Skip to main content

An Exploitive Cause-Related Marketing Campaign

In the September 2008 issue of Cookie magazine, a kind of parenting magazine for mothers who can still fit in their skinny jeans, I came across this small ad from the upscale retailer Lord and Taylor on behalf of a new charity called Cookies for Kids’ Cancer.

The headline reads “Buy a Cookie, Save a Life.’

My reaction was, “Oh no they just didn’t!”

The ad was one of seven on a single page; the kind the sales staff bundles together and sells for a bargain rate. So I automatically assumed that maybe Cookie magazine had put it together. After all, no charity would dare suggest that the purchase of a $3 cookie would actually save a human life. It’s exploitive and, well, a lie. And, critics be damned, cause-related marketing is not about lying.

So I double-checked the Lord and Taylor website and listed on Sept 13 for what appears to be each of their stores is the following notice:

BUY A COOKIE, SAVE A LIFE
September is National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. This year, help Lord & Taylor support the launch of the highly anticipated children's charity, Cookies for Kids' Cancer, by stopping by any Lord & Taylor store starting September 13th* and purchasing an all-natural chocolate chip cookie. 100% of each $3 treat goes directly to helping find a cure for pediatric cancers- it's a delicious way to make a difference.

*Event subject to change or cancellation. While supplies last.


OK, maybe Lord and Taylor did this.

So a checked the Cookies for Kids’ Cancer site and found this:
Thank you for visiting! We are busy readying our site for launch and plan
to go live on September 1st. Be ready to get involved! Start thinking about
where you could hold a bake sale! Cookies for Kids' Cancer, along with your
support, will make the letter "C" stand for COOKIES and not cancer.

The campaign is cute enough. There are a few children’s cancer charities out there, but none are nationally prominent in the United States. A new one with a smart mission and good marketing might be able to make good headway. Lord and Taylor is venerable (even ancient) retailer stateside, so a cause relationship with them is a nice coup for a startup charity.

But if Cookies for Kids’ Cancer sanctioned these ads, they’re getting their cause-related marketing off on the wrong foot.

Comments

epsoriwebmaster said…
Someone really decided to put on their thinking cap, great going! It’s fantastic to see people really writing about the important things.
Anonymous said…
Hey,

This is a question for the webmaster/admin here at causerelatedmarketing.blogspot.com.

May I use part of the information from your post right above if I provide a link back to this site?

Thanks,
Daniel
Paul Jones said…
Yes, you may use material from this or any post if you provide a back link.
Anonymous said…
Hello,

I have a message for the webmaster/admin here at causerelatedmarketing.blogspot.com.

May I use some of the information from this post above if I provide a backlink back to your website?

Thanks,
Charlie
Paul Jones said…
Hi Charlie:

You may quote from the post if you include a backlink.


Warm regards,
Paul

Popular posts from this blog

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor