Business Horizons (2005) 48, 443 453

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang?

Matthew Berglinda, Cheryl Nakatab,*
a

School of Communications, Northwestern University, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
Department of Managerial Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago, MC 243, 601 S. Morgan,
Chicago, IL 60647, USA

KEYWORDS
Cause-related
marketing;
Social responsibility;
Social-ethical issues

Abstract Starbucks, Target, and Nike are just a few of the businesses partnering
today with not-for-profit organizations in cause-related marketing campaigns. These
campaigns are implemented for a dual purpose: on one hand, to raise awareness,
support, and donations for social causes such as global hunger relief, and on the
other, to enhance corporate reputations, customer loyalty, and financial gains for
companies. An example of cause-related marketing is an effort organized by Macys,
Pfizer, and other businesses on behalf of the American Heart Association. The
program has raised over $32 million in donations for the charity, while generating
over 1 billion media impressions for corporate sponsors. In this article, we discuss the
concept and practice of cause-related marketing, as well as some of its socialethical complexities. We end with suggestions for increasing the effectiveness of this
popular marketing tool and form of corporate philanthropy.
D 2005 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.

1. Cause-related marketing: An overview

In 1997, Yoplait Yogurt formed a unique partnership
with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.
For every cup of yogurt sold, Yoplaits corporate
parent General Mills donated ten cents to the
Foundation for breast cancer research. At the same
time, Yoplait initiated an extensive advertising
campaign promoting the partnership called bSave
Lids to Save Lives.Q The arrangement has been very
successful, strengthening Yoplaits brand image and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m-berglind@northwestern.edu
(M. Berglind)8 cnakat1@uic.edu (C. Nakata).

sales while increasing public awareness of breast

cancer. Now in its eighth year, over $12 million has
been raised for Komens research initiatives.
Yoplaits strategic alliance with the Foundation is
an example of cause-related marketing (CRM).
Marketing a product, service, brand, or company
by tying it with a social cause (such as breast cancer
detection and treatment) is the essence of CRM.
Typically, a portion of sales from the marketed item
is donated to the cause. Over the last 20 years, CRM
has evolved from a niche marketing tool and
curiosity into an established and prevalent form of
corporate philanthropy. Business managers note the
benefits of building brands, improving corporate
reputations, and generating more revenues, while
heads of not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) appre-

0007-6813/$ - see front matter D 2005 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2005.04.008

444
ciate the increased funding for, as well as heightened public receptivity to, their causes.
While cause-related marketing appears to be a
winwinwin-situation for businesses, NPOs, and
the public, it is not without critics. For instance,
Think Before You Pink (n.d., 2004), a watchdog
group that monitors breast cancer CRM promotions,
has been particularly harsh regarding the bSave Lids
to Save LivesQ project:
bA woman would have to eat three containers of
Yoplait every day during the four-month campaign
to raise $36 for the causeand research suggests a
number of health risks, including cancer, associated
with the consumption of dairy products from cows
given rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone).Q
(www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org)
The Think Before You Pink assertion reflects the
kinds of questions CRM campaigns tend to raise: Is
the CRM program a diversionary tactic, hiding a
product problem through a public relations spin? Is
the amount donated to the cause disproportionately
small relative to the sales generated for the
product? And, most of all, is the CRM campaign a
clever manipulation to enrich a corporations coffers
(generating a buck), or is it a sincere way of assisting
a charity (creating a bang or social impact)?
In recent years, public faith in corporations has
been shaken by spectacular acts of malfeasance
from the likes of Enron, Xerox, MCI, and others.
Jaundiced eyes may view CRM in the same light as
these visible instances of corporate avarice and
deception. Yet, advocates see CRM differently: It
marries the needs of businesses with those of cause
organizations, representing one of the few areas in
which social and commercial interests converge.
Since NPOs and businesses are applying this strategy in rapidly growing numbers, it may be timely to
look at CRM. To that end, we describe the concept
and practice of CRM, explain why organizations
enter into these arrangements, and discuss some
ethical issues and social implications. We conclude
with suggestions for creating and executing more
effective and thoughtful CRM efforts.

2. What is CRM, really?

There are many terms similar to cause-related
marketing. Among these are bcorporate societal
marketing,Q bcorporate issue promotions,Q
bcorporate social marketing,Q bsocial issues marketing,Q bpro-social marketing,Q and bpassion branding.Q
We prefer the term bcause-related marketingQ

M. Berglind, C. Nakata
because it indicates a focus on a specific cause,
not the larger social good. CRM projects are not
general bfeel-goodQ or consciousness raising exercises; rather, they are attempts to generate resources, usually financial, for specific concerns.
Importantly, too, the word brelatedQ refers to something along side the cause, namely the business,
which is co-promoted. In addition to multiple terms,
there is also a proliferation of concepts. One of the
more widely circulating ideas follows:
bCause-related marketing is the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that
are characterized by an offer from the firm to
contribute a specific amount to a designated cause
when customers engage in revenue providing
exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual
objectives.Q
(Varadarajan & Menon, 1988, p. 60)
This conceptualization, however, constrains a
CRM to a donation tied to a specific purchase or
level of sales. In more recent discussions of CRM, the
concept has been broadened to include other forms
of assistance to the cause, as well as less direct gifts
(Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). An example is Barnes and
Nobles sponsorship of lectures on racial tolerance
on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League. In this
case, there is no donation tied to purchases or sales.
Given the evolving and expanding nature of CRM, we
define it as the practice of marketing a product,
service, brand, or company through a mutually
beneficial relationship with a non-profit or social
cause organization (Marconi, 2002).
We should also distinguish between CRM and
social marketing. As some of the CRM-like terms
imply, the concept can be confused with that of
social marketing. However, CRM is clearly in the
province, and used to enhance the market position,
of a business; the means is a publicized association
between the business and cause. In contrast, social
marketing solely addresses a social ill, excluding
promotion of a business. Philip Kotler, a well-known
marketing expert, and his colleagues refer to social
marketing in this way:
bSocial marketing is the use of marketing principles
and techniques to influence a target audience to
voluntarily accept, reject, modify, or abandon a
behavior for the benefit of individuals, groups, or
society as a whole.Q
(Roderto, Lee, & Kotler, 2002, p. 5)
Social marketing is a much older practice than
CRM, and is executed largely without the help of
corporations. It is typically directed by a non- or

Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang?

quasi-governmental agency, which produces and
circulates advertisements, pamphlets, and other
marketing collateral in order to dissuade the public
from destructive habits (e.g., taking illicit drugs) or
toward constructive ones (e.g., reading to children).
The American Legacy Foundation provides an example. The organization was created and funded as
part of the $206 billion settlement reached in 1998
between U.S. tobacco companies and 48 state
governments. The American Legacy Foundation
developed a social marketing campaign called the
bTruth Campaign,Q which combined public service
messages with an aggressive advertising program to
prevent and reduce tobacco smoking among teenagers. The Legacy Foundation claims the campaign
has been a successful weapon in the fight against
tobacco addiction, reducing lung cancer and other
life-threatening diseases associated with smoking.

3. Origins in Rockefeller and American

Express
CRM is rooted in the long tradition of American
corporate philanthropy. Over a hundred years ago,
Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, Henry Astor, and
other captains of industry began making sizable
financial contributions to start, expand, and maintain museums, universities, and other social and
cultural institutions. As leaders of commerce, they
modeled the principle of giving back to the commons. Over time, philanthropy became ingrained in
the American corporate psyche. Yet giving, then and
now, has never been an act of pure altruism.
Corporations have always understood that donations
serve a powerful public relations function, casting a
favorable light on their presence and actions.
As businesses entered the 1960s, social activism
and consciousness triggered an examination of
corporate philanthropic activities. The Vietnam
War, Civil Rights Movement, and legitimization of
dissent led to public demand that businesses behave
with greater sensitivity to communities, both near
and far. In growing numbers, Americans were questioning whether and how companies were actors in
the social and political drama of their times. For
instance, Coca-Cola, Boeing, and Dow Chemical
were all targets of anti-war protests. In this context,
corporations were finding traditional forms of
philanthropy decreasingly effective. Passive charity,
or making donations without tooting ones horn, did
nothing to quell the rising chorus of criticisms aimed
against businesses as part of the ruling hegemony
(i.e., bthe establishmentQ). David Olgivy, the famous
advertising guru, summed up the impotence of

445
quiet, traditional philanthropy in this way: bIf you
did it and didnt tell anybody, you didnt do it.Q
(Tanen, Steckel, Simons, & Simons, 1999, p. 205).
Enter CRM. In 1983, financial services giant
American Express executed what many consider to
be the first CRM campaign (Smith & Higgins, 2000).
The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island were undergoing long overdue renovations and were in need of
significant funds. American Express announced it
would assist by donating one cent for each use of its
credit card and one dollar for every new card issued.
To make the public aware of this arrangement, the
firm spent $6 million promoting the Statue of Liberty
campaign. The results were fairly spectacular: over
$1 million was raised for the cause, American
Express card usage grew by 28%, and new card
applications increased by 17% (Tanen et al., 1999).
Sensing it had something valuable on its hands, the
company called the effort bcause-related marketingQ and trademarked the term.
With the Statue of Liberty campaign, American
Express announced its good works with authority and
fanfare, making a break with the humbler philanthropy of the past, and in direct response to the
publics raised social consciousness. The genius of
this campaign was recognizing that the marketplace
would reward firms that acted in a socially responsible way and that assisted ordinary citizens to act
responsibly, too. The key distinction from prior
philanthropic endeavors was an overt and much
publicized connection between a companys primary
activity (making money) and a not-for-profit organizations aim (improving welfare). Thus, for the first
time, commercial objectives were unabashedly and
unapologetically co-mingled with a social mission to
produce a single marketing effort.

4. CRM trends: Up and away

Since the American Express campaign of 1983, CRMs
have taken off. CRM is one of the fastest growing
forms of marketing, as reflected in increased
spending (Webb & Mohr, 1998). CRM expenditures
went from practically zero in 1983 to an estimated
$922 million in 2003. Companies invested approximately $991 million in cause campaigns in 2004, a
rise of 57% since 1999 (Gard, 2004). In 1983,
philanthropic giving totaled $100 billion, and then
rose to $241 billion by 2003, representing a 6%
annual growth rate. However, CRM donations
increased more than twice as quickly, from $630
million in 2000 to $828 million in 2002; a 14% annual
growth rate. Corporate giving is also expanding more
quickly than any other source of charitable donation
(Giving USA Foundation, 2003). In that light, it is

446
little wonder that NPOs see corporations and CRMs
as vital sources of funding.
Helping to propel business interest in CRM is the
pressure to tie charitable efforts to improvements in
the bottom line and competitive position (Andreason, 1996). At the same time business managers
grapple with gaining strategic advantage for their
companies in an age of hyper-competition and
rapid technological change, shareholders and market makers clamor for hikes in quarterly profits. In
such a volatile situation, it is no longer enough to
do good for others. Any expenditure of resources,
whether for charitable purposes or not, must
produce tangible benefits for the firm. CRM meets
these requirements. Also known as bstrategic
philanthropyQ (Adkins, 1999), CRM is a means of
achieving business objectives in tandem with social
improvement. In this regard, CRM is a decided
departure from earlier philanthropic efforts, which
tilted toward the latter. Front and center are
commercial interests, giving as a way to predetermined ends, and causes congruent with the
firms goals, target markets, and critical constituencies (Smith & Higgins, 2000).
CRM may appear to be a one-sided affair, but this
is not the case. NPOs understand they can profit
from the collaborations as well, leading them to
seek and initiate the efforts. NPOs are actively
courting potential business partners with, oddly
enough, tried and true marketing techniques borrowed from commerce. A key motivation is that
NPOs are not able to rely heavily on government
funding to sustain or expand their activities. In
recent years, federal, state, and city governments
have faced shrinking revenues, forcing them to
curtail charitable support. Therefore, corporations
and individuals are being asked to step into the
funding breach.

5. CRM practices: One size does not fit all

The practice most closely associated with CRM is
donating a portion of every sale to the cause
organization. However, there are many other
techniques, indicating that CRM is a flexible tool.
The Cause Marketing Forum, a prominent causemarketing advocate, describes the three most
common practices as:
programs: This is the classic
! Transactional
exchange-based donation. For every unit sold,
a corporation contributes a share of proceeds
to a particular social cause. An example is
candy company Mars support of the U.S.

M. Berglind, C. Nakata

Special Olympics. Mars ran a $50,000 giveaway

program for lucky purchasers of its M&M
products. For every $50,000 awarded to winners, the company contributed the same
amount to the Special Olympics. More than
200 million M&M candy packages were marked
with the U.S. Special Olympics logo, raising
public support for the not-for-profit.
Message promotion programs: In these programs, the cause is promoted and some
contribution, although not tied to a transaction and not necessarily monetary, is made
by the firm. The Anti-Defamation League, an
anti-hate group, entered into such a program
with Barnes and Noble. Together, the two
organizations created the bClose the Book on
HateQ initiative, which provides instructional
materials and lectures to promote racial and
cultural tolerance. Over two million brochures
covering ways to combat prejudice have been
passed out in stores, schools, and by government institutions, promoting both cause and
company.
Licensing programs: Licensing has become one
of the most prominent forms of CRM programs,
and can be lucrative for both parties. Commonly, a non-profit (e.g., World Wildlife Fund)
licenses use of its name and logo to a company
(e.g., Visa), which places the imprimatur on the
product (e.g., credit card). A percentage of
every transaction is then given to the nonprofit. In the case of the World Wildlife Fund,
the licensing program with Visa/FirstUSA has
been very beneficial, producing over $10 million
in donations.

The above programs represent a fairly overt

economic relationship between the cause organization and company. However, there are more
subtle CRM arrangements, which begin to blur the
line with broader corporate social responsibility
practices:
focused programs: In these programs,
! Issue
businesses partner with non-profit groups affiliated with one issue. The issue is selected
strategically to support the image of the
corporation. Liz Claiborne initiated a campaign
for the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a
group dedicated to reducing domestic violence.
Liz Claiborne products are targeted to women,
who are disproportionately victims of abuse.
This allows the company to be perceived by the
public, particularly its customers, as sensitive
to womens issues. There is, however, no
specified donation. Through this partnership,

Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang?

Liz Claiborne has assisted the Fund in establishing abuse prevention programs in all 50 states
and several foreign countries.
Business activity programs: Many corporations
integrate ethical business practices into their
operations. Kraft Foods sells a brand of coffee
that complies with international bfair-tradeQ
standards (McLaughlin, 2004). Last year, the
firm bought 5 million pounds of certified fair
trade coffee, and will double the volume this
year. Fair trade refers to a set of guidelines
created by the non-profit trade group TransFair
USA. Much like an Underwriters Laboratories
seal of approval, the guidelines, if followed,
imply that the product adheres to high environmental, wage, and labor standards. Business
activity programs help build awareness of a
corporations ethical practices, but here, too,
there is no specified donation.
Target focused programs: Target-focused programs are those that aid a particular group,
often the companys core market segment. Taco
Bell, a youth-oriented brand, sponsors Boys &
Girls Clubs of America organizations and events
(Tanen et al., 1999). These programs strengthen
the bond between the company and its primary
customers. The business provides assistance to
the charity in a variety of ways, including
donations, volunteers, materials, and publicity.
TeenSupreme, a Boys & Girls Club of America
program, started reading projects for teenagers
and opened leadership centers through the
assistance of Taco Bell. Additionally, the partnership has raised over $10 million dollars for
TeenSupreme.

6. CRM benefits both sides

Proponents and practitioners of CRM maintain that
the strategy is very useful. The growing tide of
dollars directed to CRM programs suggests this as
well. To understand why this trend is occurring, we
describe reasons for, or benefits of, engaging in
CRM. We begin with those for corporations, and
then move on to those for NPOs.

6.1. It helps the bottom line

CRMs primary value to businesses is financial. A
well-designed campaign can be extremely profitable. American Express Statue of Liberty campaign
is an illustration. As noted earlier, the company saw
card usage rise by 28% and applicants increase by
17%. These numbers translated into millions of

447
dollars in new revenues for the company, enabling
it to more than recoup the $6 million investment in
advertising. A CRM project can be comparatively
more dollar efficient than other marketing efforts,
generating a large increase in sales with little to no
additional expenditures. General Foods implemented a CRM campaign for one of its premier
marques, powdered orange juice Tang. For every
coupon used at point of purchase, the company
donated 10 cents to the advocacy group Mothers
Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). The program solicited $100,000 for MADD, and sales of Tang climbed
13%. What made these results particularly noteworthy was that General Foods did not run a
separate costly promotion for Tang. The spike in
sales was thus almost solely attributable to the
MADD tie-in (Saffir & Femina, 1999).

6.2. It builds the brand

Another benefit of CRM to companies is brand
building. Firms select causes for which, they
believe, their customers have an affinity, hoping
this will translate into higher brand memorability,
preference, and purchasing. Studies have shown
that consumers have more favorable attitudes
toward brands that are tied to a cause than those
that are not (Webb & Mohr, 1998). For Levis and
other companies targeting the youth market, it is
also important to know that three-fifths of teens
(60%) are more positively disposed toward and
likely to buy brands that support charitable causes
(Gard, 2004). Ben & Jerrys, under its founders,
applied CRM as a brand building tool. The premium
ice cream maker positioned its brand as socially
sensitive by giving a portion of sales to preserve
rainforests and support independent farmers. The
cause may be a secondary consideration in the
purchase decision; taste, after all, is the most
important quality in this category. Yet, the idea
that the company is giving back to the community
strengthens customer loyalty and elevates sales.
Footwear maker Timberland recognized the brand
building value of CRM when it recently placed an ad
in Vanity Fair to drive people to its website and
match would-be donors with causes. Last year, 8000
people were paired with community projects in 36
states, reinforcing the environmentally attuned
image of the brand.

6.3. It enhances the corporate reputation

Through an association with a popular cause, the
stature and image of a corporation can be enhanced.
More specifically, CRM can lend a firm heightened

448
visibility and respect, as well as convey social
responsibility, public mindedness, and even patriotism (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Studies have
shown that CRM campaigns generate positive assessments of a company by consumers (Webb & Mohr,
1998). Furthermore, under the right circumstances,
the brand can be inextricably tied with the cause.
Avon has so deeply committed resources to and
adroitly executed a breast cancer CRM campaign for
many years that, in the eyes of customers, its
foundation logo appears incomplete unless it
includes a pink ribbon, the symbol for breast cancer.

6.4. It generates goodwill

CRM can also generate goodwill for a business. In
times of crisis, goodwill may be crucial to prevent
long-term damage. bCrisisQ describes any number of
negative events that may befall a company, from
accounting scandals and bad business practices to
cases of product liability and product tampering.
When a crisis occurs, customers are less likely to
abandon a company that has built a reputation as a
socially responsible organization, suggesting CRM
may be a useful long-term investment. Research
shows CRM creates positive attitudes toward a
company that has engaged in unethical practices
(Creyer & Ross, 1992). Nike, which has worked hard
to overcome negative publicity on purported use of
sweatshop labor, last year gave $1 million to the
Lance Armstrong Foundation and sold bracelets for
$1 to generate additional donations. Thus far, over
$20 million worth of bracelets have been sold.
Moreover, the bracelets are considered so cool and
desirable that they are even passed out as wedding
reception favors (Gard, 2004).

6.5. It improves employee morale and

retention
A final reason or benefit for companies to engage in
CRM is internal in nature: improved employee
recruitment, retention, and morale. Corporate
employees and owners derive a sense of satisfaction
and pride from helping a worthy cause. This human
resources-building facet of CRM cannot be underestimated. According to one study, 75% of respondents consider a companys commitment to social
issues when deciding where to work (Cone Communications, 2002). Another study shows that in firms
producing advertising campaigns with a social
dimension, the workforce is more motivated and
better understands the essence of the corporate
mission than would otherwise be the case (Drumwright, 1996).

M. Berglind, C. Nakata

6.6. It increases funding for NPOs

The major benefit to NPOs and the primary reason
for engaging in CRM is expanded funding. Through
this vehicle, non-profits have access to increased
financial resources for delivering messages and
conducting activities on behalf of their cause.
Few campaigns can match the success of the
Olympic Games and United States Olympic Committee. Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and dozens of other
companies have donated millions to both NPOs for
many years. In exchange for donations, corporations are allowed to put the logo of each organization on products and marketing materials. The
2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games reached new
heights in licensing-based fundraising: Corporations
donated $5 million to $10 million each for use of
individual U.S. Olympic Team logos, and $20 million
to apply the Olympic rings in advertisements. In
total, the Olympic non-profit organizations
received $860 million from over 64 companies.

6.7. It heightens NPO exposure and message

efficacy
CRM provides more than monetary benefits.
Through these promotions, the NPOs enjoy far
greater exposure than they would be able to attain
on their own. The exposure encompasses all
members in the corporate partners supply chain
and customer base. When that corporation is on the
scale of McDonalds, the message contact rate is
almost incalculable (McDonalds is the worlds
largest restaurant chain, with millions of customers
and a global network of suppliers). As much as NPOs
lend credibility to firms, firms lend credibility to
NPOs. Therefore, a second benefit is message
efficacy: A message delivered through an alliance
with a well-known and respected business is
penetrating and persuasive. A corporate partner
with the stellar reputation of, say, Johnson &
Johnson lends stature and salience to the message,
generating media attention and influencing the
public on behalf of the cause.

6.8. It provides non-financial resources to

NPOs
What should not be overlooked is that corporations
also provide their marketing talent and business
acumen to the development and implementation of
campaigns. These non-financial resources are arguably as critical as any other. CRM campaigns are
complex to create and implement. Therefore,
corporate assistance in conceptualizing, shaping,

Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang?

and delivering the promotion can make all the
difference between a successful and failed CRM
endeavor. Finally, if the corporation institutes an
internal employee program as part of the CRM, the
NPO receives human resources in the form of new
volunteers and advocates for its cause.

7. Ethical issues surrounding CRM

The nature of CRM triggers a range of reactions,
from positive to negative. Negative reactions are
rooted in ethical concerns raised most vocally by
parties outside these arrangements. Nonetheless,
more sensitive players in the CRM game are also
aware of these issues, and are finding ways to
address them. We describe these issues because
they influence perception, use, and efficacy of
these campaigns.

7.1. Marriage of strange bedfellows

The first issue is a marriage of strange bedfellows. To
some, profit and non-profit alliances are at best
complicated and at worst unworkable. Observers
such as Don Schultz of Northwestern Universitys
Medill School of Journalism view the marriage as
unholy: bThe lines are being blurred by for-profit
organizations who are trying to profit from nonprofits, wrapping themselves in the cloak of dpublic
serviceT for corporate benefit.Q (Liesse, 1990, p. 28)
There is fear that the union of these two interests
damages the cause. The goal of the for-profit
organization is to build value for shareholders, which
is perceived by some to be in direct conflict with the
objective of the non-profit, namely to improve social
conditions, educate, enlighten, and heal. Critics of
CRM worry that the worthy missions of non-profits are
being co-opted by rapacious marketers. Underlying
these criticisms is the question of whether the
differing interests can be reconciled without serious
compromise to one, the other, or both sides.

7.2. Walking the fine line

The unhappy verity of some CRM campaigns is
limited benefit for non-profit partners, such as lessthan-expected funding for the cause. An issue that
arises under such circumstances is whether the
project is about advocacy or exploitation. It is a
fine line between the two, and the temptation
toward exploitation is real. CRM ads, for instance,
have been among the most controversial in marketing, triggering charges of base profiteering from
human suffering (Garfield, 1994). However, some

449
observers claim that by highlighting critical needs
and generating compassionate giving, the ads
represent marketings greatest contribution to
society (Smith, 1994).
Breast cancer campaigns have received some of
the harshest criticisms. Watchdog groups and
observers of commercial trends have pointed out
that breast cancer survivor networks and CRM
campaigns have created an insidious, victimizing
culture they label the bCult of Pink Ribbons.Q
Journalist, author, and breast cancer survivor
Barbara Ehrenreich characterizes this culture as
infantilizing women, a form of sexual oppression
and subjugation:
b. . .the breast-cancer cult serves as an accomplice
in global poisoningnormalizing cancer, prettying it
up, even presenting it, perversely, as a positive and
enviable experience.Q
(Ehrenreich, 2001, p. 53)
Another charge is that breast cancer CRM
obfuscates important issues. Think Before You Pink
has drawn a causal connection between beauty
products and breast cancer. Others have simply
noted that the Cult of Pink Ribbons has diverted
funds toward victims and away from research on
cancer agents. There may be environmental causes
for cancer, and identifying these substances would
prevent the disease from occurring in the first
place, thereby saving many more lives than treating the disease, after the fact. The American
Cancer Society has been identified as especially
complicit. Quentin Young, a Chicago-based medical
activist, said the American Cancer Society has a:
b. . .longstanding track record of indifference and
even hostility to cancer prevention. . .. Recent
examples include issuing a joint statement with
the Chlorine Institute justifying the continued
global use of persistent organochlorine pesticides,
and also supporting the industry in trivializing
dietary pesticide residues as avoidable risks of
childhood cancer. ACS policies are further exemplified by allocating under 0.1 percent of its $700
million annual budget to environmental and occupational causes of cancer.Q (Ehrenreich, 2001, p. 53)

7.3. Transparency and honesty

Closely tied to the issue of advocacy versus exploitation is one of transparency and honesty. Perhaps in
the fervor to generate support for a cause and boost
the top line, NPOs and corporations may not be
completely open and forthcoming to the public

450
about all elements of each campaign. A notable
example is pharmaceutical company SmithKlineBeechams licensing relationship with the American
Cancer Society. In 1998, the firm was granted a
license to display the American Cancer Society logo
on packages of NicoDerm, its smoking cessation
product. Advertisements claimed that NicoDerm
and the American Cancer Society were bpartners in
helping you quit.Q Attorneys general of several states
found the claim a material misrepresentation of the
companys relationship with the non-profit, and
asserted that it misled consumers into thinking the
American Cancer Society researched, developed,
and approved NicoDerm. In reality, the agreement
was for the company to pay the American Cancer
Society an annual fee to put its logo on certain
products. A lawsuit was filed and SmithKlineBeecham settled, paying over $2 million for ads to
clarify the nature of the agreement (NonProfit Times
(n.d.), 2004).
CRM campaigns do not always detail the specifics
of an agreement, meaning that transparency and
full disclosure can be the exception. In a study on
this issue, Olsen, Pracejus, and Brown (2003)
concluded that some CRM campaigns rely on
consumer misunderstanding about the donations.
In particular, consumers are susceptible to profitequals-price (PEP) and profit-overestimation
effects. The PEP effect occurs when consumers
are confused about whether a percentage of profit
or price is given to the charity. The latter would be
of greater value, but consumers are sometimes too
hurried when making purchases to figure the size of
their individual donation.

7.4. Financial equity

The fourth ethical issue is financial equity. Since
consumers do not always know what is the agreedupon share of sales that goes to NPOs in CRM
arrangements, it is easy for them to overlook the
financial equity to all parties. American Express
bCharge Against HungerQ CRM raised $5 million a
year for the anti-hunger non-profit Share Our
Strength. It is widely considered one of the most
successful CRM campaigns, spawning several imitations. However, the bCharge Against HungerQ
campaign has raised questions. Why, it was asked,
did American Express cap its annual contribution to
$5 million at the inception of the campaign,
regardless of the level of sales generated? In the
case of the companys more famous Statue of
Liberty campaign, American Express spent $6
million on advertising while generating $1.7 million
for the cause. Six million dollars may be a standard

M. Berglind, C. Nakata
budget for a national marketing program; however,
it could be questioned whether the Statue of
Liberty restoration would have been better served
through a $6 million (or even a $2 million) grant,
rather spending $6 million in advertising in order to
raise $1.7 million. There is also the issue of equity
to the consumer. In 2003, American Express
engaged in another Statue of Liberty CRM, promising one cent for every use of its card. This meant
that to give $5 dollars to the renovation, a
consumer would have had to use an American
Express card 500 times, a frequency that could be
interpreted as ludicrous and gouging (Gross, 2003).

8. Social implications of CRM

Beyond the ethical issues surrounding CRM, there
are broader social implications. Reflecting the
polar reactions to CRM, these implications can be
categorized as more versus less favorable.

8.1. Favorable implications

CRM arguably fills a unique void within the marketplace: It gives consumers a chance to help the less
fortunate and do so in regular and convenient ways.
A shopper can buy a container of yogurt and, in the
process, support hunger relief or breast cancer
research through a purchase-based donation. In a
time-pressed and economic-uncertain age, few
individuals are able to volunteer for charities or
write hefty donation checks. By tying charity with
an everyday act, namely shopping, CRM provides
opportunities for individuals in their ordinary
routines to also be caring citizens.
To the degree that the giving, however small the
amount, elevates consciousness about the needs of
fellow humans, CRM can contribute to a more
compassionate marketplace. CRM gives consumers
a chance to assert that they are more than just
economic beings. By participating in CRM projects,
consumers help humanize what would otherwise be
a purely instrumental transaction, gratifying more
than the self. Karl Marx argued that consumerism
glorifies, and thereby fetishizes, all exchanges;
thus, every interaction, from love and sex to
friendship and work, is debased into utilitarian
trade. However, a counter perspective holds that
when individuals purchase a product as an act of
charity, they are, in a sense, rebelling against this
debasement. Buying a product that supports a
social cause is a way of injecting social and
personal meaning back into the marketplace
(Brown, Fleetwood, & Roberts, 2001).

Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang?

Another social implication of CRM is that it can
encourage corporate citizenship and social responsibility among businesses. The 2002 Cone Citizenship Survey indicated that 84% of U.S. consumers
are more likely to buy from corporations associated
with a cause or issue (www.coneinc.com). Consumers, then, want and will reward corporations that
are ethical actors. This inclination has been amplified since September 11, 2001. Researchers have
observed that corporate citizenship survey numbers
changed significantly after the terrorist attacks on
the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as illustrated
in Table 1.
Based on these survey results, firms would be
encouraged to expand their socially directed activities, including CRM. The corporate governance
scandals and ethical lapses of the past few years
have only fueled the demand for more responsible
business practices. In the long run, society should
benefit.
Ultimately, we look to historical examples of CRM
to evaluate its social worth. We can cite, for
instance, increased awareness of breast cancer
and count the dollars raised to diagnose and treat
the disease. In the 1970s, breast cancer was barely a
whisper in American society, ba dread secret,
endured in silence and euphemized in obituaries as
a dlong illnessT.Q (Ehrenreich, 2001, p. 53). Treatments such as the Halsted radical mastectomies
were drastic, disfiguring, and often ineffective. As
part of the procedure, doctors removed breast
tissue, lymph nodes, and chest muscle. Testing rates
for breast cancer were low, even though one in ten
women suffered from the disease. Today, breast
cancer is discussed more openly, treatment options
have improved, and survival rates have increased
dramatically. In 1983, 78% of women with breast
cancer survived with treatment; by 1999, that rate
had risen to 87%. Between 1975 and 1990, the death
rate due to breast cancer rose .04% annually,
whereas from 1990 to 2000, the rate decreased
23%. Lives were saved by the hard work of researchers, doctors, and survivors; however, the mobilization of resources around the issue by corporations,
cancer foundations, and breast cancer CRMs has
likewise undoubtedly contributed to lives saved.
Table 1

451

8.2. Less favorable implications

One less favorable social implication is that CRM may
distort the pattern of giving, disadvantaging less
attractive but nonetheless worthy causes. What
happens to causes that do not elicit such deep
emotional responses as does breast cancer? What is
the fate of causes that are complex, ambivalent, or
even revulsive? For many years, there were no CRMs
focused on AIDS. In 1993, the originators of the
California AIDSRide charity event could find only one
corporate sponsor. Fortunately, this has changed,
but the stigma of homosexuality and illicit drug use
made HIV/AIDS causes unpopular for awhile. ConAgra, a large U.S. food corporation, illustrates how
certain causes may be selected over others, despite
equal or even greater need or merit. The firm has
adopted hunger as its social issue. Interestingly,
ConAgras CRM focuses not on hunger in general, but
on childhood hunger, specifically. Adult hunger is
numerically a larger problem: there are 5 million
adults versus 2.7 million children who go to bed
hungry every night. Adult hunger is no less worthy of
cause dollars than childhood hunger, but perhaps
suffers from less appeal. If CRM continues to grow at
its rapid clip of $200 million in spending per year,
some causes will prosper while others will languish.
A second implication is that if CRM becomes
highly ubiquitous, it may, in the long run, have
exactly the opposite of its intended effect, desensitizing the public to social ills and increasing
resistance to giving. It is not difficult to imagine
CRM campaigns interjecting themselves into the
millions of purchase transactions that take place
each day. Like TV, print, radio, and Internet
advertising, CRM campaigns may bombard people
with their pleas for attention. In response, individuals may simply tune out and say bnoQ because they
cannot process each and every request, or because
they believe they have already donated enough.
Giving, or compassion, fatigue refers to a condition
whereby donors become overwhelmed by requests
for their charitable dollars. Non-profit development officers and fundraisers typically use the term
in relation to large corporate donors, but it applies
equally to the more numerous small donors. What

Consumer attitudes toward businesses pre- and post-September 11

bA companys commitment to social issues is important when I decide. . .Q

Pre-September 11,
2001 (March 2001)

Post-September 11,
2001(July 2002)

Which companies I want to see doing business in my community

Where to work
Which products and services to recommend to other people
Which stocks or mutual funds to invest in

58%
48%

40%

84%
77%
75%
66%

2002 Cone Corporate Citizenship Survey, www.coneinc.com/Pages/pr_13.html.

452
happens when consumers tire of paying a premium
to help others? Is giving fatigue CRMs ultimate
future? It may come to pass that any strategic
advantage cause-related marketing grants will,
through overuse, erode over time.
The last and perhaps most subtle implication is
that CRM may diminish the compunction of individuals to act magnanimously toward others without
expectation of return. CRM may work counter to
self-sacrificing sentiments by substituting consumption for morality (Smith & Higgins, 2000).
Under CRM, a consumer can buy an item and justify
it by rationalizing some of the proceeds go to the
needy. Is it still, then, charity? According to Kant,
bthe essence of morality is found in the motive
responsible for the action. An act is only moral
when it derives from a sense of duty.Q (Smith &
Higgins, 2000, p. 315) Applying this Kantian notion,
can we classify CRM participation as virtuous, since
it is as much about the giver satisfying the self as it
is about altruism? Also, CRM has been critiqued for
distancing the needy bother,Q who, having never
been met, touched, or spoken to directly by givers
is, in effect, a faceless, nameless abstraction
(Smith & Higgins, 2000). This long-arm relationship
between givers and recipients potentially undermines the morality of the donation act by relieving
givers of any true authorship for their conduct.

9. Suggestions for developing and using

CRM
CRM is not a neutral instrument. It raises social and
ethical issues, and offers clear benefits to NPOs and
businesses. Despite this complexity and controversy,
there is little reason to believe the practice will be
abandoned any time soon; on the contrary, it is likely
to grow. Along with the upward trends described
earlier, a recent survey by the Public Relations
Society of America found that most companies plan
to expand corporate social responsibility endeavors,
which presumably include CRM. Given that CRM is
taking root, the prudent course may be to recognize
its potential for good, but follow a regimen or set of
guidelines that would better ensure realization of
this potential. With that in mind, we make several
recommendations for more effective and thoughtful
development and use of CRM.

9.1. Involve top management

For a CRM campaign to succeed in not only raising
financial and non-financial support for a cause, but

M. Berglind, C. Nakata
also transforming a corporations culture and moving the business toward an enduring commitment to
social responsibility, there must be involvement of
top management. Chief executive and operating
officers can lend legitimacy to CRM campaigns by
signaling to the ranks below that they and the firms
really do care about social needs. Because of their
powerful positions, these executives can sanction
and direct internal resources, whether monetary or
human, toward CRM efforts. One study reported
that top managers are more actively involved in
CRM campaigns compared to standard, non-social
advertising programs (Drumwright, 1996). Often,
these managers possess a personal commitment to
the social agenda behind the CRM project because,
having grown up in the tumultuous 1960s, they
believe individual and collective activism can make
a positive difference.

9.2. Carefully pair cause and company

Another recommendation is to carefully pair the
cause and company. The notorious Sunbeam-American Medical Association CRM failed in part due to a
perceived incongruence between the two partners.
It was not readily apparent why a not-for-profit
medical organization would lend its moniker to a
maker of toasters and eggbeaters. Additionally,
Sunbeam was led by a CEO with a public persona of
being uncompassionate, laying off thousands of
workers while continuing to enjoy a healthy salary.
This is contrary to the thrust of any CRM. By contrast,
the CRM between Toys R Us and Sesame Street
reflects a more obvious and intuitive partnership.
Toys R Us sells toys, and Sesame Street is a childrens
public television program. A percentage of the sale
of each Sesame Street licensed toy at Toys R Us goes
to pay for the program. Perhaps the guiding rule is if
you have to explain the connection, the fit between
cause and company is likely poor.

9.3. Thoughtfully develop the creative

execution
Social campaigns are more challenging than standard campaigns to conceive and produce, mostly
because they must achieve multiple objectives. The
companys product must be sold, but so too the
social issue. Social issues, however, raise sensitivities: the sensitivities of those who are sympathetic,
as well as those who are antagonistic. Since both
groups are likely to be exposed to the campaign, the
creative execution must deepen the commitment of
the first group while ameliorating the objections of
the second. At the same time, the execution must

Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang?

convey authenticity and genuine regard for the
social issue, otherwise it is perceived as hype.
Complicating matters further is the inclusion of
persons affected by the issue, such as an HIV
infected individual for an AIDS CRM, or an amputee
for a landmines removal CRM. Whether and how
these persons should be depicted or alluded to in
marketing collateral and consulted regarding the
campaign are difficult decisions to make in the
development of creative executions. Consequently,
these executions typically take much longer to
assemble than other marketing programs. If a CRM
is rushed through without sufficient research, pretesting, generation of concepts, and open discussion
(i.e., vetting), it may fail on several fronts, hurting
the cause, NPO, and firm through negative public
responses. We suggest applying considerable time,
ingenuity, and effort to the task.

9.4. Develop and use a code of CRM ethics

Due to the potential for abuse, such as nondisclosure or misrepresentation of the exact nature
of the corporation-NPO agreement, CRMs would
better serve participants and recipients if there
were a specific code of ethics and compliance with
that code. While there is debate about the efficacy
of any ethics code (a code did not prevent the
scandals that recently swept through the accounting profession), it would be a first step toward
acknowledging and discouraging campaigns that
profit through deception. If a code of ethics is not
developed in the near term, CRM initiators should,
at minimum, apply the bsniff testQ to determine if
there is an ethical problem in any campaign before
public release. A sniff test could involve a simple
survey or set of focus groups to assess consumer
reactions to the campaigns. Do these respondents
find anything disingenuous, confusing, inequitable,
or offensive in the presentation? If so, the reaction
may flag an ethical lapse of some kind.
We have reviewed the concept, practice, benefits, and social and ethical issues of cause-related
marketing, as well as proposed ways to realize the
potential of this controversial marketing tool.
While CRM may be viewed through a critical lens
as antithetical to true morality and, therefore,
preferably discarded, it can also be seen as a rare
convergence of social and commercial interests,
bridging what is traditionally a wide divide. Whichever perspective one has, cause-related marketing
is here for the time being. If properly handled, CRM
need not be more buck than bang, serving commerce more than society. It can, instead, be equal
amounts of both.

453

References
Adkins, S. (1999). Cause related marketing: Who cares wins.
Burlington, MA7 Elsevier.
Andreason, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate
partner. Harvard Business Review, 74, 47 59.
Brown, A., Fleetwood, S., & Roberts, J. (2001). Marxism and
critical realism. New York7 Routledge.
Cone Communications, Inc. (2002). 2002 Cone corporate citizenship study. Retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://www.
coneinc.com/Pages/pr13.html
Creyer, E. H., & Ross Jr., W. T. (1992). The impact of corporate
behavior on perceived product value. Marketing Letters,
7(2), 173 185.
Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company advertising with a social
dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of
Marketing, 60(3), 71 87.
Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Welcome to cancerland. Harpers Magazine, 303(1818), 53.
Gard, L. (2004). Were good guys, buy from us. Business Week,
3909, 72 73.
Garfield, B. (1994). Offensive ads worth poke in the for eyes.
Advertising Age, 65(4), 44.
Giving USA Foundation, AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. (2003).
Giving USA 2004.
Gross, D. (n.d.). Operation just cause: In the name of helping
lady liberty, American Express is reaping lots of publicity.
Retrieved December 31, 2003, from http://slate.msn.com/
id/2093339
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2002). Building brand equity through
corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 21(1), 78 89.
Liesse, J. (1990). Line between public service, paid ads blurs.
Advertising Age, 61(42), 28.
Marconi, J. (2002). Cause marketing: Build your image and
bottom line through socially responsible partnerships, programs, and events. Chicago7 Dearborn Trade.
McLaughlin, K. (2004, February 17). Is your grocery list politically
correct? Wall Street Journal, D1.
NonProfit Times. (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://
www.nptimes.com/enews/tips/cause.html
Olsen, G. D., Pracejus, J. W., & Brown, N. R. (2003). When profit
equals price: Consumer confusion about donation amounts in
cause-related marketing. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 22(2), 70 180.
Roderto, N., Lee, N., & Kotler, P. (2002). Social marketing:
Improving the quality of life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA7
Sage Publications.
Saffir, L., & Femina, J. (1999). Power public relations. New York7
McGraw Hill.
Smith, C. (1994). The new corporate philosophy. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 105 116.
Smith, W., & Higgins, M. (2000). Cause-related marketing: Ethics
and the ecstatic. Business & Society, 39(3), 304 322.
Tanen, N., Steckel, R., Simons, R., & Simons, J. (1999). Making
money while making a difference: How to profit with a nonprofit partner. Homewood, IL7 High Tide Press.
Think Before You Pink. (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2004, from
http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A co-alignment of marketing strategy and corporate
philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52, 58 74.
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer
responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to
socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
17(2), 226 238.