Skip to main content

Puma Project Pink, Feel Free Not to Repeat in 2013

Today is the last day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month 2012 and I devote this final pink ribbon post to Project Pink, from Puma, the shoe and apparel company.

Project Pink is a contest of the sort made popular American Express’s Member’s Project and Pepsi Refresh. That is, causes nominate themselves to receive a large cash prize then rally their supporters to vote them through the rounds, usually via social media.

Beginning on July 6, 2012, Puma accepted nominations for a single prize worth as much as $120,000. The donation was based on the profits from the sale of Project Pink merchandise, mainly branded shorts and t-shirts, and by the number of tweets with a promotional hashtag. Promotion extensions included a celebrity soccer match with actor/singer Ashley Tisdale.

Project Pink had a verification phase in September and the voting began on Sept 24 and ended on October 5, 2012. Puma announced the winner earlier this month; the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation.

I never really liked these kinds of cause marketing efforts, notwithstanding the fact that they can generate crazy social media exposure for the causes involved. But as they keep cropping up, I’ve begun to actively dislike them.

First off, I loathe the idea of pitting charities against each other for a public vote. Every adult knows that Komen and the pink ribbon charities compete fiercely against each other for supporters, racers, sponsors, etc. But there’s especially naked about the way that competition takes place in these kinds of contests.

People would like to believe that charities and causes can work together to improve society and the world. You and I know that’s sometimes naïve, but that doesn’t mean we have to put the competition between causes in such sharp relief. 

Second, these contests have had a real problem with people gaming them, notably Pepsi Refresh.

Third, the phase where the public votes can turn into the most desperate kind of beg-a-thon. Charities send out ever more fraught communications to their supporters trying to get out the vote.

Fourth, like all cause marketing, these contests favor causes that know how to position themselves before the public and have existing large networks of supporters.

It ends up being a very public demonstration of the ‘Matthew Effect.’ The Matthew Effect is drawn from Matthew 25:29 in the New Testament: “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” In application it means that the rich tend to get richer and the poor tend to get poorer. Think about it. Two pink ribbon causes both have good, if different ideas, about how to spend the Project Pink money. Only one of the organizations also has a database of 150,000 names and the capability of easily reaching out to them. Which pink ribbon charity is likely to get more votes?

I genuinely hope Project Pink didn’t meet Puma’s goals so that they don’t feel compelled to repeat it.

Comments

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