Citizen Brand

A little PR for public relations

I just read two stories that should make public relations professionals everywhere take notice. The first one talked about how we as a profession have generally ignored the pleas of the media to halt the outdated and useless practice of sending press releases. The second one was from a university professor who had his students tell him that they thought it was okay to lie because that is what public relations pros are supposed to do.

The continued proliferation of press releases is inexcusable. We have worked hard at Barkley over the years to move away from releases when possible and focus instead on building relationships with the right media, and now bloggers and social communities. We then work to identify the stories our clients have to tell and the right person to tell them and then bring everyone together. Very little paper need be used for this approach.

The fact remains that there are clients who still want a release sent out to preview their story with media etc. And the fact remains that too often, we as PR pros go along with the client when we should be telling them the press release is a dead tactic and should be properly buried. Public companies will continue to need to issue formal financial statements but beyond that, external communications today must be conversational in nature. You don't script conversations.

The issue of releases is easily fixed. The second problem is not. The fact that some college students have it in their head that successful public relations is based on dishonest discourse is disheartening at best. No one is naive about where this notion gets its fuel. We all see and hear politicians today basically saying whatever they want regardless of whether its true. Of course, behind every politician there is a "communications consultant" helping them figure out their next soundbite. Politics permeates our lives in so many ways. Therefore it's unfortunately a short hop for a student to assume this must be the way it is done across the board, not just in politics.

I have been in this profession for nearly 30 years after six years in the news media. I can honestly say without hesitation that the public relations professionals I have worked with or know do not suggest lying as a successful strategy. It is just the opposite. A client must walk the walk in order to talk the talk. Truth, transparency and authenticity are today's measuring sticks in the marketplace. Anyone can fake it for a while, but in today's wide open social media environment, the fakers will be found out quickly.

While it would be nice to think this one classroom of students was the exception and not the rule, we all know what happens when one assumes something. My challenge to public relations pros everywhere is to call your alma mater or other colleges and make an appointment to speak to as many classes as possible as soon as possible. Let's turn the bright light of the real world on in college classrooms everywhere and demonstrate what real, authentic public relations is all about. And what the power of it done right can do for every organization's most important asset - its reputation.

 

The Death of Cause Marketing

AdAge has asked me to provide an occasional point of view on cause marketing and this is my latest effort. I am the last person on the planet who wants cause marketing/branding to die because I do believe in it when it is done right. I will let my column take it from here:

Stay on top of the news, sign up for our free newsletters

• E-mail
 
• License
 
• Print
 
• Comment
 
•  RSS

The Day Cause Marketing Died

How to Keep Consumers From Getting Fed Up With Corporate Efforts

Posted by Mike Swenson on 06.01.10 @ 12:16 PM

         

Mike Swenson

It was a cool and calm morning the day cause marketing died. Its demise went largely unnoticed by all the online news aggregators. The only remaining television news network, ACNBCNN, ran a feature reminding us that it had broken the news the previous year that cause marketing was doomed.

It seemed to happen so quickly. One day the marketplace was full of companies and nonprofits working together for the common good. And then it was over. The blame game is in full swing. Various theories are being debated as to what happened. But looking back, it seems clear why cause marketing died.

It wasn't a natural death. It was murder. The very people who created and nurtured cause marketing through the end of the 20th century and into this century lost control of it at some point. Cause marketing was turned over to the promotions departments of agencies and companies and morphed into something unrecognizable. Cause was no longer about unique engagements with consumers. It had become just another homogenized marketing program fighting to grab its share of the consumer dollar.

From the moment consumers awoke each day until they fell asleep at night, they were inundated with opportunities to give back every time they made a purchase. In between, regardless of what store they were in, point-of-purchase shelf talkers virtually screamed at consumers every 10 feet to buy this or that product and help this or that cause. Consumers were under siege at every checkout lane of every store they shopped to give a dollar for this or a dollar for that. With online shopping continuing to overtake old-fashioned retail, cause banner ad after cause banner ad intruded on that shopping experience as well.

How do we keep this scenario from happening? Those of us engaged in cause branding in 2010 can't conceive of its demise. But as true believers, we also must avoid being naive about practices that can erode its effectiveness as a brand builder and a vehicle for societal change. A recent unscientific poll conducted here on AdAge.com asked for our collective opinions about whether or not cause marketing was doomed because of overexposure to the consumer. A wide margin of those who responded said consumer fatigue was going to happen. Are they right, or were they just the usual vocal minority of people who find it easy to criticize without offering suggestions?

What I do believe consumers will grow tired of are product promotions that masquerade as cause marketing programs. Product promotions are designed to do one thing: Sell products. Simply adding a donation from the sales proceeds doesn't qualify as real cause branding anymore. Cause has to be about engaging the consumer beyond the sale of one product. Companies need to demonstrate that they care about the cause every day, not just the day of the transaction.

Likewise, nonprofits need to be mindful of the types of corporate partnerships they pursue. While the money from a purely transactional cause-marketing program may be tempting, nonprofits should make sure the partnership makes sense. Is there a natural tie between the corporation and the nonprofit, or is it forced? Will the consumer remember anything about the cause once the promotion ends? And what will the money being donated specifically fund?

When cause marketing is done well, no explanation is needed. The partnership instantly makes sense. The consumer is engaged repeatedly throughout the year. And everyone knows where the money is going and what it will accomplish. The true power and reach of cause marketing is missed if companies are simply slapping a nonprofit logo on a consumer product and thinking the consumer will remember them after the transaction is over.

The fictitious dispatch from the future at the beginning of this column should remain just that: fictitious. There are enough companies and nonprofits today that are doing it right. But with increased scrutiny from both corporate and nonprofit watchdogs, we have to make sure we are all doing it the right way all the time.

As always, the consumer will be the ultimate watchdog. The cause formula for success with consumers is very simple: Engage, don't just sell. Educate, don't just market. Find a nonprofit partner that makes sense. And if consumer donations are involved, be open and specific about what they are accomplishing.

In the end, you might just sell some more product, too.

The KFC/White Castle cause debate

There has been quite a debate raging among marketers in general and cause marketers specifically about the KFC pink bucket of chicken program to fight breast cancer and the White Castle hamburger scented candle program to fight autism.

Just trying to say all that with a straight face is difficult. Pink buckets of chicken and hamburger scented candles. Sounds crazy doesn't it? What a great country.

The fact is that I have always maintained that if a company is raising money for a good cause and that money is being truly used to help that cause, then it is a good thing. We are very involved in the breast cancer fight through a number of different programs at Barkley and we can tell everyone with great specificity where those dollars are going in that fight. So two important keys to good cause marketing are that enough money is being raised to really help the cause and we all know specifically what that money is going to do.

There is another side of cause marketing that the KFC/White Castle programs shine a light on and that is creating cause programs that make strategic sense to the brand and to the cause. This is where these programs miss the mark. Simply put, should restaurant chains that have some offerings not always considered to be among the healthiest choices and health related causes become partners? To paraphrase a new ad campaign, probably not.

There is an argument I have heard during this debate which is interesting. If certain food options are known to be less healthy, then at least those companies offering them can offset the problems caused by supporting a health related cause. Strategically, I think this is defensive marketing and does not create the foundation for a long term cause program that builds both the corporate and nonprofit brands. It might be fine for a one off cause promotion, but not for the long haul.

Obviously,restaurant chains are in the business of selling food. It is natural to assume that their food would play a part in a cause program. (Or in White Castle's case, the scent of their food.)  But many of them also have very distinct brand cores and values that could lead them in many different directions for cause programs, not just health related ones. And there are so many non health causes that need support, it would not be difficult to find one that is the right fit for a company.

Sometimes, these debates are what I call "inside baseball." Those of us closest to the firing lines get worked up while consumers at large could care less about strategic cause marketing. I experienced some of that this weekend when I had a handful of friends and family ask me if I had seen that KFC was doing a big promotion supporting breast cancer. Their initial reactions had nothing to do with whether or not it is a strategic fit or even wondering how the money was going to be used.

All they know is that KFC is trying to raise more money than has ever been raised before in one program to fight breast cancer. They will leave the strategic and ethical debate to us. Could be a lesson there somewhere. 

Cause keeps on ticking

The 2009 edition of the PRWeek/Barkley Cause Survey released this week sends a clear message that cause branding programs work even in tough economic times.

That's good news for all of us who believe that cause programs are one of the single best ways for a brand to create permanent connections with their customers. And good for non-profits who are hit hard by the economy and need new, effective ways to gain dollars and volunteers for their missions.

You can download a copy of the 2009 survey at the Barkley website. We would love to hear your comments on the findings and the accompanying article featuring some of the most successful cause marketers today.

Cause a Survivor

AdAge asked me to write a column about cause marketing and branding in a tough economy.  Here it is. Please join the discussion.

Marketing's True Survivor

Why Advertisers Should Turn to Cause Strategies When Times Are Tough

Posted by Mike Swenson on 07.29.09 @ 11:45 AM

       

Mike Swenson

When times are tough, cause marketing can make all the difference in a client's marketing strategy. Mike Swenson, exec VP-chief marketing officer of Kansas City, Mo.-based Barkley, tells why.

If you compare our current economic abyss to a game of "Survivor," with marketing programs vying to avoid being voted off the island, it appears we have a winner. Cause-related marketing might just be the true survivor in this economy.

Anecdotal evidence is everywhere. Entire ad campaigns by major brands range from simple hints about the good they are doing for society to entire campaigns centered on causes and giving back. At Barkley, we have two clients that made cuts in their marketing budgets but did not stop the development of cause programs set to launch later this year.

The primary reason is consumer demand. Giving back is part of the consumer mind-set now. A perfect example is a study from Opinion Research Corp. telling us that 76% of consumers are willing to pay more at the cash register for environmentally friendly products. This debunks the perception that consumers will buy green only if it doesn't cost them.

Our most recent Barkley cause survey, done in partnership with PR Week, brings consumer support for cause marketing into even sharper focus when you consider the female consumer. Since women are responsible for more than 80% of all spending, what women want matters to marketers. Two of three women have purchased a brand because it supports a cause they believe in, and three of four have recommended a brand to others for the same reason.

The headlines tell us that philanthropic giving is down during the economic slump. So why is cause marketing surviving? It's simple: As a person's disposable income drops, his or her ability to make philanthropic donations drops as well. Cause marketing provides outlets for consumers of all financial means to give back, since most programs carry a modest level of donation.

Simply stated, cause marketing is surviving in this economy because consumers not only want to give back but also can afford to do it through cause-marketing programs. And since we see the mountain of evidence telling us consumers will reward companies that offer cause-marketing programs, the reasons not to make cause a part of the marketing mix are dwindling.

The benefits are numerous for a brand that commits itself to cause marketing. One of the most important is the internal impact of support for a cause. When consumers put on their employee hats, they want to work for companies that care. Two out of three CMOs Barkley surveyed in late 2008 said their cause programs resulted in improved employee morale and retention. That was especially true for employees in their 20s and 30s.

A second benefit is directly linked to the troubled economy. We all know that value pricing has its limits. A competitor can always undercut a price point. Think of value a different way. A brand can hold steady on some prices when it adds value to the purchase, such as support for a cause. Consumers will be willing to pay a bit more if they know the product they purchased will support a good cause.

With consumers living their lives more and more online today, marketers can offer a year-round cause-marketing presence, thus reinforcing their status as brands that care. It also makes it easier for consumers to engage with the brand. Our client Lee Jeans has experienced this firsthand through Lee National Denim Day, which supports the fight against breast cancer. Denim Day began 14 years ago as a workplace program using traditional methods of marketing and communication to spread the word. Today, the entire program exists online atdenimday.com, where anyone can form a team, make donations and learn new ways to get engaged in this grass-roots cause program.

Finally, brands engaging in cause marketing can fill a big need in today's economy. Nonprofits are being hit hard right now, which means the people they serve are being hit harder. Nonprofits are being squeezed from all sides. They have less help from government, foundations, direct donations and volunteers.

Combine that with the fact that companies today are searching for any edge they can find to drive business and grow their brands, and it will bring you to a simple conclusion: Cause marketing will give a brand the edge it is looking for and will help the nonprofits collect much-needed dollars to support their missions.

Brand marketers need to ask themselves a question right now: If your best customer asks you what you stand for, do you have an answer? Cause marketing will help give you that answer.

Cause takes Windy City by storm

The Cause Marketing Forum circa 2008 is in full swing in Chicago.  Barkley hosted the opening reception last night.  Our theme was a 'Cause Art Gallery' and in addition to a few highlighted causes, Kansas City artist Mike Savage came along with us and produced a stunning cityscape of the Chicago skyline which has been donated to the Chicago Children's Museum for them to auction off and raise money for their worthy cause.

There were many great presentations today.  One that stood out in my mind was the peek behind the curtain of the great campaign being rolled out by St. Jude Children's Hospital.  Behind the networking and celebrity power of Marlo Thomas, St. Jude utilizes all aspects of marketing communications to raise awareness and money for their cause.  An important dynamic of their campaign is the utilization of other celebrities that could be the precursor for transitioning from one face and voice to many faces and voices.

McDonald's was given the Golden Halo Award this year.  It's interesting to note that the Ronald McDonald Charities are a separate organization from McDonald's and in fact, the company supplies only ten percent of the funding for the Charities.  But the power of a brand name makes up for actual cash in a case like this.

I had to leave for a flight to the west coast before the final presentation of the day about Dove's Real Beauty campaign.  Stacie Bright of Unilever, who was part of our Barkley/PRWeek Cause Roundtable last fall, is speaking far and wide about this groundbreaking cause campaign.  It's a great example of how cause is changing from the days of transactional cause fund raising to a deeper program driving social change.

It was great to catch up with people who I have come to know over the years in the cause arena.  It's always good to see Carol Cone who paved the way for all of us in cause.  I also finally met Joe Waters, a fellow cause blogger over at Selfish Giving.  We have commented on each other's ideas, pointed to each other's posts over the past couple of years but had never met.  Joe presented a breakout today on the great Halloween Town program he and his team run at Boston Medical Center.  Joe is a great cause ambassador and a guy who practices what he preaches every day.

This was a special CMF because we used it at Barkley PR as our annual retreat.  We had almost all our partners from the PR firm with us in Chicago.  It was a great opportunity for all our pros to interact with other cause marketers and also see that the work they do each day at Barkley is part of something bigger than just our programs.

2007 PRWeek/Barkley Cause Survey

This week's edition of PRWeek has the 2007 edition of the Barkley Cause Survey.  This is the third year of our partnership with PRWeek to add to the conversation about cause branding and its growing influence in the world today.  This year, we conducted a roundtable discussion featuring cause leaders from agencies, corporations, non-profits and the media.

You can download a pdf of the PRWeek/Barkley Cause Survey here or if that doesn't work, go to the Barkley website.

I'm on the road this week, but will comment more in the coming days on what we learned and what we think it means.  One thing we know for sure is that cause is not going away.  It continues to gain stature as an authentic way for companies to give back; for non-profits to grow their missions; and, for we as consumers to get engaged in the things that make a difference to us.

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. 

It's not about spin

It seems to have died down a bit of late, but from time to time those of us in the realm of public relations are referred to as spin doctors.  It implies of course that what we do for a living is to take a fact and twist it into something to serve a particular agenda.  It happens, to be sure, but just like other lines of work, the wrongdoers are in the minority.

Kami over at Communication Overtones has a nice post that serves as a good reminder to us in the biz of what we should focus on each and every day.  And it will give those not in our world a clear picture of what good public relations is all about.

Kami is right about one thing.  Good public relations is about courage.  We have all had those moments when we are faced with a tough decision.  Do we simply go along with what our client or our boss wants to do - OR - if we believe their actions or words are wrong and will do harm to their reputation or that of the organization - do we stand up and say so? 

It's a good challenge for all of us in public relations.  For that matter, it's a good challenge regardless of what you do for a living.  After all, we all need to take responsibility for our own reputations and that of our organizations. 

What will you do?

What say Bernays?

One of my colleagues at Barkley, Jeff Risley, wrote this piece for our weekly email newsletter.  He suggests correctly that Mr. Bernays may not recognize the profession of public relations today.

The fact is that public relations today is remarkably different than it was 25 years ago when I first crossed the line from broadcast journalist to gubernatorial press secretary and eventually to public relations professional.  We could hang all the changes on the hook of technology, but honestly that would be a cop out.  Technology has hastened the changes we see today in our profession, but that isn't the real change.

The real change today is the recognition that people are no longer simply consumers of information.  They are using information to determine how best to engage in their world today.  They see through any attempt to manipulate information to persuade them to take action.  Television and radio advertising are today more forms of entertainment than they are movers of products and services.  And that isn't a bad thing.  Many times today, the commercials are more entertaining than the programming they sponsor.

We still love to open our mail, but we throw away that which doesn't catch our attention on the outside of the envelope.  We are bombarded with commercial messages when we turn our computers on each day.  Again, they entertain us and that can be a good thing.

So we are left to figure out how to get a simple and effective message out to those pesky consumers.  Old fashioned media relations is not the answer any longer.  We all put our own methods of news gathering together via computer, Tivo, mobile phone, blackberry etc. 

Paraphrasing Mr. Bernays, "it is not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?”

And isn't that why we come to work each day now?  Because the playing field we get to play on is vast and more different than ever before.  The things that once worked work no longer.  And that is exciting.  What do you think?