Seeing RED

My email rang yesterday with a request from my former colleague Andy and I am going to do my best to answer.  The subject is Product Red and my opinion about it.  I have been observing and thinking about this campaign as it has unfolded and here is what I think.

I'm disappointed.  I'm a little mad.  But I think cause branding as a strategy will survive the excesses of Product Red.  I believe that because if you step back from the edge of the cliff and view the campaign, Product Red is not cause branding.  It is a product promotion campaign.  Granted, it is a big product promotion campaign executed on a global scale.  But cause branding it is not.

When the news broke this week that Product Red had spent $100 million on marketing and returned $18 million to the cause of fighting AIDS in Africa, it was like a slap in the face to all of us who believe in cause branding not just as a marketing tool, but as a real way to make change in the world.  The Better Business Bureau says charitable efforts must return a minimum of 65 percent of all proceeds to the cause to be considered successful.  Product Red has a ways to go to meet the BBB minimum.

Product Red is all the rage right now.  We know because clients we are working with are constantly referencing it with envy and admiration.  It's big and bold and it has certainly captured the attention of the world.  But thus far too much money has been spent for too little return and the celebrities involved have outshone the cause itself.  That is why I don't want this program confused with true cause branding efforts.

Perhaps Product Red is creating a new category for which we will need to come up with a new moniker.  Maybe we call it marketing cause instead of cause marketing.  That may seem like semantics, but the simple juxtaposition of the two words illustrates that there is a difference between selling products to benefit a cause and creating a program that educates, enlightens and raises money for solutions to a societal problem.

I'm sure there are people who will disagree with my opinion.  I may have even offended a potential client out there somewhere.  I'm comfortable with that.  I know from the great organizations that we are now working with that there is a great understanding of the power of true cause branding. 

What do all of you think of Product Red?  Let's keep this conversation going.  I have my opinion, but I believe this is an important discussion for us to have if we care about cause, public relations and branding.

So now Andy, all we have to do is figure out how you can possibly dislike the Beatles. 

Comments

[Andy Woolard]

I knew you could paint a more eloquent portrait than I on this subject. And I think you did just coin a new moniker in "marketing cause." It's not just semantics. It's a huge difference.

And yes, the Beatles, I for some reason can't stand them. It's not going to change. I understand it's irrational. Just "let it be."

Uh, I don't get the problem - it's called an investment. Businesses do it all the time.

[Joe]

Mike, come on. Much of the money spent on the marketing of RED was spent by retailers as part of their regular marketing budgets. It didn't come out of dollars raised.

Next, 65 percent may be a good number for the BBB, but if nonprofits adhered to it for everything they do, half of all fundraising events would have to be cancelled. And why do we do events? For the same reasons we do cause marketing: visibility, branding and wealth creation. See my post on my blog for more details.

Finally, RED may not be cause branding, but it is cause marketing. Cause marketing is a partnership between a nonprofit and a for profit for mutual profit. By that standard, RED, its generous corporate supporters and the people of Africa have all won.

[Chris Brown]

Red is not a charitable effort. It didn't have a .org after it's name. The people buying the sweatshirts etc received something tangible in return, not just a cancelled check. They learned about the AIDS problem. The marketing money was already in the budget, so it has nothing to do with $100 million spent in merchandising, and advertising etc. $100 million is business as usual for these companies. They'll spend another $100 million on the next campaign to sell products but without any donation to a cause.

That's why it is dangerous to get involved with cause marketing, because many people don't understand the business model. Is it better to just give a little donation, than to build awareness, try to raise some money and give a bigger sum? Maybe the BBB says 65% of a charity, but what's the % of the profits from a company in business to make a profit? According to a 2003 press release on the give.org site, usually less than 10% of the purchase price and that's a good thing that results in $1 billion of donations.
http://www.give.org/news/cause.asp

I think you may be doing a dis-service to all future causes by whining that the amount donated wasn't enough. You should be helping consumers not to confuse a corporate for profit cause marketing program with a 501-C3 charitable donation.

[Chris Brown]

Okay. Whining is too strong a word. Sorry.

[Mike Swenson]

Chris, I think I was wrong to use the BBB 65% standards for charitable organizations as a measurement for the RED campaign. A couple of others have made that point to me as well.

As I noted in a second post on RED, I have always believed any amount of money that can be contributed to a cause in a meaningful way is a good thing. My bigger concern is the need for us as cause advocates to always push for total transparency as to what every dollar is being used for and demonstrate real benefit.

I think the shocking thing about the disparity between the marketing dollars spent and the charitable return is the knowledge that most programs will not have that luxury. I worry that there could also be a reverse impact on corporations who believe they have to spend that kind of money to have a good cause program. You and I both know they do not.

Thanks for joining this important conversation.

[Scott]

The interesting thing to monitor would be if Project Red could demonstrate an increase in overall donations to AIDS charities in Africa and tie it to the launch of the campaign, but distinguish it from the donations made through the campaign. Many people would rather give directly than by something. It would have to be a dramatic shift and there would need to be sufficient data that tied a donor's increased awareness of the problems in Africa to the campaign. Unfortunately I doubt that level of analysis is happening, unless some marketing students are doing it. To me that's the one benefit that too often gets overlooked, that is the contribution all cause marketing makes toward educating and informing about important issues, without regard to purchases, participation or the bottom line.

[william shepherd]

Again, great insight Citizen Brand, and toughts by your readers. Social marketing is the link back to the consumers heart.

And, American consumers need to feel they are part of something, the products help them interact with the cause on a functional manner. A tee shirt with a hot logo can both raise the consumer's ego and social status, and sends a message for all to see that some folks still care about our global culture.

One of your readers made a very strong statement... There is a difference between the business model of a social campaign and a nonprofit 501-c-3 business.

If that give back figure is correct of 18M, based on $100M marketing, it does seem to be a pretty slim slice.

We are currently building an endowment fund for skid row children in Los Angeles, maybe the first of its type. Yet, we would be hard pressed and run out of town, to give back say $180K, on a million dollar marketing budget.

Hence, the question becomes how do you fully deploy the message without over spending. Engage the consumers, encourage them to support, and educate them, entertain them in a manner that is relational to the social need. Live Earth 07.07.07 (S.O.S) spent a lot of money, but raised a lot of attention, and money. The product designs and logos added value to the movement. My friend's firm did the design ID, that branding helped to share the need and global cause.

Corporations need to help build stronger brands that click with consumers. Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream did that for years.

Green Branding = Life

Social Branding = Love

Peace.

ws:

[jeroen]

Fascinating site and well worth the visit. I will be backu