Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.