Skip to main content

Asymmetry in Cause Marketing

Research shows that when there is asymmetry in cause marketing between the sponsors and the cause, the entity that gains the most from the relationship is the smaller brand.

But there’s an asymmetry continuum of sorts.

For instance, when Yoplait yogurt and Susan G. Komen for the Cure link up, the brands which are arguably equivalent in their respective spheres, the benefits confer symmetrically.

Same when Weight Watchers and Share Our Strength tie in together.

So what happens when l’Oreal hooks up with the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, as it did earlier this year with a cosmetics bag campaign? Or like Jiffy Lube does in my home state of Utah, when it does a holiday season cause marketing campaign benefiting the Utah Food Bank?

In such cases, the causes benefit disproportionately thanks to their association with the better known brands.

Does the obverse hold true? That is, can a sponsor benefit asymmetrically from an association with a better-known nonprofit brand?

Yes it can. For instance, the retailer Ashley Furniture benefited asymmetrically when it did a campaign for Habitat for Humanity earlier this year.

But that’s not at work here with this campaign from Iams benefiting Home 4 the Holidays pet adoption drive from the Helen Woodward Animal Center. The Woodward Center created the pet adoption drive in 1999. Last year more than 1.2 million pets were adopted in the effort.

Two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank…whose movie Amelia just came out… is the campaign’s spokesperson.

In addition to the Home 4 the Holidays pet adoption drive, the Woodward Center, founded in 1972, teaches personnel from animal shelters around the globe how best to save animal lives. As a result, the Woodward Center has a larger ‘footprint’ than just the 12 acres it sits on in Rancho Santa Fe, California.

Nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that Iams is the better-known brand than the Woodward Center. In my estimation the Woodward Center benefits asymmetrically in this sponsorship.

So why would Proctor & Gamble, which owns Iams and is a very savvy cause marketer, do this deal?

I expect there are several reasons:
  • The Home 4 the Holidays pet adoption drive touches a lot of pet owners. Woodward says it’s more than 3 million. Some portion will be new pet owners. That is, people who haven’t already established their pet food preferences.
  • Hillary Swank’s involvement certainly smoothes the way. Remember Swank has as many Oscars as Meryl Streep (if less nominations) and she’s very attractive in addition to being very talented and well-liked.
  • Home 4 the Holidays is a classic feel-good and there’s nothing negative about pet adoption.
  • Also, because of its non-sectarian approach, Home 4 the Holidays can cross boundaries that other pet adoption drives can’t.
  • Finally Home 4 the Holidays is an international effort, and Proctor & Gamble epitomizes the modern multi-national corporation.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
3 comments
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more