Skip to main content

Another Benefit to Cause Marketing: Better Supplier Pricing

Two professors at the Ohio State University have a new take on the benefits of cause marketing; it helps keep supplier pricing in check.

Their paper, called “A Supply-Side Explanation for the Use of Cause Marketing” by Anil Arya and Brian Mittendorf, starts with the proposition that,
“firm profits under simple(non-strategic) corporate philanthropy wherein the firm pledges a donation amount to charity. The paper then demonstrates that the firm can achieve the same donation level while also cutting supplier costs by tying donations to sales. Such a cause marketing tie-in intrinsically undermines the per-unit profitability of each product by adding a new marginal cost of sales. As such, the cause marketing pledge makes the firm's input demand much more sensitive to supplier pricing. This increased sensitivity to pricing persuades the supplier to charge a lower price so as to boost demand for its input. In effect, by engaging in cause marketing, the firm is able to make the supplier a tacit (even if unwilling) partner in corporate philanthropy.”
In other words, Yoplait must demand the best pricing from its milk and fruit providers because it is donating $0.10 per lid redeemed. Arya and Mittendorf say that even if the cause marketing promotion doesn’t improve sales volume, “the firm’s bottom line is improved by targeted philanthropic activity.”

They also advise companies not to make their cause marketing universal. By sacrificing the profit margin on the product with the cause-marketing tie-in you can run up the margin on other products because of the firm’s overall lower supplier costs. So Campbell’s Labels for Education and General Mills’ Boxtops for Education are probably too broad to benefit from supply side cost savings.

Old gray-haired cause marketers like yours truly always said that cause marketing was especially well-suited for highly competitive markets because it helps firms stand out. But Arya and Mittendorf say that from a supply side point of view, competitive markets have probably already wrung out most of the costs savings out of suppliers. Cause marketing is therefore less likely to help in competitive markets.

There’s a lot of counter thinking here, making the paper an interesting read. I use the term ‘read’ advisedly since I’m not qualified to comment on Arya and Mittendorf’s mathematical model.

But as a gray-haired cause marketer it reminds that cause marketing has long been about power relationships. In the early days of cause marketing, which was dominated by consumer packaged goods (CPG) promotions at retail, stores would give preferred placement to CPG companies that ponied up cash donations to preferred charities. That kind of promotion is less common today. It’s considered unethical by many store chains. But as with Arya and Mittendorf's paper it does show you who has the power.

Comments

David Hessekiel said…
Paul,
At first I was excited to see your write-up of this research, but when I read the paper itself it turned out to be a totally theoretical piece of work with no effort to substantiate the hypothesis with real world examples of better input pricing obtained by cause marketers.
The researchers could have substituted any form of promotion (entertainment tie-in, premium) that increased a marketer's costs and assumed that the marketer would go back to suppliers to demand better input pricing.
Am I missing something?
Paul Jones said…
Hi David:

No, I don't think you're missing something. What the authors did is a fancy thought-experiment, leaving it to others to parse out actual proof.

Thanks for your comment, brother.

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