http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17613550/site/newsweek/
Does Shopping for a Good Cause Really Help?
Socially conscious marketing campaigns like Bono's 'shop for AIDS' are all the rage. But can shopping solve the world's problems?
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jessica Bennett
Newsweek
Updated: 3:29 p.m. ET March 14, 2007
March 14, 2007 - When Ben Davis created buylesscrap.org, a quirky parody of Bono’s (Red) campaign, he thought he’d get a few laughs out of his San Francisco designer friends. But since it launched two weeks ago, the site has received thousands of hits, hundreds of blog mentions—and has raised some very real questions about the spending practices and intentions of “cause marketing” campaigns like Red, which funnel a percentage of profits from the sale of consumer goods to charity. “A part of me was thinking long term about buying as a way to cure things, and feeling that was a bit manipulative,” says Davis, who runs a creative marketing firm. “I think I put a voice to what many people were feeling.”
Davis and his friends aren’t the only ones questioning the “shopping to help charity” trend. An article in Advertising Age last week reported that since the campaign launched in the U.K. last March, its corporate sponsors (which include the Gap, Motorola and Apple, among others) have spent some $100 million on marketing but raised just $18 million for the Geneva-based Global Fund—one fifth less than a previously projected goal. Red has since replaced that $18 million figure with $25 million, and called the marketing numbers (derived from independent analysts) “irresponsible journalism,” as Red cofounder Bobby Shriver told NEWSWEEK. AdAge, meanwhile, stands by its story—saying that it derived its marketing total from three different “media experts’ estimates of the marketing partners' outlay on print, TV, billboard and Internet ads, as well as the cost of a content-integration deal, in-store marketing materials and a pop-up store used by one of the partners.”
Whatever the advertising figure (and Red is quick to point out it’s substantially less), the debate over Red’s model is bound to come up as a growing population of consumers try to help others while helping themselves to new T shirts and iPods. Activism is the new chic, and we, the consumers, have become the new activists—saving the world one credit-card transaction at a time. Cause marketing is a multibillion-dollar industry today (estimated to clock in at $1.4 billion in the United States this year—a growth of 23 percent since 2005, according to a study by the Chicago-based IEG Sponsorship Report), and it has carved out a niche within a group of young consumers who’ve grown accustomed to shopping for a cure. Ben & Jerry’s American Pie encourages buyers to support its campaign to redistribute the federal budget to focus on children. Sun Chips are crunching for a cure for breast cancer, while Yoplait yogurt is saving lids to save lives—another cancer fund.
A 2006 survey by the marketing firm Cone Inc. found that 74 percent of American 13-to-25-year-olds are more likely to buy from a company with a strong commitment to a cause, while another survey, a collaboration between Cone and Alloy Marketing, found that in the past year, one in four college students has purchased a product because it was viewed as socially conscious. “Done appropriately, cause marketing does well with kids, with women, and with greens," says Paul Jones, a Salt Lake City-based marketing consultant who also authors the Cause-Related Marketing blog. "They think, ‘If I'm already going to buy something, why wouldn't I buy the thing that gives back?’”
But how much are we really giving back? And when did shopping become the best way to help poor children in Africa? The Red folks would argue that any contribution is a good contribution, and that cause marketers are tapping into a group who may not donate otherwise, while also raising general awareness of issues such as AIDS and global poverty. Plus, they say, because corporations are benefiting, too, the product is more sustainable. “It’s not that people say, ‘Oh, I’m feeling charitable today, let me go to the Gap',” says Red’s Shriver. “If you’re feeling charitable, write a check. If you’re feeling like you need a cool shirt, go to the Gap.” So if you need to buy a pair of new sneakers anyway and you have a choice between a pair that helps only the manufacturer’s pockets versus one that gives a percentage to a good cause, why not take the charitable route?
On the other hand, it isn’t easy for consumers to determine the amount of their money going to charity. How much of that $28 for a Red Gap T shirt , for example, is actually making it into clinics and villages? Gap donates between 40 and 50 percent of its gross Red profits to the Global Fund—but that doesn’t necessarily mean that 50 percent of your money is going there. Red won't reveal those numbers, but has an “impact calculator” that lets you see what your money can buy (a $28 shirt provides 41 single-dose treatments to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission). But without knowing how the company calculates profit (after accounting for production, marketing, training, etc.), it’s still unclear how many dollars are actually being sent to the Global Fund. If it’s only 50 cents, would that affect your purchasing decision? “There’s nothing wrong with corporations advertising, and there’s nothing wrong with buying an iPod,” says Randy Cohen, who writes “The Ethicist” column for The New York Times and is author of "The Good, The Bad & The Difference: How to Tell Right from Wrong in Everyday Situations." “But there’s something slightly deceptive if you think this is an effective way to address social problems.” Gap did not return calls seeking comment.
David Crocker, author of “The Ethics of Consumption” and an international development expert at the University of Maryland, says we often don’t realize the power of our purchases—and if we want to weigh the ethics of cause shopping, we must look not only at the quality of a good, but at its impact. That impact, he says, could be anything from environmental waste to poor working conditions. “What we buy and consume and use up and waste has a big impact on the developing world,” he says. “So sometimes I think the responsibility is on the part of citizens to really take an active role [in learning about an item].”
But consumers might be understandably confused by advertising that looks charity-friendly but may not be. In its new ad campaign, Italian designer-denim brand Diesel has stuck a clan of models knee-deep in water on the rooftops of a flooded New York City—an obvious reference to the potential consequences of global warming or some other environmental disaster. The ad doesn’t mention any benefit to environmental groups, though it does provide resources for more information, as well as questionable tips for what you can do (like have sex—to keep you warm and cut down heating bills). A Diesel spokewoman says the campaign is an effort to get people thinking about climate change—and that the company does, in fact, contribute 10 percent of proceeds from a limited line of "wearable art pieces" (called the Diesel Denim Gallery), to Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.
Barbara Brenner, the executive director of Breast Cancer Action, an education and advocacy group whose Think Before You Pink campaign is devoted to helping consumers understand the myriad of pink-ribbon products, sees "a transformation of public participation ... into corporate America. … We’ve been encouraged as a culture to think we can solve problems this way, and there's pretty good evidence that it won't work.”
Corporate America may be damned if they do and damned if they don't; they’ll be criticized for not giving more but then critiqued when they try to find creative ways to do it. For Davis, transparency is key. “Maybe Red is a concept overreached,” says Davis. “I think they’ve lost the faith of the broad sector of the cause-market, and the reaction to [my] very small site has shown that.”
He isn't your typical person, after all.
.
WTG!! U tell them!!
), but most things are fairly reasonable.
