Some consider Benjamin Rogovy a humanist and others call him a philanthropist. In 2005, at the age of 22, Benjamin became president and chief economist of Front Door Enterprises. Based out of Seattle, his website Bumvertising.com arms “bums” with a laminated sign created by Rogovy to be attached to their existing sings. The catch? The signs by Rogovy will advertise a company. At the moment they are advertising for Strategicdomination.com, a web based, real time game of virtual global conquest. Suddenly through Rogovy’s eye, his street teams of working “bums” have somehow recovered a part of their long, lost, human dignity, thanks to his divine intervention! They have another mission statement attached to their need to survive.

In spite of the flow of good feelings, Rogovy as an entrepreneur did not forget to pick the “bums” that have the best corners to advertise for his clients. What about the others? Are they ostracized, or simply not worthy the attention? Does his “generous” move respond to the needs of society? If you are strategically posted, in high volume traffic for eight hours a day, you could become part of Rogovy’s team. The amount earned by each “bum” is not disclosed, but they do freely speak about the water and food provided. Videotaped, and photographed, the “bums” reach glory, they have a face, a nickname, they have a life believe it or not!

As a well-bred young entrepreneur in the service of his clients, Rogovy doesn’t omit to enumerate all the brands that are given to his little soldiers as a snack when he refers to the deployment of his pawns in this chess game known as life! Right Ben?

In times of economic devastation, the numbers of homeless people begin a steady incline. Help is always welcomed in any way it can be given, but Rogovy’s living advertising signs, seem to become even more deeply entrenched in their respective street corners. Water and food are vital components to the sustainability of life, but whether the quality of life is truly raised through bumvertising.com is yet to be seen. The ‘bums” at the heart of this new advertising campaign, confess no ill feelings towards the opportunity presented to them as they talk to Rogovy’s cameras. You’ll find their profiles posted on the website, each holding up their respective, handmade signs with a small part of their story and a plea. Something in me cringes, and shies away awkwardly from the idea that a corporation whose claim to fame is a game of world dominion, is advertising on the lives of those who seek to simply survive. Maybe the website will bring awareness. Perhaps some motorists will give a little more, as they are reminded of the game they enjoyed playing in the comfort of a warm home last night.

Bumvertising.com is another example of how to sell your company through altruism, where the cause marketing speaks louder in the name of the company, than the cause! Well maneuvered! I guess the poker player experience is to be considered in his choice of strategy! Is he a bluffer or a risky maverick? Your turn to play!

The last Virgin campaign “Virgin Mobile” raises skepticism on the adequacy between the product of a company and its messaging. The product, nothing but Virgin cellphones, its cause marketing messaging “Someone out there needs clothes more than you.”

In its original campaign “Strip2Clothe”, Virgin challenged anyone to undress front of a video camera and to post the video. Each video donated one cloth to a nonprofit organization. It worked well until morality caught up with the free-spirited. Catholic oriented charities groups saw outrage in what was originally fun. Since, charity groups disengaged their image from Virgin branding.

What does such behavior display? The limits of cause marketing? Of cause marketing partnership? Or simply societies’ values? It undeniably redefines priorities, what is more important to the eyes of charity organizations, a reputation that was not tarnished or the possible media and economic repercussions of such event? I guess their image only prevails! What about the ones at the bottom of the ladder, then?

As Virgin achieved a net positive, as videos flooded the site, as 15,000 clothes were donated within a week, what would be an unsuccessful campaign? And in a competitive market isnt’ it companies’ key role to be noticeable?

Those words being said, Virgin did not resist the censorship epidemy, it had to comply and renamed its campaign “Blank2Clothe”, the end is the same but the means changed.

I’m surprised that Branson who usually shakes up the earth and makes waves wherever he goes, did not stick to his personnality, that is to say audacious.

As any influential brand-named companies, the UN under the authority of Ban Ki-moon (former diplomat) jumped in the band wagon by asking Rajiv Dingra, founder and executive of WATConsult to implement their Millennium Campaign which audacious ambition is to eradicate poverty from the surface of the planet by 2015. The platform of execution of the project will principally be concentrated in South Asia. On that special subject, is there a correlation between the nationality of the Secretary-General and the delegation of the execution of the work to companies in South Asia? As Kofi Annan privileged Africa, will Ban Ki-moon give the advantage to the southeast region uniquely?

The objective of this new approach of online grand scale campaign is to develop the awareness to the cause. The target, all the stars of social networking that I won’t quote (enough of advertising them!). The core audience, the youngsters and the bloggers (who will be rewarded for their nice participation). Tell me that I’m not dreaming… What is this circus, all about? To shake our empty brains and full stomachs? Through video sharing??? To put guilt in our conscious whereas at the end of the day, erverything will be forgotten…

So far famines, poverty are not a new worldwide phenomenon!, are they? Did I miss something here?

Rajiv Dingra in his naive attempt to rally good souls to a good cause forgets that punctual actions are as ephemeral as their impact. He proudly trumpets that he gathered ALREADY 13.000 people and expects a million by October. Is it what this campaign aims at?

What about investing directly on viable solutions instead of wasting money for awareness? What about concentrating the capital and the human actions directly to those pockets of poverty? Why not eliminating their debts radically? Why not pairing with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund for appliable solutions? Don’t they dispose of financial powers? What about investing on the long term?…

What are the UN doing? Only gratify us of another day to celebrate or remember: October 17, the Anti Poverty Day! What an accomplishment! Hurry up, the deadline is in 7 years…

So much to do, so little time!

The Cause Marketing Forum’s recent HALO Awards combed through the many marketing campaigns incorporating social causes to award some of the truly effective ones. Target won best print ad, called “Gifts for the Greater Good,” in partnership with the Salvation Army and St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. Sears won best transactional campaign for working with Rebuilding Together for its “Heroes at Home” campaign. Best Environmental/ Wildlife Campaign went to Esurance and Live Earth, for their eco-conscious music events, where carbon-offset programs succeed in making carbon-neutral concerts.

A Cone Millenial Case Study describes the generation born between 1979-2002 as Millennials, and lists some interesting facts about how their social consciousness is effecting their consumer habits.

78% believe companies have the responsibility to make a difference.
83% will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible.
74% are more likely to pay attention to a company’s message when they see that the company has a deep commitment to a cause.
69% consider a company’s social/environmental commitment when deciding where to shop.
89% are likely or very likely to switch from one brand to another (price and quality being equal) if the second brand is associated with a good cause.

Based on this data, companies either have to get with the times, or perish. Mike Hess, specialist in director-global research and marketing strategy for Omnicom Group, NY, suspects cause programs may pay off considerably better than most ad campaigns. According to him, “the coefficient of cause marketing (i.e., the multiplier effect of the first year’s sales lift) may well be higher for cause marketing than your ordinary TV ad because consumers’ emotional connections in equating a cause with a brand may be stronger than the connections forged by other advertising.”

An interesting example is Haagen-Dazs’ campaign to aid the declining honeybee population, for instance. Ads ran from National Geographic to TV spots during 60 Minutes, to Newsweek, directing consumers to helpthehoneybees.com. June 9th will reveal an ad in Newsweek printed on 100% recycled linen paper embedded with flower seeds that consumers can rip out of the magazine and plant, creating more flower food for bees.
These efforts pave the way for a positive response to the unveiling of their new VanillaHoneybee flavor in stores now. So far, the results have surpassed their goals, says a PR spokesperson for Haagan Daas.

The portal is accommodating a willing audience because as an article at ClickZ points out, consumers have grown skeptical about cause marketing. As consumers became more knowledgeable about the causes supported by corporations, the more they saw corporations not meeting all the needs of the cause. So consumers stopped just believing and started taking corporate statements with a grain of salt. Today, brands have to prove they are not only promoting the cause, but also contributing to it. And with a forum devoted to corporate social responsibility, it seems brands can have the opportunity to prove their authenticity.

We like that, here in the jungle.

You bet. Cashing in on a trend? Did someone say TREND? October is Breast Cancer Awareness month and one group urges people to
Think Before You Pink… In some cases, marketing has gone awry, a call for transparency, accountability and less hype.

Below are the critical questions to ask to determine if a particular cause marketing campaign you come across is indeed for real. In other words, before you impulsively buy another pink ribbon wrapped product this month, you are urged to “think before you pink”—and ask these critical six questions:

How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer?

For example, Yoplait donates ten cents for every pink yogurt lid mailed back to the company—it would take four lids just to make up for the price of the stamp. If a company is not giving as much as you think it should, you might choose to give directly to an organization or charity instead.

What is the maximum amount that will be donated?

For instance, Cartier sold a “pink ribbon” watch for $3900, but capped its donation at $30,000 – after the company had sold 10 watches, consumers were no longer contributing to breast cancer causes.

How much money was spent marketing the product?

In a 2005 PR Week article, 3M touted that its 2004 breast cancer awareness effort, involving a 70-foot-tall ribbon made of Post-it Notes in Times Square, reached more than three million people and increased sales 80% over expectations. The article reports that 3M spent $500,000 on the marketing campaign (no actual numbers on profits were released), but only gave a little over half of that amount ($300,000) to the cause.

How are the funds being raised?

Every October, Lee Jeans proclaims a “Lee National Denim Day.” Participating companies allow their employees to wear jeans to work in exchange for a $5 contribution to Lee Jeans, which then sends the money to designated breast cancer organizations. According to its website, Lee donates the “net proceeds” that it has collected. What isn’t clear is how Lee defines net proceeds–e.g., are marketing and administrative costs deducted from funds raised?–or whether the company itself donates any money.

To what breast cancer organization does the money go, and what types of programs does it support?

If research, what kind?
Are they the same studies we’ve been doing for decades that already get enormous financial support, or is it innovative research into the causes of breast cancer that is woefully underfunded?

If services, is it reaching the people who need it most? Campaigns that are not locally focused may siphon funds away from the community and give them to larger programs that are already well funded.

If advocacy and education, do the programs make steps towards ending the epidemic? Programs supporting “breast health awareness” ignore that we are already well aware that cancer is a problem and it’s time to move from awareness to action.

What is the company doing to assure that its products are not contributing to the breast cancer epidemic?

Many companies that raise funds for breast cancer also make products that may be contributing to the epidemic. Is the promotion a golf tournament on a golf course sprayed with pesticides? Is $1 being given each time you test-drive a polluting car, as in BMW’s Ultimate Drive Campaign? Are the products being sold cosmetics containing chemicals linked to breast cancer?

Contribute to a Cause, Not Cause-Marketers

Far too many marketing campaigns exist for it to be possible to trace the threads of profit for each, and it’s difficult to verify whether a promotion is legitimate while you’re standing in the store. Make the best choice you can with the information you have. If you have trouble getting answers or if you feel that a promotion is questionable, write to the company responsible, consider buying a different product, and tell your friends.

Instead of attempting to revolutionize the playing field of a consumer culture, Bono and Shriver are simply playing the game. Assuming that cause marketing will be successful, they are in essence creating a win-win situation wherein the consumer’s emotional response results in a purchase that benefits both large corporations and The Global Fund. But what’s made (Product) RED so successful amidst a sea of other cause marketing agencies is the masterful branding of the (Product) RED brand. With appealing (RED) logos and a traffic-stopping color scheme, a (RED) product is easily identifiable by the contemporary shopper as a symbol of smart, charitable, and trendy spending. The most well-known RED ad campaign is for GAP, which features celebrities wearing t-shirts with prints such as DESI (RED) and EMPOWE (RED).

The choice of celebrity endorsement is initially confusing. Why not show pictures of AIDS patients in Africa? What do celebrities, whose spending habits are even more extravagant than the average American consumer, have to do with providing medical care to an impoverished nation? The answer is reasonably simple. For one thing, the average American consumer doesn’t want to look at AIDS patients dying in Africa. It’s depressing, and it makes them feel guilty. Celebrities have the opposite effect–they make consumers feel envious. So when America’s favorite faces are smiling from the covers of glossy magazines wearing Gap (RED) t-shirts, it solves two problems; consumer guilt is alleviated because they feel their luxury spending is making a difference, and superstar envy disappears because shoppers feel unified with celebrities in the fight against AIDS. The message is resoundingly positive–Famous people are talking to you! And they’re saying “You are a good person! Your life makes a difference, and you can make this this difference by spending your money! On products you’d be buying anyway!”

Congratulations, consumer. Stephen Spielberg has just let you off the hook.

However, feeling good isn’t always the obvious intention or outward trait. Now, let’s look The Liz Claiborne’s public information campaign called “Women’s Work” focused on ending domestic violence. The creators of the campaign, Burns Sowder Arts Advisory are cultural entrepreneurs that are committed to the development of new audiences through innovative communication strategies including cultural initiatives and utilizing cause marketing techniques. Below is the description of the intention behind Women’s Work from their site:

(***on a side note, I am a huge Barbara Kruger fan, so the visual impact for me was stunning.)

“A national public information campaign to end domestic violence, Women’s Work combined strategic philanthropy and cause marketing to enhance Liz Claiborne’s relevance to its evolving target audiences, including consumers, retail customers, the media and the larger community.

Women’s Work positioned the company on the front lines of an issue critical to its market through a process of commissioning internationally recognized artists to create provocative imagery for billboards, bus stops, posters, TV and radio spots, and products for sale at retail. Strategic collaborations with retail, political, media and community partners like Saks Fifth Avenue, Senator Barbara Boxer, MTV networks and the national consortium of DV agencies, extended the reach and impact of the program to unprecedented levels.

The initiative generated overwhelmingly positive media response and heightened levels of consumer and customer loyalty for Liz Claiborne, Inc. Women’s Work also helped raise significant funds for domestic violence programs by supporting existing activist networks, through donating a portion of retail sales proceeds, and by encouraging support from Claiborne’s corporate peers nationally.”

So it seems that the human experience is a bit more complicated. Even though the idea of domestic violence is not a positive or warm fuzzy feeling, the idea of standing up for a noble cause is respectable. As the article pointed out, brand loyalty and publicity are 2 of the byproducts of this effort.

Simple formula? Sure! Far reaching results. You bet…. But “for whom and what are those benefits?” you may ask.

Organizations that associate themselves with causes receive the benefits through that association creating an emotional link between the two. In other words,combining a brand name with the good feelings surrounding a specific cause, can create an emotional bond or charge. You can you see the benefits from this example: Say you are hungry, simply want to fulfill the functional aspect of feeding your hunger. You aren’t particularly desiring a formal dining experience, rather good wholesome food. You are in the midst of making a decision of where to eat, and a light bulb goes off in your head. You remember the comfortable casual family run hamburger joint on the corner. A light flashes…..Perfect! Your mind drifts to the poorly framed photograph of the local little league team they sponsor on the wall. Next your remember the kids smiling faces, the time you spent looking at each face wondering what each of them will be when they grow up. You are reminded of dreams and possibilities and the wonderment of youth. Whatever or where ever it takes you, it’s pleasant. You suddenly are really craving that cheeseburger and fries plate you had there last time…. a wholesome meal, pleasant experience and a friendly retreat. Yeah, that’s what you are going to do, where you are going to eat.

In other words, the perfect art of combining emotion with a buying decision. Yeah, kinda like that.

Next, let’s look at this phenomenon on a much larger scale.

The term “Cause Marketing” was originally attributed to a campaign created by American Express in 1983 that linked card use with raising money and awareness for the local charity, which happened to be the Statue of Liberty. (how’s that for brand POP!) Using the model discussed above, here’s inspiration this campaign:

When you think of American Express, primarily one thinks of the functional benefits of using the card, including convenience, purchasing power, prestige, trust, etc. (Actually the more I think of the American Express brand, I realize they really aren’t the best example since the overall brand perception has been diluted through adding too many product offerings in the past years, but that’s a topic better left for another posting) So in 1983, American Express launched a campaign targeted to both the end costumer and the vendor that accepted American Express card. The idea behind the campaign was to increase card use. For every dollar spent using the card, AMEX would donate 1¢ towards the charity. The campaign itself helped promote the local business while proceeds were raised for the Statue of Liberty Restoration project at the same time. (Win – Win, and brilliant!)  This campaign combined the functional benefits of using American Express’ service (making a purchase the Amex charge card) and the emotional benefit of contributing to a noble and patriotic cause. FEEL GOOD while SPENDING MONEY (=making purchases with the American Express card) Not only was there measurable and trackable results, there was the added bonus of penetrating American Express card holders (the end users) with a good emotional feeling, associated with their product. Delivering an emotional benefits to a customer is actually the goal in this case.

Using this strategy to position, promote and associate a brand with a charitable cause for a common advantage is growing evermore popular. Thus, cause marketing is a type of thoughtful promotion tool involving the mutual labors of a business and a non-profit union for mutual gain. However, the benefits dig much deeper.