I've come across two recent articles that discuss whether making a profit is somehow incompatible with cause marketing, or even if nonprofits should get involved with for-profit companies to
support what seem to be mutually advantageous goals. The Sierra Club has come under fire from some of its members, for example, for promoting the Clorox Green Works line
in return for a cut of the profits.
The Triple Pundit blog interviews Joe Waters, director of Cause Marketing
for Boston Medical Center and founder of Six Figure Cause Marketing, who says the best businesses for cause marketing are retail, dining and consumer products because the money usually comes from
point-of-sale or percentage-of-sale programs. You need two things for success, he says: "lots of locations (think Subway, Target) and, ideally, lots of foot traffic (think Starbucks,
Krogers)."
Waters cites Starbucks' RED campaign as an exemplar of a campaign that's paving the way to a society where social change is funded through ongoing
cause-related activities. "The recipe for cause-marketing success is simple," he says. "A pound of self-interest and a teaspoon of idealism. Measure carefully. The change adds up."
In a Christmas Day op-ed column in the
Times, Nicolas D. Kristof confessed his ambivalence toward the admixture of business and profits. In looking at Dan Pallotta's new
book,
Uncharitable, How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential,
he asks the question: "If a businessman rakes in a hefty profit while doing good works, is that charity or greed? Do we applaud or hiss?" Kristof concludes, in a column worth a full read:
"In the war on poverty, there is room for all kinds of organizations."
advertisement
advertisement
;
Read the whole story at Triple Pundit, New York Times »