Skip to main content

The Alden Keene Cause Marketing Stock Index Dramatically Outperforms Other Indices

There are stock indexes galore; the Dow, S&P 500, the NASDAQ Composite, the Wilshire 5000, the FTSE, and hundreds more. But how would an index of the stocks of companies that do a meaningful amount of cause marketing perform compared to those well-known indexes? Pretty well, as it turns out.

I first floated the idea of a stock index that would track companies that do cause marketing back in 2009. I tried to figure out Yahoo Pipes so that I could put the feed right into this blog. But alas sometimes the geek gene does fall pretty far from the tree.

So I talked to programmers to see if I could find someone who could do the same, but it was always more than I was willing to pay.

Finally, last week I hired a MBA student to do it all in a spreadsheet, and what do you know but that over the last 15 years a basket of 25 cause marketing stocks dramatically outperforms the Dow, the S&P 500, the NASDAQ Composite, and the Wilshire 5000.

The index, which I call the Alden Keene Cause Marketing Stock Index, or the ‘Keene’ for short, outperformed all those other major indices over the last 15 years. From January 1, 1997 to Jan 1, 2013 the Keene’s total growth rate was 342.21%. The Wilshire 5000 was the best performing of the other indices that we tracked and its total growth rate was 167.68%, less than half the growth of the Keene.

What does that mean in dollars and cents?

Well, if on January 1, 1997 you put $1,000 each into index funds that invest in the Dow, the S&P 500, the NASDAQ Composite, the Wilshire 5000, and the Keene, on January 1, 2013 you would have $2032.18 in your Dow fund, $1925.35 in your S&P fund, $2676.82 in your Wilshire fund, $2392.46 in your NASDAQ fund, and $4422.07 in your Keene fund.

The Keene also trounces the other indices in other time frames as well. These numbers don't include any trading costs and they assume you reinvest all dividends.

I don’t have the beta ratios yet, but in the down years of 2000 and 2001, the Keene lost less money than the other indices in the comparison. In the down years of 2002 and 2008, the Keene lost less money than all but one other of the comparison indices.

Beta is a ratio that gives an indication of how much risk you’re taking on when you buy stock(s).

Not surprisingly, since this is cause marketing we’re talking about, most of the companies face the consumer, like General Mills and Campbell’s. But not all. Deere is in the Keene. So are tech brands Adobe and HP.

The stocks in the Keene index were developed based on two major ‘screens.’ First companies were screened for their commitment to corporate social responsibility, including corporate citizenship, governance, and workplace practices. Then companies were screened for their activity as cause marketers. The result is a concentrated index of the stocks of 25 companies that have a reputation for walking their talk when it comes to CSR and cause marketing. 

And, returning outsized growth to their stockholders!

Comments

David Hessekiel said…
Fascinating Paul -- so when are you going to reveal the list? DH

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