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

Chili’s and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

I was in Chili’s today and I ordered their “Triple-Dipper,” a three appetizer combo. While I waited for the food, I noticed another kind of combo. Chili’s is doing a full-featured cause-related marketing campaign for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. There was a four-sided laminated table tent outlining the campaign on the table. When the waitress brought the drinks she slapped down Chili’s trademark square paper beverage coasters and on them was a call to action for an element of the campaign called ‘Create-A-Pepper,’ a kind of paper icon campaign. The wait staff was all attired in black shirts co-branded with Chili’s and St. Jude. The Create-A-Pepper paper icon could be found in a stack behind the hostess area. The Peppers are outlines of Chili’s iconic logo meant to be colored. I paid $1 for mine, but they would have taken $5, $10, or more. The crayons, too, were co-branded with the ‘Create-A-Pepper’ and St. Jude’s logos. There’s also creatapepper.com, a microsite, but again wi...

Part 2: How Chili's Used Cause-Related Marketing to Raise $8.2 million for St. Jude

[Bloggers Note: In this second half of this post I discuss the nuts and bolts of how Chili's motivates support from its employees and managers and how St. Jude 'activates' support from Chili's. Read the first half here.] How does St. Jude motivate support from Chili’s front line employees and management alike? They call it ‘activation’ and they do so by the following: They share stories of St. Jude patients who were sick and got better thanks to the services they received at the hospital. Two stories in particular are personal for Chili’s staff. A Chili’s bartender in El Dorado Hills, California named Jeff Eagles has a younger brother who was treated at St. Jude. In both 2005 and 2006 Eagles was the campaign’s biggest individual fundraiser. John Griffin, a manager at the Chili’s in Conway, Arkansas had an infant daughter who was treated for retinoblastoma at St. Jude. They drew on the support Doug Brooks… the president and CEO of Brinker International, Chili’s parent co...

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...