Opacity, philanthropy, and marketing

I recently read a piece in the Toronto Star that suggests there's a problem with buying stuff a part of the price of which goes to chari...

I recently read a piece in the Toronto Star that suggests there's a problem with buying stuff a part of the price of which goes to charity.  The author makes and excellent point and makes plain a rather disturbing phenomenon, but she doesn't go far enough.

There's a marketing technique, called cause marketing, that gets you to buy stuff because a fraction of the price you pay goes to some worthy charity.  Sounds great: you get something you want, and so does some charity.

But Prof. Aradhna Krishna of University of Michigan has discovered through her research that the more you pay for cause-marketed goods, the less you'll donate directly to the charity itself.  You can see that this can end up actually lowering the total funding available to charities.  This problem is exacerbated by the rather vague and opaque ways that the actual amounts given to charity are described.  In some case, the amount donated can amount to only a few percent of the price you pay for an item.  Basically, you can rarely tell how much of the money you spend to buy, say, a t-shirt will actually go to, say, support breast cancer research.  That opens the door for unscrupulous companies to make more profit by only giving a tiny fraction of the unit price to charity.

While Prof. Krishna explains the phenomenon very well, she doesn't actually propose any easy fixes.  My spidey-design-sense got tingling, and I thought I should offer up some possibilities.

Government regulation.  It makes sense that if food producers are required to tell you how much sodium or fat is in the food you're buying, they could also tell marketers that they have to specify exactly how much money is going to charity per unit sale.  But governments have been very slow in requiring nutritional labelling on food - in fact, labelling is still not as good as it should be.  If we start now, we might expect to address the cause-marketed goods in a couple of decades or more.

Do we really need to wait that long?

Protests to motivate government. The Occupy Wall Street movement seems to be doing rather well.  Perhaps we need to mobilize people to demand that governments act to deal with this matter.

I don't see this happening any time soon.  We don't want to dilute OWS by introducing other goals; OWS has pretty significant goals anyways.  And who's going to hear a few people complaining about abuses in cause marketing, given the din over the gluttony of big banks and insurance companies?

Direct action and communication. This is, given current events, probably the best way forward.  One could put together, rather easily, an online movement that can include facebook, twitter, google+, and other social networks, as well as online petitions via avaaz or change.org, to begin to spread the word.  Find the right few people to champion it, and it will probably take off far faster than any other way.

But what word should one spread on this matter?

Should one advocate for an abolition of cause marketing?  No, of course not.  There are good instances of cause marketing - why should those efforts be eliminated? No, what is needed is a way to deal with the unscrupulous that doesn't unnecessarily hinder the scrupulous.

Governments cannot help.  Scruples are in short supply there generally, and they work at a near glacial pace on any issue that doesn't directly threaten their continued hold of power.  No, governments cannot be expected to work here.

But the grass roots approach could, I think, do the trick.

I think, the message that should be sent out is to boycott companies who do not engage in open and transparent cause marketing.  I think the message must contain the information that people need to spot an opaque cause marketing campaign, and the education to know that there are better ways of getting things done.  Like, for instance, buying a competitor's product that is not cause marketed, but also then giving directly to a charity the amount that you would think should be donated.

The argument is simple: if we boycott those brands who practise opaque cause marketing, but not those who practise it openly and transparently, then we'll actually exert pressure on the marketers to only practise it in an ethical and scrupulous way.  I see that as a win-win situation.

What about you? Have you got any other suggestions for improving how cause marketing is done?



academia activism adaptation admin aesthetics affect ageing AI analogy android anthropology anticipation app architecture art arts Asia assistive technology automobile balance biology biomimetics book branding building built environment business CAD Canada care case cfp change revision children codesign cognition collaboration colonization commercialization commonplacing communication design competition complexity computation computer science computing concept map conference constructivism conversational analysis craft creative arts creativity CSCW culture cybernetics degrowth dementia design design thinking digital digital media digital reproduction digital scholarship disability dissertation drawing economics education effectiveness efficiency emotion engineering environment ergonomics ethics ethnography Evernote evolution exhibition exoskeleton experience experimental studies fail fashion featured film food function modeling futurism gender studies Germany globalization grantsmanship graphic design Greece HCI health heritage history housing human factors humanism identity image inclusivity industrial design informatics information innovation interaction interdisciplinarity interior design internet of things intervention iphone journal journalism language law library life life cycle lifehack literature review logistics luxury making management manufacturing material culture materials mechanics media method migration mobile motion design movie nature new product development Nexus 6 olfaction online open design organization packaging paper participatory design PBL pengate performance PhD philosophy planning policy politics practice predatory preservation prison proceedings productivity project management public space publishing reading Remember The Milk reproduction research resource-limited design reuse review Samsung scholarship science science fiction semiotics senses service design simplicity society sociology software space strategic design student sustainability systems tactile tangibility technology textile theatre theory Toodledo Toronto tourism traffic transhumanism transnationalism transportation tv uncertainty universal design urban usa usability user experience visualization wearable well-being women workshop writing
The Trouble with Normal...: Opacity, philanthropy, and marketing
Opacity, philanthropy, and marketing
The Trouble with Normal...
Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS CONTENT IS PREMIUM Please share to unlock Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy