A couple of days ago Faris suggested that we make marketing by doing “good things” the most important advertising trend of 2009.
It may sound like wishful thinking, but I think this is a hugely important trend, and it was one of the key pillars of the mini manifesto I launched this blog with back in February:
as increasing transparency is brought to bear upon corporations by the social web, as and the nature of marketing changes, consumers will demand more responsibility from companies, and vote for brands doing good with their wallets. Enterprises and agencies will be competing to out-do each other on the most innovative, effective, and attention-grabbing contributions to our collective welfare as a major competitive differentiator. The greening of brands a prime example of this, but there is a lot more still to come.
Since then there’s been a proliferation of high-profile cause marketing, with American Express Members Project, Google Project 10, Häagen-Dazs - Help the Honey Bees and Orange RockCorps showing both the diversity of causes available and just how much scope there is for companies and agencies to innovate, using their marketing budgets to bring some good into this world and benefit from the brand halo in return.
Now Brand Week is reporting that two new surveys indicate that cause marketing is not just good karma, but contributes directly to the bottom line, with 79% of survey respondents saying they would switch brands to the one that is associated with a good cause (assuming product price and quality is the same), people spent longer reading cause marketing related ads, and after being exposed to cause marketing ads sales went up anywhere from 5% to 74%.
Where products are essentially undifferentiated, cause marketing gives consumers a powerful reason to choose, much more so than essentially meaningless claims like “now 10% whiter!”.
It’s a fantastic concept: companies increase sales, people feel good about supporting the causes they believe in, and the wider world benefits from the extra exposure, dollars and brainpower being funneled towards helping good causes.
Some tips to get started with courtesy of the study mentioned in the Brand Week article: Eighty-four percent of those polled wanted to select their own cause, 83% said it must be personally relevant and 80% said the nonprofit associated with the brand matters.
Technorati Tags:
campaign, cause marketing, differentiation, green, innovation, marketing, preference, trend, value
Subscribe to *supercollider for original research and insight goodness
Hi Geoff, really interesting post. It’s something I’ve been wrestling with for a while but failed to articulate. We’re seeing more and more of this blurring in PR and in particular corporate and CSR briefs where companies are realising that what they say and what they do are now one in the same which of course impacts on their brand positioning in this new transparent world we live in.
Take for example this new KFC win for Ketchum with the aim to ‘proactively shift brand perceptions’ http://www.prweek.com/uk/sectors/City/article/852250/kfc-signs-ketchum-wide-range-brief/ and hence why PR agencies are recruiting brand builders like they’re going out of fashion!
Sorry, “brand preceptions” - isn’t that what ad agencies are meant to do?! I think we will be seeing more and more of this blurring between CSR, PR and advertising because of the t’internet opening up information to everyone and the Colalife campaign (a submission for the google 10tothe100 project you mentioned) is one such example if Coke are smart enough to investigate the idea independently if not chosen for the google campaign.
I guess also, the challenge for companies is to figure out territories that they can operate in to ‘be nice’ without coming across conceited and insincere, though I would hope this is answered by ‘doing good’ in areas the company can easily affect and with minimal cost to them, thus justifying their involvement in the cause in the first place.
Keep up the excellent blog and work at AKQA. Tim
Hi Tim,
Many thanks for the comment and the kind words.
The KFC example is an interesting one, as the inference is it’s a direct response to negative claims about their business practices by PETA. In which case a cause marketing campaign might not really do much for them if it rings hollow and comes off as a cynical marketing exercise.
As you’ve suggested, credibility and consistency are keys for brand perceptions to change meaningfully and with any staying power. I think that’s pretty much true of most branding, but especially so with anything related to CSR and “marketing for good”. That attitude and behaviour needs to be expressed through all areas of business practice, from sourcing through to marketing.
And if that’s the case, the CSR should come off as natural and as part of the company’s way of being, rather than bolted on at the end. Although some people would argue Google is losing their way, I still think they are one of the best examples of making this work in large scale practice.
cheers,
Geoff
Geoff,
Was writing a post about KFC and the benefits of brands doing good things with their advertising budgets rather than a raft of insipid billboards when i found your great post. Seems to me that all brands can find a mutually beneficial way to spend their marketing wonga. Have lovingly acquired some of your examples in the process. Hope you don’t mind.
Hey Adam, I think that’s exactly right, and the opportunities for brands to do good things in a creative and innovative way, and still creating the talkability, buzz and goodwill they crave are just immense. It’s a win-win situation.
Over at Zeus Jones, Adrian Ho has done a great job of outlining how modern brands have to stand for something. And once you’ve defined what you stand for, then you need to live those values. It’s the way forward.