But What About the Buyer?:A conversation on Inger Stole's "Philanthropy as Public Relations"

Dorothy J. Burk

Imagine an executive at a major American credit card company is looking for an innovative way to

entice consumers. If the traditional marketing options, such as direct-mail and TV/radio ads, have lost

their pizazz, what can be done? One solution that has emerged in the last thirty years is to employ cause

marketing, or the selling of goods to consumers based on altruistic incentives. Cause marketing promises

that the company will donate X amount to a charitable organization when the consumer purchases a

certain product or service. Inger Stole has criticized this model, charging that the payoff for big business

is exponential, while the actual gains of the non-profit are quite small, or even negative. In this paper I

adopt Stole's overall position, while arguing that a further development of her thesis is necessary in order

to understand the economic and social pressures that have contributed to the wide-spread popularity of

cause marketing. I also suggest strategies that non-profits might adopt to eliminate potentially harmful

partnerships with big business.

The crux of Stole's (2009) argument against cause marketing is that big corporations exploit the

neediness of non-profits to improve their own image, and to conceal their role in contributing to the

problems which they publicly purport to be crusading against (p. 427). The sale of 'pink ribbon' products

during Breast Cancer Awareness month is a prime example of cause marketing; businesses in almost all

sectors of the economy participate with the stated goal of contributing to the Susan G. Komen

Foundation. The curious consumer might find themselves wondering just how much of their purchase

even goes to the Komen Foundation, and they would be right in their curiosity: even if 10% of the profit

on the sale of a CD is donated, the big business 'sponsor' has made huge gains which the Komen

Foundation will never receive (Stole, 2009, pp. 427-9). There are additional questions about how medical

2

research is indirectly shaped by business when it is funded by the non-profits that have received

significant contributions from business partnerships, but that is outside the scope of this paper.

Stole ingeniously points out that big businesses are often concealing their own ill-doings with

philanthropy. Arguably, deodorant partnerships with the Komen Foundation are a good example of this,

as some studies have found that deodorant may contribute to the likelihood of early-onset breast cancer.

While she points out this contradiction as a deception on the part of the corporation, Stole fails to

address the issue of how this deception is condoned, and even enjoyed, by the consumer. Stole insists

that many consumers do not necessarily believe the cause marketing claims of companies, but she does

not provide any evidence that this disbelief affects spending habits. Slavoj Zizek's (1999) work on

ideology, especially "The Spectre of Ideology," contributes to this situation the comment that the

consumer actively supports this system of cause marketing because it enable them to 'act without acting',

or to acknowledge and 'fix' a problem without really acknowledging or addressing the root of the

problem ( pp. 58-9).

Historical surveys of post-Ford capitalism can also contribute to Stole's discussion an economic

analysis, which is absent from her essay. In his book on postmodernity, David Harvey (1990) wrote on

the role of "commodification of cultural forms" and "the artifices of need inducement" that have

become a necessary corollary of business since the 1970s (p. 156). The idea that the inducement to 'need'

something has developed a strongly social angle in the last forty years supports Stole's assertion that

buying goods from charitable businesses does make some consumers feel satisfied; extending her

argument into more economic terms works to reveal some of the larger motivating forces behind cause

marketing. So it is not just, as Stole argues, that this is an efficient way for businesses to promote

themselves; it is also socially and culturally desirable and enjoyable.

A deep analysis of cause marketing leaves a certain sense of pessimism for smaller, 'not

corporately viable' non-profits, who are both excluded from this field of fundraising and are wary of

3

being involved with big business in the first place. Viable options for non-profits who find themselves

financially strapped are absent in Stole's essay, but are necessary if small organizations hope to excel

outside the cause marketing model. Several non-profits are already utilizing fundraising models that work

well without big business participation. Perhaps the most readily identifiable organization in the U.S. is

the Girl Scouts, who sell cookies yearly in order to raise funds. Non-profits might also look at the model

of Los Angeles based Homeboy Industries, led by Father Greg Boyle. Homeboy was founded to keep

gang members and recent parolees off the streets by offering them work. Homeboy runs very successful

bakeries, cafes, print and screen-printing shops in L.A. County that directly tackle poverty and prison

recidivism without relying on large corporations (Homeboy Industries, 2008).

In the end of her essay, Stole (2009) wrote that big businesses "[transform] the generosity,

compassion and charitable inclinations of Americans into...branding strategy" (p. 436). Whether or not

Americans actually possess the degree of compassion that she attributes to them, it is certain that they are

diligent consumers. Given the nature of American consumerism, non-profits would be well served by

focusing both on understanding the economic conditions that have led to the proliferation of cause

marketing and finding positive, self-sustaining ways to harness the power of the consumer. Bringing these

elements of analysis and action to bear on Inger Stole's essay extends her relevance, and ultimately

suggests a solution to the troubling issues surrounding corporate philanthropy.

4

Works Cited

Harvey, D. (1990). The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Homebody Industries. (2008). History. Retrieved from http://www.homeboy-industries.org/history.php

Stole, I. (2009). Philanthropy as Public Relations: A Critical Perspective on Cause Marketing. In B.E. Duffy and J. Turrow (Eds.) Key Reading in Media Today: Mass Communication in Context. (pp. 426-440). New York: Routledge.

Zizek, S. (1999). The Spectre of Ideology. In E. and E. Wright (Eds.) The Zizek Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.