Spend Money to Make Money

It’s tough to argue with effectiveness. Most of the academic instruction I’ve received around cause marketing indicates that—in the long run—companies will make more money if they attach their business to a cause that consumers can also feel connected to. I want to believe there’s more to it than that. And I think I do, but I admit, sometimes it’s difficult.

Cause marketing is important because it works, which seems to be the answer (or at least an answer) for why any concept in the discipline of marketing is important. If something affects people’s behavior—and especially their spending habits—it’s important. For-profit businesses by definition look for ways to generate revenue. So if they’re not involved in cause marketing, they’re missing an opportunity—one that can be especially powerful for start-ups or other small businesses, as it’s challenging to compete with more established companies in terms of more traditional marketing efforts or overall marketing spend.

To me, an interesting thing about cause marketing is that it seems to be a variation on the Andrew Carnegie Dictum:

• To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can.
• To spend the next third making all the money one can.
• To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.

While the dictum was meant to apply to individuals, it can have relevance to companies too, provided we extend the timeline, remove the "all" criteria, and understand the dictum as applied to the employees of a company rather than just individuals. In line with the above, cause marketing enables companies to pursue the second and third bullets simultaneously. In fact, companies can actually use the third bullet to help them accomplish the second.

It also seems to follow that the public may be more apt to forgive companies for trying to maximize profits if those companies happen to be helping out worthwhile causes along the way (meaning in practical terms that consumers might be content to pay higher prices or give the company the benefit of the doubt regarding any questionable business practices). All told, it may be more difficult to say if the ends justify the means if they’re happening concurrently. Moreover, if you can’t separate them, what difference does it make? Lottery funds help fund valuable state programs. Corporate giving programs make for good PR. You can’t argue with effectiveness.