Download Breast Cancer CRM 1 Abstract

Breast Cancer CRM 1 Abstract
This paper will explore the best practices for breast cancer cause-related marketing in a
saturated marketplace. Before conclusions can be made on the best practices, this paper
will investigate the criticisms and positive perception of CRM, the history of breast
cancer CRM, and the saturation of breast cancer CRM. Causes, corporations, and
consumers need creative solutions to build funds and awareness, image and loyalty, and
to give back in times of frugality. Breast cancer CRM is particularly interesting due to
its overwhelming popularity and high degree of consumer awareness. Additionally
interesting is the willingness of brands to join the cause despite the crowded marketplace.
If brands are cautious with their use of the pink ribbon or in how they choose to rebrand
breast cancer support, breast cancer CRM will continue to be profitable and a
meaningful practice. However, brands can use the history and saturation of breast
cancer CRM, along with the offered best practices to create a more sustainable CRM
movement with a different cause to be even more of a social phenomenon than pink
ribbon CRM.
Breast Cancer CRM 2 An Exploration of Best Practices for
Breast Cancer Cause-Related Marketing in a Crowded Marketplace
Introduction
Philanthropy has long been prevalent in corporate America, but the practice of
giving has shifted to a profit and results centered benevolence. The Committee to
Encourage Corporate Philanthropy has noted over the last decade that traditional
charitable giving is being replaced with strategic and profitable programs such as causerelated marketing (Daw, 2006). Cause-related marketing (CRM) is the mutually
beneficial working relationship between nonprofit organizations and for-profit
businesses. The now popular trend of cause-related marketing creates a symbiotic
relationship for business and nonprofit organizations. Examples of popular CRM
campaigns include Yoplait’s Save Lids to Save Lives campaign, which benefits the Susan
G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for breast cancer, and Starbucks, which assists
(Product) RED’s mission to combat AIDS in Africa. Nonprofit organizations participate
to gain exposure, awareness, funding, and cause legitimacy. Businesses take part to
improve their image, as well as to sell themselves and their products to a wider target of
consumers. While not all cause-related marketing ventures are in the best interest of
nonprofit agencies or philanthropic causes, overall, CRM serves an important and unique
role in ultimately aiding causes.
Cause-related marketing is an expensive undertaking involving staff, resources
and deliverables, but it continues to increase in times of economic downturn. IFC, the
leading independent research firm of philanthropic marketing, projects $1.55 billion will
be spent by corporations on cause-related marketing in North America in 2009, up from
$1.44 billion in 2007 (Chipps, 2009). Even in times of poor economy, CRM is increasing
Breast Cancer CRM 3 the global acceptance of for-profit and nonprofit connections, which is leading to
consumer behavior change. The 2009 Edelman ‘goodcause’ study reports that over twothirds of the global study participants would switch to a brand that supports a good cause
if the brands were of comparable quality (Edelman, 2009).
This paper is going to explore the best practices for breast cancer cause-related
marketing in a saturated marketplace. Before conclusions can be made on the best
practices, this paper will investigate the criticisms and positive perception of CRM, the
history of breast cancer CRM, and the saturation of breast cancer CRM. CRM is a timely
subject because all three stakeholders, causes, businesses, and consumers, are in need of
creative solutions to build funds and awareness, image and loyalty, and give back in
times of frugality. Breast cancer CRM is particularly interesting due to its overwhelming
popularity and high degree of consumer awareness. Additionally interesting is the
willingness of brands to join the cause despite the crowded marketplace. This work is
important as breast cancer CRM initiatives are extremely prevalent forms of corporate
philanthropy, warranting further exploration. The breast cancer cause fits the most
common customer of many brands with a high level of buying power and brand
involvement.
Criticism of Cause-related Marketing
Although cause-related marketing attempts to promote and financially contribute
to social causes, the practice has critics. Berglind and Nakata (2005) call CRM little
more than a corporate gimmick, or simple PR spin, that disproportionately benefits the
corporation over the cause. The first national CRM program was American Express’
campaign to refurbish the Statue of Liberty (Berglind & Nakata, 2005). However,
Breast Cancer CRM 4 American Express spent $6 million to advertise the venture, while only generating $1.7
million to benefit the cause, arguably starting the trend of unequal contributions
(Berglind & Nakata, 2005). Polonksy and Wood report that even today CRM for-profits
can misrepresent how generous their donations really are, especially in the comparison of
their associated profits (2001). For example, Procter and Gamble only donates two cents
of a pink Swiffer purchase only if the customer has a specific coupon printed in
newspapers weeks prior (Harding, 2009).
Critics view CRM as only a transaction based marketing tool. In 2009 and 2010,
because of a poor economy, the percent of profits donated to the nonprofit decline,
validating the skepticism that some CRM is just another way to increase the bottom line
(Daw, 2006). Harding (2009) revealed that Herr’s left the pink ribbon on their Whole
Wheat Pretzel packaging after their $15,000 contribution cap to breast cancer awareness
had been met. Harding also showed that Hershey’s, among other companies that promote
breast cancer awareness, will donate a flat amount completely separate of sales, yet
promote the donation on packaging to increase sales (Harding, 2009). Among other
critics, Polonsky and Wood are concerned about the exaggerated perception of corporate
generosity, which is leading to the decreased perception of cause need and legitimacy
(2001). But, it must be remembered that CRM is an investment for a corporation, and it
in turn expects to show a return. CRM is a way to mutually promote business and cause,
but the programs can be short term for profitability and judged on product sales rather
than truly helping the cause (McAlister & Ferrell, 2002). Marchiony claims CRM is
about business first, with ‘doing good’ coming in second (2009, October 14).
Breast Cancer CRM 5 Bloom, Hoeffler, Keller & Meza (2006) argue that marketing dollars should be
spent for traditional marketing ventures rather than CRM if a critical mass of consumers
do not feel connected to the social cause. Accordingly, less marketable chronic problems
such as prostate cancer tend not to benefit from CRM (Grau & Folse, 2007). Issues like
breast cancer awareness can saturate the market and leave little room for less popular
issues and the nonprofits that support them.
In comparison to other corporate social responsibility practices, CRM is more
likely to be viewed with suspicion as the company’s involvement is directly connected to
its profit (Barone, Norman & Miyazaki, 2007). Berglind and Nakata ask is CRM PR
spin, a diversionary tactic, or a clever manipulation relying on consumers’
misinterpretation? (2005). McAlister and Ferrell (2002) stress that strategic philanthropy
is preferred to CRM because it is not profit based and signals a long-standing
commitment to the cause. They further separate strategic philanthropy from CRM and
sponsorships that serve as marketing tools, where strategic philanthropy is to “tie overall
corporate assets and knowledge to address social problems or needs” (McAllister &
Ferrell, 2002, p. 693).
However, corporations are more inclined to participate in a program that can be
benchmarked with tangible returns rather than incalculable brand promotion. Although
CRM is an effective and growing practice, scholars and business professionals worry that
the over-commercialization of causes, such as breast cancer awareness, is creating a
backlash against the CRM campaign and cause.
Positive Perceptions of Cause-related Marketing
Breast Cancer CRM 6 Despite the fact that ethical questions linger, those who report on the negatives of
cause-related marketing also detail its overall advantages. Polonsky and Wood (2001)
claim that “There is a growing understanding that doing the right thing for society cannot
only be good for business but is also a responsibility of the modern corporation” (p. 8).
From this modern evaluation of responsibility, CRM is seen as synergy between
corporation, cause, and society. Berglind and Nakata, who have been notably negative
toward the practice, also detail how CRM raises awareness, donations, and support while
improving corporate reputations, the financial bottom line, and customer loyalty (2005).
A brand can be judged by how customers have felt, seen, learned, or heard about
the brand. Therefore, CRM, or marketing initiatives that use the company to advance at
least one non-economic objective, is a way for customers to remember and positively
identify the brand among competitors. Hoeffler and Keller (2002) describe how CRM
can be utilized as a tool to build brand equity in addition to the bottom line. CRM can
increase brand equity by building brand awareness, brand personality, and brand
credibility, while evoking brand feelings to create a sense of brand community, and elicit
brand engagement (Hoffler & Keller, 2002). Researchers from the University of
Michigan found that when companies participate in CRM they can raise prices and make
higher profits on CRM products while their entire brand portfolio can experience a
spillover increase in sales and profits which eclipses the expense of donating some
portion of sales to charity (Frieswick, 2009, October 4). An additional incentive for
corporate involvement is that many charitable contributions are tax deductable (Stole,
2006).
Breast Cancer CRM 7 Polonsky and Wood (2001) found that CRM gives many causes legitimacy and
publicity in the marketplace. They also claim that CRM is effective for sales as it
reduces cognitive dissonance for the consumer purchasing the product. Aligning with a
social cause can give the corporation a “halo effect” improving brand appearance,
trustworthiness, and quality (Bloom et al., 2006). Brands participate in CRM to connect
with the consumers past the point of purchase to form an emotional tie and a longer
lasting brand relationship (Stole, 2006). It is very difficult to quantify all of the positive
effects of CRM, especially consumer perceptions and branding (Nan & Heo, 2007).
Gourville and Rangan (2004) agree, stating that “The benefits to the nonprofit likely
extend far beyond a monetary transfer. By aligning itself with a highly visible, wellrespected for-profit firm, a nonprofit may raise its overall profile and experience
increased donations of time, materials, and money in the process” (p. 42).
Advantages for the consumer also exist. “By tying charity with an everyday act,
namely shopping, CRM provides opportunities for individuals in their ordinary routines
to also be caring citizens … consumers help humanize what would otherwise be a purely
instrumental transaction, gratifying more than the self” (Berglind & Nakata, 2005, p.
450). Cause-related marketing has many overall positive perceptions, and should be
explored by both nonprofits and for-profit businesses when discussing forming a CRM
connection.
Breast cancer CRM is arguably the largest and most powerful cause in the
consumer marketplace today. This paper will explore the history of breast cancer CRM,
the current saturation of breast cancer CRM, and offer best practices to cut through the
clutter, while mutually benefiting the brand and the cause.
Breast Cancer CRM 8 History of Breast Cancer Cause-Related Marketing
With the current seas of pink ribbons in October, it is hard to imagine that breast
cancer was once a very private and stigmatized disease. Pink ribbon breast cancer causerelated marketing now has a distinct visual and monetary power in America. In 2009
alone, Susan G. Komen for the Cure raised almost $50 million from over 250
corporations (Frieswick, 2009).
Before the pink ribbon was a ubiquitous symbol of breast cancer support, a peach
ribbon represented the grassroots effort to promote breast cancer awareness (Fernandez,
1998). Charlotte Haley, the originator of the grassroots peach ribbon, refused Self
Magazine’s plea to use the peach ribbon to symbolize breast cancer awareness in CRM
(Fernandez, 1998). The companies’ legal teams advised Self Magazine and promotional
partner, Estée Lauder, to conduct focus groups to come up with another color ribbon
(Fernandez, 1998). And, in focus groups the pink ribbon was born. Pink was chosen as
it was seen as soothing, comforting, and healing; everything that Breast Cancer Action
says the disease is not (2010). Estée Lauder and Avon were two of the first companies to
introduce the pink ribbon as a means of marketing their products in 1993 (Frieswick,
2009).
With the advent of the pink ribbon, and the increasing popularity of breast cancer
CRM in the 1990s, the disease evolved from an individual, private tragedy, and
stigmatized condition to a neglected epidemic, then to an affirming experience where
breast cancer patients are referred to as survivors (King, 2004). The shift of frame and
increased popularity has led breast cancer to be seen as a cause worthy of increased
awareness and continued monetary support.
Breast Cancer CRM 9 The sheer volume of people that breast cancer affects can explain why breast
cancer is a favorite cause for CRM. Samantha King, an expert in the sociological
impacts of breast cancer and the industry of affiliated nonprofits, adds that breast cancer
CRM is used to attract female consumers, notably, the primary consumer in most markets
(2004). Another reason why breast cancer is attractive to corporations is due to the
continued public perception that breast cancer is a blameless disease brought on by age
and genetic predisposition (King, 2004). In addition, breast cancer directly attacks the
breast, a physical symbol of femininity, leading to a greater emotional connection for the
consumer to the cause (King, 2004). Unlike many other diseases, breast cancer affects
more women in higher socio-economic groups (Newman, 2007). The connection with
higher socio-economic families continues to be lucrative for CRM programs as they ask
consumers to support the cause through buying goods. The sheer amount of money
raised for breast cancer through CRM and the overwhelming visual display of pink
ribbons in the marketplace demonstrate its unique segment of the practice of causerelated marketing.
The Saturation of Breast Cancer Cause-Related Marketing
Causes and corporations must work harder to differentiate themselves, especially
in the overcrowded arena of breast cancer. Carol Cone of The Cone Institute, an industry
leader in corporate philanthropic consulting, refers to the saturation of cause relatedmarketing as the “ribbonization of America” (2007). As countless colored ribbons are
displayed on people and products, the power of the message is lessened or even lost.
Increasingly, there is a “struggle to gain ownership over the ethos of generosity,
Breast Cancer CRM 10 corporations have invented new ways to differentiate their versions of generosity from
those of their competitors” (King, 2004, p. 482).
CRM products are not as memorable, either due to abundance or simply not
warranting continued conversation or top of mind appeal. The Cone Institute found
evidence of this saturation by its finding that only 30% of Americans told a family or
friend about a company or product after knowing its commitment to a social cause — a
30% decline from 2003 (2007). This is increasingly troubling as buzz and word of mouth
marketing are thought to be more effective to break through the clutter and as people are
more inclined to take advice from friends and family than from product advertisement
(Rosen, 2009). Also, only 36% of Americans purchased a product from a company
during the past year because of its commitment to a social issue, which is a decline from
43% in 2004 (Cone Institute, 2007).
King sees irony in the fact that as many corporations used CRM to differentiate
themselves from competitors and cut through the clutter, they have had increasingly the
opposite effect of just being another company that jumped on the breast cancer
bandwagon (2004). Avon’s Joanne Mazurki describes the intense competition of
corporations in an overcrowded breast cancer CRM marketplace to “gain ownership over
the [breast cancer] issue” (King, 2004, 482). Saturation is not only a challenge for the
cause and corporate partners, but it can be dangerous. Many breast cancer advocates feel
as though the saturation of breast cancer awareness messages may be sending the wrong
message to the public that researchers are closer to a cure than in reality (Twombly,
2004).
Breast Cancer CRM 11 The immense size and profitability of pink ribbon CRM is difficult to quantify
because there is a lack of formal regulations or a governing body for the use of the pink
ribbon. Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Breast Cancer Research Fund (BCRF) are two
of the largest breast cancer nonprofits, although they are among hundreds of
organizations locally and nationally that participate in breast cancer CRM on varying
scales. To provide scope for the amount of breast cancer CRM, BCRF has over 150
corporate sponsors while 240 support Komen (Susan G. Komen for the Cure [Komen],
2010, Breast Cancer Research Fund [BCRF], 2010).
Susan G. Komen for the Cure is not only a huge force in the breast cancer
nonprofit realm, it is the largest ongoing sports or fund-raising event in the country
(Stole, 2006,). The driving corporate force comes from Komen’s “Million Dollar
Council” comprised of nine companies that provide over a million dollars a year to the
foundation (Komen, 2010). Since it’s inception in 1982, Komen has raised over $1.5
billion, hosted over 1.5 million race participants annually, and has spread internationally
to over 50 countries (Susan G. Komen for the Cure 2008-2009 Annual Report, 2009).
Despite the work of the hundreds of breast cancer nonprofits and the big business
of affiliated CRM, one in eight American women are diagnosed with breast cancer
(Frieswick, 2009). There is concern that much of the monetary support goes to continued
awareness rather than finding causes, advancing treatment options, and prevention
research (Frieswick, 2009). The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation spends the
majority of funds on education, awareness, and community programs, leaving around
40% to research (Parker-Pope, 2006). However, this concern is being met by some breast
cancer foundations such as Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), which spends
Breast Cancer CRM 12 almost 90% of its grants on research grants to prevent and treat breast cancer (BCRF,
2010).
There is an abundance of breast cancer research, but it is tremendously
segmented, and arguably counter-productive. Breast Cancer Action, a San Francisco
based group vocally critical of big business selling breast cancer, argues that what the
cause truly needs more than money is to organize and understand what research is being
done to coordinate distinct efforts that lead to crossover and waste (Twombly, 2004).
According to Breast Cancer Action, in 2007 the National Cancer Institute spent $572
million on breast cancer research, while National Institute of Health spent $705 million
and Susan G. Komen for the Cure spent had revenues of nearly $162 million (2010).
Over 30 federal agencies are conducting or funding breast cancer research (Breast Cancer
Action). Susan Love M.D. of the Susan Love Research Foundation asserts that breast
cancer CRM funds are not devoted to prevention, innovative research, or effective
treatment of advanced disease (Twombly, 2004). Clearly, there is much contention over
the use of research funds, much of which comes from breast cancer CRM, but there is
consensus that there is a saturated marketplace for breast cancer CRM.
This paper will now offer suggestions on how breast cancer CRM campaigns can
cut through the clutter and saturation to utilize CRM in order to promote the corporation
and support the cause in a meaningful and memorable way.
Best Practices for Breast Cancer Cause-Related Marketing
Brands that want to improve their breast cancer CRM programs or cautiously
enter a very competitive marketplace can employ these best practices to stand out and
Breast Cancer CRM 13 create a successful symbiotic relationship with a related cause. Although widely cited
and discussed, sincerity, transparency, and long-term campaigns are too important to
ignore, and worth noting again as many brands still do not adhere to the common
suggestions.
1. Be Sincere
2. Be Long-term
3. Be Transparent
4. Be Original
5. Be Convenient
6. Be Inspiring
8. Be Realistic
9. Be Emotional
10. Be New
1. Be Sincere
To stand out in a crowded marketplace, brands must demonstrate their sincere
desire to help the cause. Use of the pink ribbon is unregulated, which allows any brand
to simply add it to its packaging and claim support for breast cancer awareness.
Although this unethical practice is not endorsed by major foundations, such as Komen
and BCRF, many companies, such as the popular Progressive Gifts & Incentives (PGI),
sell pink ribbon products without a contribution going to a nonprofit (Sather, 2009). This
practice is increasingly met with consumer skepticism and trends of negative brand
Breast Cancer CRM 14 association highlighted by watchdog groups such as “Think Before You Pink” (Anderson
& Stephens, 2008).
This insincere form of breast cancer CRM does not benefit the brand because this
unethical use of the pink ribbon does not differentiate it in a positive manner. Adding the
pink ribbon as an afterthought or preying on the unassuming consumer is never in good
taste. Breast cancer nonprofits are becoming increasingly careful with aligning
themselves with some corporations because they recognize the misuse of the pink ribbon.
The nonprofits realize that if a corporate partner appears greedy or insincere, it tarnishes
the nonprofits’ reputation and fundraising efforts (Friesweick, 2009).
If a brand is to use breast cancer CRM effectively in the saturated marketplace,
the brand must appear genuine and authentic to the target consumer to benefit. Ellen,
Mohr, and Webb’s research with adult consumers on cause fit and perception shows that
effort, beyond slapping a pink ribbon on packaging, consistently affected how
participants evaluated the CRM initiative (2000). Effort was more favorable than
monetary contributions (Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000). To combat skepticism that the
company is exploiting the non-profit, Ellen, Mohr, and Web (2000) found that consumers
favor companies that pledge a higher donation per product sold. This finding furthers the
notion that customers have better brand and CRM conceptions when the business shows
more effort and commitment to the cause, rather than simply a small, vague, or
undisclosed monetary contribution.
Brands that use breast caner CRM should not have products that are linked to
causing breast cancer. A growing concern is the use of breast cancer CRM by companies
such as cosmetic, automobile, dairy, and alcohol brands that have products with proven
Breast Cancer CRM 15 links to breast cancer (Raymond, 2009). These ties draw negative publicity for the brand
as being insincere or contributing to the cause as guilt alleviation. When deciding
whether or not to participate in CRM, brands must carefully weigh possible positive and
negative consumer perceptions, especially concerning the company’s actual and
perceived ethical standards. Overall, brands must come across to the consumer as a
sincere supporter that cares past the point of purchase and creates lasting ties to the cause.
2. Be Long-term
Brands must develop and maintain long-term breast cancer CRM campaigns
beyond National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October. To stand out, it is
becoming paramount that a brand be involved long-term rather than just seen as
exploiting the disease and opportunely jumping on the bandwagon for a month. This best
practice is already popular, and now mandatory, to ward off consumer skepticism.
“Carlson, from the City of Hope, expresses concern that Americans are becoming weary
of ‘one-off’ campaigns during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, in October. To remedy
this concern, she is considering cause-marketing campaigns that are year-round, to garner
an ongoing relationship between corporations and consumers” (Twombly, 2004).
Corporations are now very aware that short term CRM initiatives can be met with
consumer skepticism and seen as purely opportunistic or as King phrases it: “cashing in
on other’s misfortune” (2001). King (2001) found that CRM programs that last an
extended period of time are preferred by consumers, and can be immune to charges of
pure business opportunism. Marketers see that longer-term programs such as Yoplait’s
Save Lids to Save Lives build the brand more as consumers feel a greater emotional
Breast Cancer CRM 16 connection and assume that the corporation really cares enough to have a long-term
commitment (King, 2001). For participation in CRM programs, consumers want to see
that the cause-corporate relationship can be trusted and that the business is participating
in good corporate citizenship, seeing the venture for more than exploitation of the cause
to boost revenue.
A long-term commitment to the cause is also important for the far too less
considered breast cancer patient. Breast cancer patient Anna Schleelein, “spends
Octobers in a self-imposed pop-culture blackout … October is just a reminder of my
cancer … I want to buy my English muffins and not be reminded of it while I’m waiting
for results to come in” (Frieswick, 2009). Brands too easily forget that in promoting the
breast cancer cause, a major supporter is not just the passive female consumer, but, the
actual patients. One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer,
making that a huge portion of the CRM target audience. Therefore, brands must be
extremely sensitive to the patients and their loved ones in order to come across as being
genuine supporters. Long-term commitment is crucial for legitimacy, as well as positive
consumer perception.
3. Be Transparent
Organizations involved in breast cancer CRM must remember to be as transparent
as possible. To impress a lay consumer and avoid criticism, a brand must disclose
specific donation amounts, dictating that donations must be significant percentages of the
profit. The Better Business Bureau published 20 Standards of Charity Accountability to
guide nonprofits and corporations in a CRM partnership, including recommendations for
Breast Cancer CRM 17 transparency:
“Clearly disclose how the charity benefits from the sale of products or services
(i.e., cause-related marketing) that state or imply that a charity will benefit from a
consumer sale or transaction. Such promotions should disclose, at the point of
solicitation: a. the actual or anticipated portion of the purchase price that will
benefit the charity (e.g., 5 cents will be contributed to abc charity for every xyz
company product sold), b. the duration of the campaign (e.g., the month of
October), any maximum or guaranteed minimum contribution amount (e.g., up to
a maximum of $200,000) (Rosenzweig, 2009).
These suggestions should absolutely be followed for business ethics and consumer’s
increasing expectancy for transparent business practices.
The 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study tested consumer attitudes to CRM. Cone
Institute exposed 182 participants to a CRM or generic corporate advertisement for one
of four brands (Cone Institute, 2008). Next, the participants were taken to a mock
convenience store and asked to shop with real money from almost 150 SKUs, or stock
keeping units (Cone Institute, 2008). Cause ads did influence the shoppers, for example,
there was a 74% increase of cause related shampoo products (Cone Institute, 2008). To
validate the results, Cone replicated the study online with over 1,000 adults. The study
found that only 58% of Americans feel that corporations disclose enough details about
their CRM campaigns (2008). Half also reported that they think government or other
third party agencies should regulate CRM (Cone Institute, 2008).
Breast cancer CRM giants, such as Komen and BCRF, practice full disclosure and
have on their website corporate sponsors and amounts, but these details are not usually
Breast Cancer CRM 18 included on actual consumer packaging. Many consumers do not go to websites.
Donation amount should be included on packaging with other pertinent details, such as
specific cause and projects contributions go towards as well as the amount of time the
purchase will benefit the cause — which should be long term.
Again, there is no regulation on the use of the pink ribbon, which is increasingly
becoming clear to the consumer. Brands can use the pink ribbon on packaging and claim
that this is simply promoting awareness, which contributes to the saturation problem.
The overuse of the pink ribbon not only hurts these ribbon-only brands, but, damages the
overall consumer perception of the overall cause and brands that are authentically
involved. CRM is a smart and strategic practice for both brand and cause, but without
transparency and regulation, the practice could disappear and disadvantage the causes
that currently depend upon it. Additionally, successful companies involved in popular
CRM initiatives — namely breast cancer — must be transparent to be taken seriously as
true supporters and to differentiate themselves from competitors.
4. Be Original
Brands must offer original breast cancer CRM campaigns to demonstrate their
unique contribution in a crowded marketplace. Simply walking through any American
superstore in October demonstrates that it is hard to differentiate between breast cancer
CRM campaigns. To cut through the clutter, brands must be original in their approach to
hook the consumer at the point of purchase, as well as be authentic for the skeptical and
researched consumer. Too often brands add the pink ribbon to their packaging and
advertise that a portion of the purchase will go towards breast cancer research. To stand
Breast Cancer CRM 19 out, brands can employ unique frames, promote through consumer personal relevance,
and utilize local breast cancer nonprofits and their specific programs as their unique
promoter.
Many brands use the pink ribbon as a visual for their support of the cause. As the
public is now very aware of breast cancer, brands should shift away from the
oversimplified, and for some people, negative connotation of the pink ribbon to greater
humanize the disease. Women who are depicted in breast cancer CRM are often shown
as the triumphant sole survivors, rather than women who are supported by their
immediate family and friends. Sometimes husbands and female friends are shown, but
brands should depict children and how they are affected when their mother is sick or if
she passes away from the disease. This unique view would show a different emotional
side to why this specific cause is worth the fight, and the purchase of the associated good.
By using the children’s perspective, the brand is seen as empathetic to the larger
picture of how the disease affects not just the woman and her partner, but her children
and even grandchildren. Also, using children emotionally hooks the target consumer who
is most likely a woman. This angle can prompt the consumer to think of her own life and
protecting her children. Thus, be more supportive of the cause and the brand that cares
about the children affected. If utilizing this suggested frame of children, some logical
causes to align with could include the Buddy Kemp House in North Carolina, which
houses families for free while a women is going through treatment, or Kids Konnected, a
free hotline and online chat room for children struggling with their mom’s cancer (Breast
Cancer Resource Directory of North Carolina, 2010). Breast cancer is a very emotional
disease, and the children’s relation to that is an overlooked perspective that brands and
Breast Cancer CRM 20 nonprofits can tap to appeal to the target consumer while actually doing good in an under
supported area.
Another underutilized frame is the environmental connection to breast cancer.
Breast cancer nonprofits such as Breast Cancer Action are becoming more vocal about
pollutants and pesticides connection to the disease. Therefore, now is an opportune time
to frame supporting breast cancer research and the cure by contributing towards
discovering more about this cause of the disease and how to it can be avoided. The
environmental frame is a logical connection towards breast cancer research and
prevention as the green movement becomes trendier. This frame can assuage consumers’
concern that prevention is not a priority and the unacceptable vagueness about where the
contributions actually go.
In addition to using original frames for breast cancer CRM, personal relevance to
the targeted consumer is important. The 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study adds that
83% of participants report that personal relevance to the cause is key. Therefore, when
selecting a cause to fit pre-existing attitudes, the cause can be evaluated by presumed and
studied personal relevance to brand’s target market. Eighty percent of participants
believe that the specific nonprofit associated with the campaign matters (Cone Institute,
2008). This is paramount for breast cancer CRM as there is an abundance of breast
cancer causes for corporations to support. The larger nonprofits have branded themselves
very distinctly and some leave a negative impression of a big corporation that can be
combated by brands aligning with a more local program of a large nonprofit or choosing
a more local cause.
Breast Cancer CRM 21 Local breast cancer causes, such as the Bethany Beach Run for the Cure, are
viewed with less suspicion and more local and tangible differences can be demonstrated
to the consumer. Hoeffler and Keller (2002) further explain the preference for local
causes by stating that consumers feel more connected to local causes because the impacts
of the CRM are more likely to be noticed at the local community level. Local causes are
more important for the less involved or unaware consumer because they are less likely to
process cognitively, but rather on a more peripheral cue like close donation proximity,
consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model. (Grau & Folse, 2007). Additionally,
Grau & Folse argue that Social Impact Theory reinforces consumer’s preference for
immediacy and closer geographic sources in CRM contributions (2007). Being original
is very important to stand out, so employ a different frame, promote personal relevance or
be the primary supporter of a local cause.
5. Be Convenient
Breast cancer CRM purchases should be convenient for the consumer. The
convenience of CRM is what makes point of purchase philanthropy attractive to some
consumers and lucrative to many brands. It is very easy to buy a similar product that
supports breast cancer as opposed to the others on the same shelf that do not support the
cause. However, there is cynicism that ribbon-wearing and purchasing CRM goods are
“about feeling good, not doing good” (Hampson, 2010). This notion may be true for
some people, but the brand, the cause, and the consumer benefit in reputation, donation,
and self-congratulation through CRM. CRM facilitates consumers who may not want to
Breast Cancer CRM 22 get involved with a cause because of constraints such as time or money, but can still
benefit the cause through purchases.
Brands should create breast cancer CRM initiatives that are just as easy for the
consumer to pick up a product at the grocery store and donate a significant portion
directly to that specific nonprofit. This form of CRM should not require the consumer to
mail something in or go online and fill out a form, as this targeted consumer wants no
effort. Yet, this consumer should still be rewarded with positive self-fulfillment. King
(2001) emphasizes the importance of packaging the notion of generosity as a lifestyle
choice where CRM consumers can attain a sense of self-actualization and self-realization
along with the actual selling of the good.
Just as it is important for the brand to facilitate this effortless option to connect
with the brand and support the cause, some target consumers do want to become more
involved. A brand’s concrete suggestions for how consumers can do more demonstrates
the brand’s sincerity and general care for the betterment of the cause. The brand’s honest
appraisal that monetary donations will not alone cure breast cancer lends them legitimacy
with skeptical consumers. Concrete suggestions for involvement can be as simple as
directing them to a website such as BCRFcure.org to donate directly toward an hour of
research of the consumer’s choice of research topic (BCRF, 2010). This sense of
personalization and going further is key for some involved consumer’s positive brand
identity and perception of commitment. Connecting the consumer to the next step of
aiding the cause can also combat some activists’ fear that highly visible CRM, or
consumption philanthropy, may decrease society’s willingness to make direct cash
donations to charity (Frieswick, 2009).
Breast Cancer CRM 23 To appeal to a wide consumer base in a crowded breast cancer CRM marketplace,
brands can differentiate themselves and appeal to consumers by cleverly combining a
sense of effortless cause connection to some while offering options to a more effort filled
connection for others. In conjunction with the introduction of a breast cancer research
stamp New York Representative Susan Molinari stated:
“I believe the American people will rise to the challenge of saying if we make
it easy for you, if we make it an opportunity in your daily life of completing chores
to donate to breast cancer, they will all absolutely rise to that challenge and help us
conquer this disease” (King, 2004, 480).
Brands can blend a sense of consumer convenience and provide steps for further
involvement to appeal to more consumers and combat CRM skepticism.
7. Be Inspiring
Breast cancer CRM must inspire the consumer to want to be associated with the
cause as well as the brand. Inspiration does not come from a ribbon on the package, but
from a sense of belonging to something bigger and more important. Komen has been
successful in making the supporter feel as though they are part of something meaningful,
but their huge degree of corporate sponsorship has commercialized the sense of doing
good through them. Brands that support smaller breast cancer nonprofits can avoid the
negative perception of big business and still inspire consumers in more personal ways.
It is vital for the brand to not only show corporate passion for the cause, but to
explicitly inform the consumer why they care. This is a crucial point. Rightfully,
skeptics say that many brands use breast cancer CRM as a lure for the lucrative female
Breast Cancer CRM 24 consumer to hook them at point of purchase and don’t really care about the cause or the
betterment of society. Avon’s Foundation for Women has been a breast cancer supporter
from the beginning of CRM and does an exceptional job of demonstrating the brand’s
and its employee’s deep commitment to breast cancer and other concerns for women.
Brands can follow Avon’s cue to combat cynicism by using employee involvement and
an assumed unbiased company spokespeople to prove why they — the faces of the brand
— in fact care. Using employees as brand spokespeople gives a certain third party
trustworthiness, as well as more human connection to the consumer.
Humanizing the brand, and not just the cause, is key for brand loyalty. Inspiring
employees is an important aspect of a successful CRM campaign. If a brand can inspire
its employees to go the extra mile, uncompensated, to support a cause then the brand
employees will exude a sincere care for the cause. For example, when Ann Taylor Stores
asked its employees about their opinions on changing or eliminating its breast cancer
cause point of purchase promotion the employees cared so much about it that they
refused to have the program eliminated1 (anonymous, personal communication, March 4,
2010).
A genuine connection with the cause is important, and a lesson for the brand that
simply wants to jump on the pink ribbon bandwagon. The CRM campaign will not be
nearly as positive for the brand if the cause does not connect with the employees and
targeted consumers. Luckily for the breast cancer cause, people do continue to care. But,
arguably the once naive view to breast cancer CRM campaigns is being replaced with
I conducted an in person interview with a corporate Ann Taylor Cause Initiative employee who preferred to remain anonymous. 1
Breast Cancer CRM 25 increasingly educated and skeptical consumers prompting more responsible programs
that better promote the cause and brand.
An increasingly crowded marketplace demands that brands be clear with their
consumers how their intentions and CRM programs are original and worthwhile.
Consumer trust can indicate whether a CRM program will be successful and how a brand
communicates with the audience about the promotion, who it helps, what it does, why it
matters, and how the audience can join the effort will create direct channels of
communication that the brand can control. Direct channels are important in order to
tailor the message to the target audience. Brand web sites offer a viable option for
creating a consumer experience that can utilize the other best practices to hook the
consumer and promote brand loyalty. Word of Mouth Marketing (WOMM) and Buzz
can also be employed in creative and brand specific ways to promote the CRM program
past the over used point of purchase. This commitment to the program will demonstrate
to the consumer that the brand cares past growing the bottom line and show the brand’s
personality and creative powers to break through the clutter. Therefore, brands must
inspire their consumers to care about the cause and how the brand is promoting the cause
through various channels of communication.
8. Be Realistic
Brands must be realistic with themselves and their consumers by recognizing that
breast cancer should be taken seriously. Breast cancer CRM ventures tend to overlook
that it is a terrible disease that plagues one in eight American women. When interviewed
by the Boston Globe in October 2009, Kim Zielinski, a breast cancer survivor laments “I
Breast Cancer CRM 26 think the pink ribbon, as a symbol, tends to pretty up what is a pretty crappy disease. But
a pink ribbon is easier to look at than the disease itself” (Frieswick, 2009). Brands that
utilize breast cancer CRM as a tool for marketing and brand promotion need to be frank
and show the disease for what it is for the patient, her family, her community, and her
society — terrible. In this respect, brands should not just highlight the survivors, but, talk
about those who lose their lives in order to evoke a stronger call to action and reason why
breast cancer CRM is still necessary and worth-while.
Like other types of cancer, talk about the fight, and sometimes the loss, not just
the win. There is a fine line where graphic and too sad or startling is not effective.
Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) explains that denial or fear control will ensue
and the audience will not pay attention or be moved to action (Stephenson & Witte,
2001). Breast cancer CRM can simply acknowledge the devastation that breast cancer
causes by adding statistics such as 194,280 women in the U.S. were diagnosed in 2009
(Komen, 2010). Also, humanizing quick stories with a visual or a patient sound bite or
packaging with more detail on the brand web site would be effective.
Prettying-up a disease too much can have long lasting negative issues for the
cause and corporate supporters.
“But as commentators on the AIDS epidemic have argued, the deployment of
positive images of disease raises complex political questions. While AIDS
activists recognized early on the importance of challenging the hegemony of
pessimistic, often hateful, images of people with AIDS and the pervasive rhetoric
of the ‘AIDS victim,’ it was also the case that overly bright and hopeful
configurations of the disease and of survivorship had the capacity to undermine
Breast Cancer CRM 27 demands that the syndrome be taken seriously and dissipate the rage of activists
that was so crucial to sustaining the AIDS movement” (King, 486-7, 2004).
Breast cancer CRM is at a pivotal point where continued prettying-up will make the
cause unattractive to the consumer as it seems resolved, or no longer deadly and worthy
of support. Although the pinkification is also an opportunity for the unique brand
sponsor to stand out and be taken seriously while evoking thoughtful consideration from
the skeptic consumer.
9. Be Emotional
Brands should utilize emotional hooks to personally involve the consumer in the
CRM campaign by evoking an emotional response for as many people as possible.
Elaboration Likelihood Model details how people process both cognitively and
peripherally (Petty, Priester, & Brinol, 2002). Therefore, brands need to address both
types of consumer interaction and offer emotional connection for both, especially the
more peripheral shopper. Emotional connection humanizes products through the notion
of an experience. The 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study affirms the importance of
message framing for CRM as it reports that 65% find emotional incentives for
involvement important, including guilt alleviation and feeling good about helping a
cause. Shopping guilt alleviation is particularly important during hard economic times.
Brands should package breast cancer CRM to be a necessary form of generosity that can
make the consumer feel good about themselves, and justify their expense. Emotional
connection is more than subsiding buyer’s remorse; it is about connecting with a
Breast Cancer CRM 28 consumer on a deeper level through a carefully selected emotion such as hope, guilt, and
fear.
The Avon Foundation teamed up with Susan Love for the innovative Army of
Women initiative with a strong and emotional call of duty to recruit a million diverse
women to join the fight for the cure together (Army of Women, 2010). Through
humanizing visuals and strong calls to action, such as:
“Sign up for your sister, mother, daughter, grandmother, and the women you met
last week. Breast cancer has been around for decades, but it does not have to be
our future. We can be the generation that stops breast cancer once and for all.
This is YOUR chance to be part of the research that will end breast cancer,”
Avon does an excellent job of demonstrating genuine care and evoking consumer
emotion (Army of Women, 2010).
Unfortunately, not all breast cancer foundations employ sincerely emotional calls
to action, some CRM initiatives only exist in October. Twombly (2004) offers an
interesting perspective that October is seen more as a month for the “Breast Cancer
Industry” and detrimental to the emotional stability of women and men personally
affected by breast cancer. Especially in a crowded marketplace, brands must make a
conscious effort to seem respectful of actual patients, a sadly overlooked population in
breast cancer CRM. Brands must tastefully strive for consumer connection rather than
emotional exploitation.
Breast cancer as a cause is perhaps too popular in consumer perception. The
intense popularity of breast cancer awareness and general research from corporations and
nonprofit giants like Komen demonstrate that the cause is already addressed. To shift
Breast Cancer CRM 29 this frame, brands can align themselves with less advantaged breast cancer nonprofits that
are very specific in their original approach, or they can advocate a different approach to
the greater cause such as the environmental connection, or support the children affected
by breast cancer.
Invoke a sense of the collective imperative when attracting consumers to the
specific breast cancer cause the brand supports. King (2004) notes that Americans are
rooted in the notion that active citizenship is favorable. CRM makes doing good easy,
therefore use that frame to the brand’s advantage and in the choice of language in
supporting the cause. Breast cancer CRM can be used as a way to alleviate guilt for not
doing more for the cause and facilitate an easier way to be part of the active community
and the American way.
10. Be New
The most powerful way for a brand to differentiate itself from other breast cancer
CRM is to use a new symbol. This departure is risky as the pink ribbon is essentially
synonymous with supporting breast cancer causes and a recognized cue to alert a
consumer quickly and efficiently what the CRM venture is and what it supports. But, a
new symbol would allow the brand a departure from the increasing skepticism and
negative perception of the commercialization and over pinkification of the cause. If the
risk is worthwhile to the brand, this practice could pay off immensely to cut through the
clutter, while serving as a new cue for a real supporter. A new symbol could also be used
as a form of breast cancer cause specialization, such as a cue of supporting research for
Breast Cancer CRM 30 environmental factors to the disease or to support the families of those affected, or simply
for a tangible type of prevention.
No matter the new symbol, consistency will be key when trying to promote the
symbol as the new cue to support and action. Because the pink ribbon has no standard
meaning or regulation for use, a new symbol would be an opportunity to introduce third
party regulation to maintain consistency, while not allowing the contamination of the
symbol to disadvantage all of the users. Regulation would also appeal to the targeted
consumers who are informed about breast cancer and associated CRM programs before
the new symbol was popular and attractive towards more peripheral shoppers. A new
symbol would ultimately allow a brand freedom for pink ribbon connotation and the
opportunity to truly stand out in a crowded marketplace.
Conclusion
Brands can use the offered best practices to adjust their breast cancer CRM
ventures or to design new breast cancer CRM programs to cautiously enter the saturated
marketplace. The practices will help the brand to differentiate themselves for consumer
attention and loyalty, although it may be more valuable long-term to associate with a
different cause to avoid skepticism and some consumer’s negative view of pink ribbon
CRM. Brands can stand out more for creating a CRM connection with a less utilized
cause such as ovarian and cervical cancer separately or in addition to breast cancer
support, and still attract a similar consumer with the same buying power and
demographic. Some brands that are involved with breast cancer CRM, such as Saks Fifth
Avenue, are diversifying their causes and supporting causes like Ovarian Cancer National
Breast Cancer CRM 31 Alliance in addition to their popular Key to the Cure event in October supporting breast
cancer.
According to CRM guru Carol Cone, Cause support is now a required aspect of
marketing (Cone, 2007). No matter if brands decide to support breast cancer nonprofits
or other causes through CRM, Cone continues that “cause is here to stay, and if
conducted authentically, it can have a great influence on the purchasing, employment,
and overall loyalty of customers and employees” (Cone, 2007). If done well, CRM is a
strategic way to successfully create a symbiotic relationship with a meaningful cause and
the targeted consumer audience.
CRM is still an important practice in sour economic times. The 2008 Cone Cause
Evolution study reported that 52% of Americans feel companies should maintain their
level of cause support, and another 26% expect that companies give more in times of
recession (Cone Institute, 2008). With this consumer imposed mandate, brands can tailor
their CRM ventures to be profitable as well as meaningful for the employees, the
consumers, and the cause. Breast cancer, or other female centered illnesses that are
socially perceived as blameless, are smart choices for many CRM ventures, as 79%
Americans feel that health and disease causes should be addressed by companies (Cone
Institute, 2008).
CRM is absolutely here to stay. If brands are cautious with their use of the pink
ribbon or in how they choose to rebrand breast cancer support, breast cancer CRM will
continue to be profitable and a meaningful practice. However, brands can use the history
and saturation of breast cancer CRM, along with the offered best practices to create a
Breast Cancer CRM 32 more sustainable CRM movement with a different cause, such as ovarian or cervical
cancer, to be even more of a social phenomenon than pink ribbon CRM.
Breast Cancer CRM 33 References
Anderson, E. & Stephens, A. (2008, November 19). Is pink the new green? Shopper
Culture. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from
http://www.shopperculture.com/shopper_culture/trend/
Army of Women. (2010). Army of women recruiter. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from
http://www.armyofwomen.org/pdf/AOW_recruiter.pdf
Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T. & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer response to retailer
use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4),
437-445.
Berglind, M. & Nakata, C. (2005). Cause-related marketing: more buck than bang?
Business Horizons, 48, 443-453.
Bloom, P. N., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K. L., & Meza, C. E. B. (2006). How social-cause
marketing affects consumer perceptions. MITSloan Management Review, 47(2),
49-55.
Breast Cancer Action (2010). Politics of breast cancer. Retrieved February 23, 2010,
from http://www.coneinc.com/content1188
Breast Cancer Research Fund. (2010). Partners & programs. Retrieved February 13,
2010, from http://www.bcrfcure.org/part.html
Breast Cancer Resource Directory of North Carolina (2010). Children’s issues.
Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://bcresourcedirectory.org/page/children’sissues
Breast Cancer CRM 34 Chipps, W. (2009, August 17). Sponsorship spending on causes to total $1.55 billion in
2009. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://www.sponsorship.com/AboutIEG/Press-Room/Sponsorship-Spending-On-Causes-To-Total-$1-55-Bill.aspx
Cone Institute. (2008, October 1). Cone releases first cause consumer behavior study:
consumer behavior study confirms cause-related marketing can exponentially
increase sales. Retrieved on February 23, 2010, from
http://www.coneinc.com/content1188
Cone, C. (2007, November/December). What do you stand for? Cause branding at the
crossroads this season. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from
http://www.coneinc.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/e7973cb585bb136b1bba3e9c96
5bfedb/files/contribute_column_nov_dec.pdf
Daw, J. (2006). Cause marketing for nonprofits. Retrieved April 13, 2010 from
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/09/04717175/0471717509.pdf
Edelman. (2009). Despite prolonged global recession, an increasing number of people
are spending on brands that have social purpose. Retrieved November 3, 2009
from http://www.edelman.com/news/ShowOne.asp?ID=222
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: do
they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393-406.
Fernandez, S. M. (1998, June/July). History of the pink ribbon. Breast Cancer Action,
Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=26
Frieswick, K. (2009, October 4). Sick of pink. The Boston Globe, Retrieved on February
10, 2010, from
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/10/04/sick_of_pink/
Breast Cancer CRM 35 Gourville, J. T. & Rangan, V. K. (2004). Valuing the cause marketing relationship.
Californial Management Review. 47(1), 38-57.
Grau, S. L. & Folse J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): the influence of
donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer.
Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Hampson, S. (2010, March 5). Red-carpet ribbons: for a good cause or just 'cause it's
cool? The Globe and Mail. Retrieved on March 10, 2010, from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/awards/academy-awards/red-carpetribbons-for-a-good-cause-or-just-cause-its-cool/article1491418/
Harding, K (2009, October 9). Breast cancer is a disease, not a marketing opportunity.
Retrieved on March 16, 2010, from http://jezebel.com/5380683/breast-cancer-isa-disease-not-a-marketing-opportunity
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal
marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78-89.
King, S. (2001). An all-consuming cause: breast cancer, corporate philanthropy, and the
market for generosity. Social Text, 69(4), 115-143.
King, S. (2004, July/August). Pink ribbon inc: breast cancer activism and the politics of
philanthropy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(4),
473-92.
McAlister, D. T. & Ferrell, L. (2002). The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing
strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 689-705.
Breast Cancer CRM 36 Nan, X. & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR)
initiatives: examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing.
Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.
Newman, L (2007, October 4). Does race or ethnic background affect my risk of breast
cancer? ABC News. Retrieved on April 13, 2010, from
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCallPlusRiskAndPrevention/race-ethnicbackground-affect-risk-breast-cancer/story?id=3636224
Parker-Pope, T. (2006, October 10). How to tell if a pink-ribbon product really helps
breast-cancer efforts. The Wall Street Journal, p. D.1.
Petty, R.E., Priester, J. R., & Brinol, P. (2002). Mass media attitude change: Implications
of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann
(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 155-198). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Polonsky, M. J. & Wood G. (2001). Can the overcommercialization of cause-related
marketing harm society? Journal of Macromarketing, 21(1), 8-22.
Raymond, J. (2009, October 13). Seeing red in pink products: one woman’s fight against
breast cancer consumerism. Newsweek. Retrieved on February 19, 2010, from
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/10/13/seeingred-in-pink-products-one-woman-s-fight-against-breast-cancer-consumerism.aspx
Rosen, E. (2009). The anatomy of buzz revisited. New York: Doubleday.
Rozenzweig, C. (2009, August 17). Cause-marketing considerations. Better Business
Bureau serving Metropolitan NY. Retrieved April 13, 2010 from
Breast Cancer CRM 37 http://www.manhattancc.org/common/News/articles/detail.cfm?QID=6872&class
ification=news&clientID=11001&topicID=0
Sather, J. (2009, November 1). How LOW will Komen go?: the 2009 winners. The
Assertive Patient. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from
http://www.assertivepatient.com/pink_ribbons/
Stephenson, M. R., & Witte, K. (2001). Creating fear in a risky world:
Generating effective health risk messages. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin
(Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 88-102).
Stole, I. (2006, July 14). Cause-related marketing: why social change and corporate
profits don’t mix. Retrieved on February 19, 2010, from
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4965
Susan G. Komen for the Cure. (2010). Partners & sponsors. Retrieved February 13,
2010, from http://ww5.komen.org/partners/partnerssponsors.html
Susan G. Komen for the Cure 2008-2009 Annual Report (2009). Retrieved April 13,
2010, from http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content_Binaries/20082009AnnualReportFinal.pdf
Twombly, R. (2004). Corporations flock to selling for the (breast cancer) cause. Journal
of the National Cancer Institute, 96(23) 1736-1737.