Chicken” (15 million views the first five days)
5. Pepsi Refresh*
6. VW: “Fun Theory”
7. Office Max: “Elf Yourself” (122,000 “elves” were created)
8. Evian: “Roller Babies” (Guiness Book record for most watched online commercial … 60 million views)
9. Ikea: “Facebook Showroom”
10. Hotmail
11. Burger King: “Whopper Sacrifice” (another of my favorites … get a free burger for “un-friending” ten Facebook friends!)
12. Target: “Bullseye Gives”*
13. Vitaminwater
14. Smirnoff: “Tea Par-tay”
15. “The Dark Knight”
16. Quicksilver: “Dynamite Surfing”
17. Cadbury: “Gorilla”
18. BMW: “1-Series Graffiti Contest”
19. Bing: Farmville
20. CareerBuilder: “Monk-e-Mail

The most common ingredients — irresistible engagement and/or brilliantly clever. And, if you view the picture show at Forbes.com, you’ll see the actual results credited in most cases.

Enjoy! But keep in mind … this is what you’re up against if you’re thinking of launching a successful viral campaign.

Tom

The 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study notes that moms and Millenials (age 18-24) are the biggest believers in cause marketing.

What I found interesting is that respondents would prefer that companies stake out their own long term commitments to particular causes or issues, rather than going through “you decide” by voting type campaigns.

Were I advising a company on its social responsibility strategy, I would certainly recommend that the company anchor its efforts in some area that is particularly relevant to that company, its brand and its customers.

Suggesting that customers (and would-be customers) make the choice seems to me to suggest — on its face — a certain lack of commitment on the part of the company … its just another marketing gambit. I suspect this perception is what was behind the consumer response Cone found. Consumers want the company to stand for something … and it had better be credible in the specific context of that company.

Here, for example, is a cause marketing initiative that works for me … Toys “R” Us and US Fund for UNICEF. A perfect fit for both.

Cone found that consumers believe companies should engage in cause marketing even during these recessionary times. Here’s a 2:30 video describing the Cone findings.

Good data and good news for fundraisers.

Tom

It’s bad enough that we bombard you daily with our fundraising POV!

But here’s a proposal we like, because it doesn’t involve endorsing a fundraising campaign, but instead, if acted upon, would benefit many necessary fundraising efforts aimed at addressing an indisputable calamity … the Gulf oil spill.

It comes from Terry Barber at Inspiration Boulevard in his article, BP needs to get oil on their hands.

Terry urges BP to take three steps:

1. Become authentic — Put 1ooo employees on the ground around the Gulf to “serve the people on the Gulf Coast. Knock on doors, answer questions, clear out the bureaucracy and burdensome so called “due-diligence” for claims, mop up oil… don’t just pay hired guns… touch it, feel it, experience it first hand, on your hands.”

2. Let America help — Put up a huge matching grant to directly support the many fundraising efforts that will be undertaken by nonprofit groups to restore the environment and address the economic fall-out from the disaster. Terry sees this as a way to better leverage some of the $20 billion BP has pledged for compensation.

3. Reduce the burden — make it a whole lot easier (i.e., less bureaucratic) for locals to apply for financial support.

BP couldn’t pay its high-priced PR army for better advice than this, it seems to us.

Roger & Tom

Nancy does a terrific job of both dissecting the bad idea itself and then commenting on Komen’s communications response (or more accurately, lack thereof).

She calls her article a case study … and it’s that indeed. Keep it in your file. Bad things can happen to any of us!

I must say, I was struck by the rapid response to the situation by Komen’s rival cancer-fighter, Breast Cancer Action, which launched a "pinkwashing" campaign that in about two weeks has generated 3,200 messages protesting the Komen/KFC deal.

Roger and I have been writing about competition in the nonprofit space. BCA’s guerrilla warfare is as "in your face" as it gets!

Tom

The Cone study looks in part at the role of social media in generating awareness and support for causes. Cone notes that 80% of respondents say that social media provide additional ways for them to support their causes. BUT then …

"Despite new media users’ high level of interest and awareness of causes, their support is not yet being fully translated into bottom-line action. Fewer than one-in-five users (18%) have made a donation through new media, and a majority (72%) agree that such channels raise their awareness about causes, but do not motivate them to do more to help.

Why the disconnect? One of the primary reasons may be fear. Nearly four-in-10 respondents (39%) said they didn’t trust their effort would actually go to help the cause. Other barriers include:

• I’d rather spend my time and/or money supporting causes offline (31%)
• I didn’t see any existing results or impacts (27%)
• I felt overwhelmed by the number of causes on new media (22%)
• My favorite issue, cause or organization doesn’t use new media (19%)
• I didn’t understand the tool/application (17%)"

Trust. A very big deal. And a reason donors often say they don’t give more, irrespective of channel or fundraising approach.

That said, social media is about "friends" and "fans" … i.e., relationships, some obviously far more tenuous than others. Still,  genuine relationships should involve trust and trust-building, so over time one would expect that peer-to-peer fundraising and recommendations abetted by social media would be immensely powerful. It’s just not there yet, as Cone’s data indicates.

Tom

P.S. Thanks to Joanne Fritz, nonprofit blogger at About.com, for pointing me to this study.