Kevin D. Hendricks

Despite Criticism, (Red) Rocks

Recently I talked about how I work for a cause marketing agency and how much I like the cause marketing concept. So it grates on me a bit when so many people pick on (Product) Red. First it was Buy (Less) Crap. Then AdAge. Now Jason Kottke. They’re all shocked and outraged that the Global Fund (Product Red’s target charity) has only received $18 million.

As I said some of this in my response to Buy (Less) Crap and Brad Abare echoed some more in Quit Picking on (Red), but it just bugs me (here comes a rant).

The point of cause marketing is that everybody wins. You, the consumer, get what you were going to buy anyway. The company involved (in this case Apple, Gap, Converse, Motorola, etc.) gets a boost in being associated with a charity. The cause (in this case the Global Fund) gets a huge awareness boost (had you heard of the Global Fund before Product Red?) and cash donations.

Certainly more cash could be donated if we just gave that money to the Global Fund, but then I wouldn’t have a shirt, Gap wouldn’t have made some money, and nobody would know about the Global Fund. Cause marketing doesn’t give the same infusion of cash as a straight donation, but it’s sustainable.

Just ask the Global Fund executive director:

“I could go with my begging bowl every year to a major corporation and say ‘give me some money,’ and they might give me a one-off contribution, but it wouldn’t be large and it wouldn’t be sustainable,” Global Fund Executive Director Dr. Richard Feachem said. “Red is intrinsically sustainable because Red is good for the companies.”

That’s why (Product) Red is better than just a straight donation from the Gap. They do care about stopping HIV/AIDS in Africa, but a one-time donation is a drop in the bucket. The hope here is that over time (Product) Red can be so many more drops in the bucket–in both cash and awareness–to perhaps add up to a whole bucket.

Consumerism
The biggest critique is that cause marketing is promoting consumerism. I don’t think it’s promoting consumerism so much as tapping into it. It already exists, why not profit from it? Consumerism isn’t to blame on cause marketing. In fact, cause marketing could even help educate the market on what causes are out there and encourage more giving. I’m certainly more aware of it thanks to Product Red.

Consumerism is a whole different battle. I’m all for toning it back. Maybe all the critics should put their money where their mouth is and just give a straight donation to the Global Fund.

I’ll Buy It Anyway
The greatest argument for cause marketing in my book is that I’m going to buy the stuff anyway (OK, not the $65 Gap hoodie–I don’t think I could ever spend that on a torn hoodie). My wife wanted an iPod Nano anyway and was going to get one. So why not buy the one that also gives $10 to the Global Fund? I’m going to buy music on iTunes anyway, so why not buy the iTunes card that donates 10% to the Global Fund? I’m buying a cell phone anyway, why not get the Product Red Motorola (unfortunately, I joined the cell phone world six months too early).

Everybody wins. That’s where Product Red rocks.

It’s not meant to be a huge cash windfall for the non-profit involved. Sure, there should be a nice chunk of change, but it’s about so much more than just the donation.

And if all the Product Red hubub didn’t happen, where would the Global Fund be? $18 million poorer, I imagine.

Update: And now some response from people smarter than I, including Joe Waters at Selfish Giving and Kaya’s Non-Profit Marketing Blog, which has a Q&A with both the Buy (Less) Crap folks and (Product) Red. One striking fact all the reporting has left out: “The [$18 million donated to the Global Fund from Product Red so far] is four times more than the private sector has contributed to the Global Fund since the Fund was founded in 2002.” And that was raised in a single year. From the Global Fund’s perpsective I think that means Product Red is a win.