IN an age where communicating with large numbers of people globally is as easy as getting online, and consumers are used to evaluating not only products or services but also the companies behind them, corporations are finding themselves the target of more criticism than they’ve ever had to deal with.
It’s no surprise, then, that cause-related marketing—something of a buzzword among large companies—is gaining currency as the corporate sector seeks to improve its image.
As many as six out of 10 consumers expect companies to be involved with supporting charitable or community causes. According to Melbourne-based cause-related marketing consultancy Cavill & Co. MD Hailey Cavill, consumers regard good corporate citizenship as a critical part of their buying decision.
Cavill promotes cause-related marketing as a means by which companies can have a strong influence on consumers while making a social contribution and serving a business objective.
One of her clients, South Australia’s Savings & Loans Credit Union supports the Women’s & Children’s Hospital. Savings & Loans reached its target of $1m for the hospital’s emergency services ward 18 months ahead of schedule, through donations the credit union made on the purchase of Visa cards.
“Sales of the credit union’s credit card went through the roof. That’s a real indication people have taken this up,” Cavill says.
The success of the joint venture won a State Premier’s award for Excellence in community business partnerships.
But not all cause-related partnerships receive applause.
Communications manager of the Banksia Environmental Foundation—which holds awards recognising companies efforts in the area of environmental sustainability—Graz Vaneqmond says several organisations are reluctant to promote their support of a cause “because they are scared some groups will jump on them”.
Qantas promoted its ‘green’ image in October 2002 in full-page ads in newspaper-inserted magazines The Good Weekend and The Weekend Australian Magazine. Behind the scenes, a political battle erupted.
The ads featured a flight attendant in a lush forest with the caption, “We have an on-board commitment to recycling”.
At the same time, a billboard funded by The Wilderness Society, Planet Ark and the World Wide Fund for Nature, was placed in a high-profile location inside Qantas’ domestic terminal at Sydney Airport. The billboard protested logging activities in Tasmanian forests.
Within 12 hours, Qantas removed the poster, claiming it did not allow political advertising in its terminals. An ABC news report claimed the billboard was removed following a request from Tasmanian Premier Jim Bacon—a fact which was strenuously denied by Qantas.
Planet Ark managing director John Dee was outraged. “You can’t claim you care about forests on one hand, and on the other claim that a campaign launched by the three biggest conservation groups in the country is too political,” he says.
The incident prompted the Greens to request a copy of Qantas’ guidelines on terminal advertising in an obvious attempt to prove there existed no such injunction against political advertising.
Companies need to recognise consumers are aware that there’s self-interest involved and this breeds some cynicism.
The Farmhand appeal for drought-stricken farmers launched last year by a coalition of media and big business interests, came under heavy criticism from some media for the links to Telstra, which needs to address the issue of services in the bush before it will be fully-privatised.
Sydney-based cause-related marketing consultant Lisa Miller, director of Mad Dog Marketing, is well aware of the pitfalls of corporate sponsorship.
Miller believes there are too many companies that “go for the quick fix” by “whacking a logo on a product because it’s trendy”.
“A cause-related partnership is like a marriage, it’s not a one-night stand,” she says, referring to companies that sponsor “trends that move” in an attempt to gain advantage over their competitors.
For cause-related marketing to work well, Miller believes companies should differentiate themselves from competitors by “owning” distinct areas.
In the fashion industry, for example, both Jigsaw and Witchery support Ovarian Cancer research. Miller points out Witchery initially campaigned for breast cancer awareness. By adopting ovarian cancer as a cause, she believes the fashion retailer has confused its customer base.
In the financial services sector, there is enormous pressure to display social responsibility but Miller believes banks are relatively savvy at differentiating themselves from competitors.
Corporate sponsorship is still a relatively new area of public affairs, and new lessons have to be learned, according to practitioners. With 42% of Australian corporations and major organisations involved in cause-related marketing, ultimately Miller stresses, “It’s not about [feeling] warm and fluffy”.
Cavill agrees. ”If it’s nice, warm, fuzzy feelings you are after,” she says, “you are wasting your company’s money.”
Cavill believes the success of a cause-related partnership lies in both parties being clear and up-front about what they want to achieve from an alliance.
“There has to be a primary objective and it needs to be measurable,” she says.
Cavill also advises a cause must fit a company’s person-ality in order to reach its customer base. A shoe manufacturer, for example, is unlikely to identify with its target market by sponsoring epilepsy as a cause.
Finally, Cavill says, a com-pany’s partnership with a cause must be communicated correctly.
“People aren’t interested in money. They are interested in what difference is being made to the world around them.”
