Have Americans become more altruistic? Before the Sept. 11 attacks, only 54% of Americans were likely to switch brands to support a cause. After the attacks, that figure jumped to 81%
At first glance, a 27-percentage point gain among consumers willing to switch brand to support a cause would appear to be something to cheer. Hold off the hosannas, for a moment: As David Sable, COO of Wunderman and a keynote speaker at Direct Marketing Days New York observed, when it comes to cause-related marketing, there’s less there than meets the eye.
First off, the question asked whether consumers would be “more likely” to switch, not whether they would. And the question added the qualifier “when price and quality are equal.”
This is the crux of how consumers differentiate between products when cause-related factors come into play: How do your targets view you, when compared with your competitors?
Part of the answer to this is found in how targets view your firm. If they are likely to ascribe adjectives such as helpful; progressive; socially responsible; straightforward; cares for customers; obliging; trustworthy, visionary and kind to you, your firm is probably on good standing for doing cause-related marketing and having it resonate.
On the other hand, while adjectives such as trendy; fun, carefree; charming; stylish; sensuous or glamorous, while they may play well into your brand’s message, aren’t going to inspire faith in your cause-based efforts.
This type of marketing won’t be successful if it is seen as a one-off event, Sable said. It has to be part of a deep commitment “whereby companies relook at their entire approach from the inside out and reformulate their DNA to encompass a holistic corporate social responsibility approach.”
Consumers might be more likely to switch brands, or at least to consider switching brands, but Sable argued that asking about brand loyalty wasn’t necessarily the correct question. He quoted an MIT Sloan Management Review article, which stated in part that “consumers were willing to pay a slight premium for the ethically made goods. But they went much further in the other direction: They would buy unethically made products only at a steep discount.”
The same study found that the willingness of consumers to pay more was also based, in part, on the expectations they had for the companies. Consumers who felt a firm had garnered high ethical expectations were willing to pay more for ethically produced goods. But they weren’t as willing to spend as much for unethically produced goods from the same company as they would from a firm that didn’t engender high ethical expectations.
Consumers’ willingness to make a purchase based on cause-focused marketing fell into several distinct demographic buckets. Those aged 18-24, as well as women, were the most interested. Those between the ages of 45 and 64 were the most cynical regarding such marketing efforts, according to an American Marketing Association study.
What programs have worked? When furnishings retailer Ikea stopped giving free plastic bags with every purchase, charging five cents for a bag (all of which went to American Forests) the program was well received. Why did this program work? Because employees were well trained, given Environmental Protection Agency data, and taught to anticipate negative responses.
Similarly, Mac, Estee Lauder’s top-selling brand, donated proceeds from the sale of its Viva Glam lip products to HIV/AIDS research. They weren’t shy about touting their success – and why should they be, given that the donations have totaled $1.3 million per month since the program began.
What hasn’t worked? When Circuit City tied donations with its Firedog technology services group, the amount raised was minimal -- $650,000, from a multi-billion dollar firm. And the donations didn’t have national appeal: The beneficiaries included two charities and ten firehouses. A multi-billion dollar company doesn’t have the luxury of making a six-figure donation, Sable said.
Likewise, Dream for Darfur, an activist organization run by actress Mia Farrow issued a report card on the morality of Olympic sponsors, also fell short. Sixteen of 19 sponsors earned a D or F based on actions they took or didn’t take – but one of those actions was having a meeting with Farrow.
Sable quoted a New York Times article in which Coca Cola spokesman Kelly Brooks said, “For an organization that has not eased the suffering of a single individual on the ground in Darfur, to criticize those who are helping thousands every day is more than ironic.”
Sable summed up his advice for ethical marketing programs by stressing three factors: A company’s efforts must have credibility with consumers; the size and scale of the donations must be in proportion to the company’s finances; and the cause to which it donates must be relevant to the company’s mission.
