And it all started with Jessie Zechnowitz’ post to a LinkedIn group which refers to an article on Emotive Brand’s blog. This article in turn refered to a post written by Edelman. They all talked about Brand Purpose and Cause-related Marketing.
(Photo: Lucille Peine, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Given how fast marketing theories are evolving these days, Edelman’s post is quite old – originally written in September 2012 for Marketing News and re-published one month later on their blog. Titled “Social Purpose: The Fifth ‘P'”, it’s kind of a historical abstract on the development of Cause Marketing. It claims that, since American Express invented it in 1983 there has been four phases of Cause Marketing so far:
- Cause 1.0. “Around the time that AmEx put cause marketing on the map, a new crop of companies – The Body Shop, Ben & Jerry’s, Seventh Generation, Tom’s of Maine and Innocent drinks – were born with social and environmental causes at their core, mirroring their founders’ evangelism. They were small but mighty and their business models demonstrated a new way of business and stakeholder engagement”.
- Cause 2.0. Cause Marketing was driven by earliy adoptors, e.g. Home Depot, Timberland, Starbucks, Hasbro, Interface, Natura and Target, which “proved that cause marketing was more than a short-term promotional tactic”.
- Cause 3.0. “Early-majority companies began to reap the benefit of social engagement such as differentiation, relevance and employee morale. These benefits could put the wind at a company’s back and emotion into its brands, and, in some cases, could even heal a sullied reputation”. The examples used here were Avon, Wal-Mart, Nike, Unilever, Pepsico and Tesco.
- Cause 4.0. Edelman attributes the rise of this current phase to the “democratization of influence” due to internet and social media which let consumers ask questions like “What does a brand or company stand for? Where do products come from? How are they manufactured? Are they environmentally sound? How are employees treated?” and in turn led to the need for companies to display a “reason for being beyond the bottom line”.
The fourth phase is where Edelman slips the term “Purpose” in:
Purpose, when strategically crafted to bridge relevance and engagement with core stakeholders (consumers, employees, customers, distributors and communities), provides a humanizing and compelling differentiation for a brand and a company. Purpose is expressed through the same strategies that have been pioneered by the companies listed earlier for the past 30 years: the sales-generating force of cause marketing, the powerful employee and customer loyalty of cause branding, and the operational advantages and environmental efficiencies of CSR. But it is defined by a higher-order value that sits above these strategies and is embedded in the company’s DNA.
Emotive Brand at this point asks – rightly so, I guess – whether a company’s or brand’s Purpose always has to lead to Cause Marketing. Their answer: it does not.
We don’t believe that a business must, by definition, align with a social cause to matter to people. Yes, of course causes are a way to amplify the good a business is doing, but they can also be seen as a marketing gimmick (…) Once a business has a clear and compelling Purpose Beyond Profit that it lives and breathes at every level, every day, it may well identify and support external causes. But they will do that not because they have a business objective, but because they are committed to making the world a better place. They will do it, not for the business’s gain, but for the cause’s gain.
I agree with them that you don’t need Cause Marketing to express your Purpose, but their explanation is where my confusion kicks in:
- I think, Edelman’s post explains quite well how having a Purpose prevents you from Cause Marketing becoming a mere marketing gimmick. Though why using this as an argument for the unrelatedness of Purpose and Cause Marketing?
- Supporting external causes solely for the cause’s gain, not for the business’s gain? Really? I’d argue even the most idealistic founder believed he could make a living from his business idea; otherwise he probably had founded a charity, hadn’t he?
Though, here is my take on it:
- Having a Purpose for your company and/ or brand has always been a pre-requisite for business success. Even Henry Ford had one when he introduced the T-Model: he wanted to convert the automobile from an expensive curiosity into a practical conveyance that many middle class Americans could afford. (Even though we’ve seen where this has led to, this was a respectable Purpose back in his times.)
- It does not need Cause Marketing to express your company’s/ brand’s Purpose. Look at the commercial Apple launched the Macintosh with: it clearly shows Apple’s vision of and how they are up to make the world a better place. They’ve stayed true to it ever since.
- Cause Marketing can help to make your Purpose more tangible, but it’s better closely connected to the core of your business, as it is with Always’ #LikeAGirl.
Makes sense? Or even more confusing?
Just Thinking Aloud 