I'm a big fan of cause related marketing. The first example I encountered was a campaign launched by American Express themed "Charge Against Hunger." The idea was simple. It begins with the premise that most people have multiple cards in their wallet and can usually make a choice about what card to use when dining out. The program was also timed to run around the Christmas holidays when people are generally in a charitable mood. The promotion suggested that consumers use their American Express Card when dining out around the holidays ... and a portion of the charge would go to programs that fight hunger. Brilliant. It made the consumer feel good. It prompted the consumer to use the American Express card instead of Visa, MasterCard or Diners. And hunger related charities benefited from donations that the American Express consumer funded. AMEX got some great publicity as well as a bump in card use.
Using AMEX as an example, Hawaii Pizza Hut developed a cause related marketing program called "Carryout for Literacy." When Little Caesars entered the Hawaii market with cheap (two-for-one) carryout pizza, Pizza Hut's carryout business took a big hit. The strategic question was ... how to offer a deal on carryout pizza without lowering the price on their dine in and carryout business. The solution was to require the consumer to qualify for a lower (buy-one-get-one-free) carryout offer by purchasing a $10 card. The promotion morphed into a cause related marketing program when Hawaii Pizza Hut designated literacy programs as the recipients of the revenues from the card purchase. The outcome was a competitive price for Pizza Hut's carryout pizza ... a wealth of positive publicity for the company ... and literacy programs which were the beneficiaries of about $300,000 in charitable gifts per year generated by the program.
Both of these promotions were models of the cause related marketing concept. And both of them based their corporate philanthropy on non-controversial, "motherhood" causes: hunger and literacy. 
Recently, some cause related marketing programs have sprung up which are based on more controversial topics. Chick Fil A, reported to be the tenth largest fast food operator in the US, made headlines when it was publicized that it provided substantial financial support to organizations opposed to gay marriage. The company has long been known as an institution that operates in part on religious principles (its stores are closed on Sunday, for example ... and the annual Chick Fil A bowl game begins with an invocation because of a stipulation by the sponsor). The publicity around the gay marriage issue touched a nerve, however, with results the reflect the polarity of the gay marriage debate. Supporters of Chick Fil A's anti-gay-marriage stance formed long lines at the restaurant to show their support for the company and its stance. At the same time, protesters appeared at company stores with protest signs. Caught in the middle were Chick Fil A franchisees who didn't necessarily embrace the company's views on the subject.
The first amendment guarantees the right of free speech - even to corporations. This right was reinforced by the recent "Citizens United" case.
But apart from the issue of free speech and corporate rights, I have to wonder whether this trend is good marketing.
I'm a fan of cause related marketing, but I think it makes marketing sense to keep the causes broad-based and non-controversial to ensure maximum consumer buy-in. It seems to me that motherhood makes good strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment