filter by date: October 2010
Women Give Big
October 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM by Research & Insights
Women often balance the household checkbook, and a new study by the Women's Philanthropy Institute reveals they are more likely than men to be writing these checks out to charity.
The Women Give 2010 study isolated men and women who are “single heads of household,” among other factors, to make direct gender comparisons. The results revealed that across all income brackets, women are simply giving more money away. It seems gender, not affluence, spurs giving. Women whose household income topped $103,000 gave $1,910, while men in this income range gave $984. Women whose household income was at the bottom of the income bracket, just $23,509 or less, gave $540 while their male counterparts gave $281. Executive Director of Equality Now, Taina Bien-Aimé, says “Dedicated women with no income will send you five dollars. The issues speak to them, and that moves women to give.”
The study also found that women are more likely to donate to a variety of causes, rather than direct a lump-sum to one organization. Women may be giving a few dollars to each issue that crosses their path, whether it’s originating from a coworker, child’s school or community organization knocking at their front door. When engaging this group, provide tools that allow turn-key networking. For example, a personalized fundraising site where an individual can drive others to donate or a toolkit that empowers them to take charge of an on-the-ground fundraiser. The efforts of one woman to gather small donations can add up to a huge impact for the cause.
The research confirms that women hold the desire and capacity to be philanthropic at all income levels. When crafting a campaign to raise funds for your issue, look to engage these super-givers regardless of income level, and provide the resources that help tap into her vast network of others who want to support a good cause.
Tags: Women philanthropy charitablegiving nonprofitcausebranding fundraising donation
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
Women often balance the household checkbook, and a new study by the Women's Philanthropy Institute reveals they are more likely than men to be writing these checks out to charity.
The study also found that women are more likely to donate to a variety of causes, rather than direct a lump-sum to one organization. Women may be giving a few dollars to each issue that crosses their path, whether it’s originating from a coworker, child’s school or community organization knocking at their front door. When engaging this group, provide tools that allow turn-key networking. For example, a personalized fundraising site where an individual can drive others to donate or a toolkit that empowers them to take charge of an on-the-ground fundraiser. The efforts of one woman to gather small donations can add up to a huge impact for the cause.
The research confirms that women hold the desire and capacity to be philanthropic at all income levels. When crafting a campaign to raise funds for your issue, look to engage these super-givers regardless of income level, and provide the resources that help tap into her vast network of others who want to support a good cause.
Tags: Women philanthropy charitablegiving nonprofitcausebranding fundraising donation
Did you like this post? Please share it:
 |  |  |  |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Partnering to Build Your Brand
October 25, 2010 at 4:29 PM by Craig Bida
The missed brand-building opportunity came when the tech offered to recycle my computer. Terrific – computers should definitely not end up in landfills. Just one catch: It would cost me $10. I experienced a moment of consumer confusion – it wasn’t clear if Staples was making money off me, breaking even or picking up part of the tab. I ended up walking out with my old IBM, feeling skeptical about Staples’ green effort and figuring I could find a way to junk it responsibly that wouldn’t cost me $10. This ambivalence was cemented when I discovered my town has a program where I could recycle my computer for free (Staples’ website explains that a “recycling fee is charged to cover handling, transport, product disassembly and recycling”).
I applaud Staples’ effort to reduce the environmental impact of technology obsolescence. But here’s the miss: Staples had a chance to cement my loyalty by wrapping a successful, well-executed business transaction in a successful corporate responsibility experience. They missed an opportunity to partner with me to fulfill broader responsibilities vs. simply charging for a service. My good opinion of Staples might have been solidified if they had followed up the offer to recycle with an overture to partner – and put some skin in the game by offering to help me defray the cost of recycling somehow, either through cash, in-store credit, or even a coupon for future use back in their store.
Lesson learned: At a time when consumer expectations are higher than ever, and more and more brands are linking themselves to social causes, it is critical for companies to be fully transparent about the contribution they are making and to approach their customers as genuine partners.
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency sustainability retail
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (3)
I recently experienced a missed brand-building opportunity at Staples when I tried to salvage some files from a defunct computer. What happened was a great example of how companies need to make their social contributions clear and actively partner with their customers for even greater impact.
I took an IBM desktop circa 1997 (!) with a frozen hard drive and forgotten passwords to the Tech Services Desk at my local Staples, where I had a GREAT customer experience – the staff was thorough and the job got done quickly for a reasonable price. I would definitely go back and this transaction helped evolve how I thought about the Staples brand (solutions provider for my life vs. seller of pens and paper).
The missed brand-building opportunity came when the tech offered to recycle my computer. Terrific – computers should definitely not end up in landfills. Just one catch: It would cost me $10. I experienced a moment of consumer confusion – it wasn’t clear if Staples was making money off me, breaking even or picking up part of the tab. I ended up walking out with my old IBM, feeling skeptical about Staples’ green effort and figuring I could find a way to junk it responsibly that wouldn’t cost me $10. This ambivalence was cemented when I discovered my town has a program where I could recycle my computer for free (Staples’ website explains that a “recycling fee is charged to cover handling, transport, product disassembly and recycling”).
I applaud Staples’ effort to reduce the environmental impact of technology obsolescence. But here’s the miss: Staples had a chance to cement my loyalty by wrapping a successful, well-executed business transaction in a successful corporate responsibility experience. They missed an opportunity to partner with me to fulfill broader responsibilities vs. simply charging for a service. My good opinion of Staples might have been solidified if they had followed up the offer to recycle with an overture to partner – and put some skin in the game by offering to help me defray the cost of recycling somehow, either through cash, in-store credit, or even a coupon for future use back in their store.
Lesson learned: At a time when consumer expectations are higher than ever, and more and more brands are linking themselves to social causes, it is critical for companies to be fully transparent about the contribution they are making and to approach their customers as genuine partners.
- Craig Bida, Executive Vice President
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency sustainability retail
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (3)
Cause in Entertainment: Less After-School Special, More Prime-Time Programming
October 22, 2010 at 3:06 PM by Research & Insights
Our parents always told us television will rot our brain. Yet when the message is good, perhaps a daily dose of the tube isn’t so bad. Companies, TV networks and nonprofits are leveraging the many hours Americans spend in front of the television to communicate powerful messages about complex social and environmental issues. The explosion of cause-driven content hitting the airwaves recently includes:
Tags: causebranding nonprofitcausebranding celebrityengagement entertainment
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (1)
Our parents always told us television will rot our brain. Yet when the message is good, perhaps a daily dose of the tube isn’t so bad. Companies, TV networks and nonprofits are leveraging the many hours Americans spend in front of the television to communicate powerful messages about complex social and environmental issues. The explosion of cause-driven content hitting the airwaves recently includes:
- For the second season this fall, Chef Jamie Oliver brought the fight against obesity into American living rooms with a reality show that overhauled some of the most overweight communities in the country. "Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution" aired on ABC and sought to raise awareness of the growing obesity crisis and get people cooking and eating better food.
- Beloved ad man Don Draper of AMC’s "Mad Men" is putting his best foot forward for a good cause. In a recent episode, the suave main character and creative director of the fictional 1960s Madison Avenue advertising agency agreed to do pro bono work for the American Cancer Society. The motive? When the ad shop hit a rough patch financially, the agency recognized the potential of pro bono work to keep the agency visible and employee morale high.
- Comedy Central’s Jon Stuart and Stephen Colbert will host dueling mock rallies in Washington D.C. next week, competing for who can organize the most supporters. In the process, the two comedians have encouraged viewers to show their support by donating money to designated projects, such as restoring a park and funding area schools. Through satire and some friendly competition, "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" have already raised a combined $364,000 for local communities.
- "School Pride" is NBC’s latest extreme makeover show in which students, parents, teachers and community members help to rebuild and update seven U.S. schools. Sponsored by HP, the show will pull at viewer heart strings while also addressing a serious societal issue.
Tags: causebranding nonprofitcausebranding celebrityengagement entertainment
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
Meet Our New EVP of Cause Branding & Nonprofit Marketing
October 19, 2010 at 12:20 PM by
Craig Bida joined Cone last month as executive vice president of Cause Branding and Nonprofit Marketing. Craig has more than 20 years of experience in the private, public and nonprofit sectors, including an 11-year tenure at Procter & Gamble.
Though he’s been with us for less than four weeks, Craig already feels like family. We’re excited by the energy and experience he brings to the agency, and look forward to his contributions – including future posts on this blog!
To learn more about our newest executive team member, read his interview with PRWeek’s Kimberly Maul.
Tags: causebranding nonprofitcausebranding cone
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
Craig Bida joined Cone last month as executive vice president of Cause Branding and Nonprofit Marketing. Craig has more than 20 years of experience in the private, public and nonprofit sectors, including an 11-year tenure at Procter & Gamble. Though he’s been with us for less than four weeks, Craig already feels like family. We’re excited by the energy and experience he brings to the agency, and look forward to his contributions – including future posts on this blog!
To learn more about our newest executive team member, read his interview with PRWeek’s Kimberly Maul.
Tags: causebranding nonprofitcausebranding cone
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Balancing the Cause Shock-Factor
October 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM by Research & Insights
Social marketing, which aims to capture attention and initiate behavior change, is most effective when it evokes emotion and feelings. But what if it’s the feeling of your stomach turning? While effective social marketing is often “edgy” (e.g., showing body bags to curb youth smoking), two recent campaigns demonstrate how shock-factor can range from the effective to the offensive.
A PSA for the 10:10 global campaign, a program focused on encouraging participants to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent each year, caused outrage with the extreme measures it took to show what happens when people opt not to take action to fight climate change. Particularly offensive was a segment in the “No Pressure” video in which a teacher blows up students who refuse to take part in cutting emissions. The gory video prompted Sony U.K. to distance itself from the organization by dropping all support for the climate change campaign. In response, the video director issued a public apology for the offensive imagery.
Less graphic, yet similarly stomach-churning is the New York City Health Department’s latest campaign against sugar-sweetened drinks. The print and video ads depicting sugary drinks as glasses filled with globs of greasy fat are enough to catch eyeballs and make stomachs spin. Knowing that nearly six out of 10 adults and four out of 10 kids in New York are overweight or obese, the Department aims to discourage residents from a daily soda habit, which can add 10 pounds of fat in a year. Though some have applauded the NYC Health Department for its efforts to curb obesity, several are left with a bad taste in their mouths.
The NYC Health Department strikes a balance between attention-grabbing and gut-grabbing, but the 10:10 campaign tipped the shock-factor scale over the edge. The climate change PSA’s lack of sensitivity ultimately cost the 10:10 campaign a major corporate sponsor and a huge amount of credibility among peers. It will stand as a warning for other organizations looking to get a message out in an eye-catching way – it may get you attention, but is it the right kind? There is a fine line between communicating an issue and taking a message too far.
Tags: environment marketing campaigns trends health
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
Social marketing, which aims to capture attention and initiate behavior change, is most effective when it evokes emotion and feelings. But what if it’s the feeling of your stomach turning? While effective social marketing is often “edgy” (e.g., showing body bags to curb youth smoking), two recent campaigns demonstrate how shock-factor can range from the effective to the offensive.
A PSA for the 10:10 global campaign, a program focused on encouraging participants to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent each year, caused outrage with the extreme measures it took to show what happens when people opt not to take action to fight climate change. Particularly offensive was a segment in the “No Pressure” video in which a teacher blows up students who refuse to take part in cutting emissions. The gory video prompted Sony U.K. to distance itself from the organization by dropping all support for the climate change campaign. In response, the video director issued a public apology for the offensive imagery.
Less graphic, yet similarly stomach-churning is the New York City Health Department’s latest campaign against sugar-sweetened drinks. The print and video ads depicting sugary drinks as glasses filled with globs of greasy fat are enough to catch eyeballs and make stomachs spin. Knowing that nearly six out of 10 adults and four out of 10 kids in New York are overweight or obese, the Department aims to discourage residents from a daily soda habit, which can add 10 pounds of fat in a year. Though some have applauded the NYC Health Department for its efforts to curb obesity, several are left with a bad taste in their mouths.
The NYC Health Department strikes a balance between attention-grabbing and gut-grabbing, but the 10:10 campaign tipped the shock-factor scale over the edge. The climate change PSA’s lack of sensitivity ultimately cost the 10:10 campaign a major corporate sponsor and a huge amount of credibility among peers. It will stand as a warning for other organizations looking to get a message out in an eye-catching way – it may get you attention, but is it the right kind? There is a fine line between communicating an issue and taking a message too far.
Tags: environment marketing campaigns trends health
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
FTC Green Guides – What the Proposed Changes Mean for Marketers
October 8, 2010 at 10:23 AM by Research & Insights
On Wednesday, after more than two years of long-anticipated review, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released proposed changes to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (aka Green Guides). The issues addressed in the two-page synopsis of changes are summed up simply by FTC Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, who said, “…what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things.”
The proposed changes aim to mitigate consumer confusion by requiring companies to provide factual evidence to back up environmental claims. During a media briefing on Wednesday, the commissioners noted they anticipate enforcement of environmental marketing to decline (there were seven enforcement actions taken in 2009), believing many companies want to comply and are seeking more guidance.
The FTC’s rules may change over time, but Cone’s guiding principles for effective environmental marketing stay the same:
Be precise. Make specific claims that provide quantitative impacts.
Cone’s Chief Reputation Officer, Mike Lawrence, provides his initial reactions to the FTC Green Guides proposal in a video response and post on our blog. What is your reaction to the proposed Green Guides revisions? Share your thoughts by voting in our latest What Do You Stand For? poll.
Tags: Greenwash FTC corporateresponsibility currentevents labels transparency sustainability
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
On Wednesday, after more than two years of long-anticipated review, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released proposed changes to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (aka Green Guides). The issues addressed in the two-page synopsis of changes are summed up simply by FTC Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, who said, “…what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things.”
The proposed changes aim to mitigate consumer confusion by requiring companies to provide factual evidence to back up environmental claims. During a media briefing on Wednesday, the commissioners noted they anticipate enforcement of environmental marketing to decline (there were seven enforcement actions taken in 2009), believing many companies want to comply and are seeking more guidance.
The FTC’s rules may change over time, but Cone’s guiding principles for effective environmental marketing stay the same:
Be precise. Make specific claims that provide quantitative impacts.
- Americans say quantifying the actual environmental impact of a product or service is influential in their purchasing decisions. In addition, the more precise an environmental claim, the more convincing Americans believe it to be.
- Americans say providing a clear connection between the product/service and the environmental issue (i.e., a hybrid car and lower emissions) influences their purchasing decisions.
- A website is great, but based on the FTC’s latest comments, be sure to also provide proof at point-of-sale.
- For example, showing an automobile parked in a virgin forest may be seen as insensitive, while a product growing out of a tree may be seen as exaggeration.
Cone’s Chief Reputation Officer, Mike Lawrence, provides his initial reactions to the FTC Green Guides proposal in a video response and post on our blog. What is your reaction to the proposed Green Guides revisions? Share your thoughts by voting in our latest What Do You Stand For? poll.
Tags: Greenwash FTC corporateresponsibility currentevents labels transparency sustainability
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
New FTC Environmental Marketing Guidelines – First Impressions…
October 6, 2010 at 1:07 PM by Mike Lawrence
The top line is this: If a company wants to make a claim, it has to provide data at point of purchase to prove the claim. This means no more general claims, like “We're eco friendly,” unless the marketer defines exactly how, with facts, on the package.
The Commission is proposing to tighten rules for claims about a product’s degradability – by saying how fast something has to degrade and by banning use of the term if a product is headed for a landfill or incinerator.
The FTC also wants to limit the use of the word “recyclable” to describe a product; if recycling programs aren’t widely available where the product is sold, the marketing needs to admit that.
There are similar newly proposed requirements for more specifics around third party environmental “seals of approval,” and claims that products are “free of” certain ingredients or are made with renewable materials or renewable energy.
Here at Cone, overall, we think the Commission's proposed changes are a step in the right direction to solve a problem about which we filed comment to the FTC in its 2008 workshops. We know first-hand from doing environmental communications for companies and from our research that consumers are interested in environmental messages, but are confused about and often misunderstand what those messages mean.
By requiring companies to provide proof of claims, and to provide it at point of purchase, the FTC is taking a step toward helping consumers better understand whether something is good – or just less bad – for the environment and whether the benefit can actually happen when they dispose of the package.
There are, however, some holes in what the Commission is proposing. For example, they did not directly take on the word “sustainable,” one of the most overused and poorly understood environmental marketing terms.
There will no doubt be much debate about the FTC's proposed revisions in the weeks to come. The Commission is welcoming public comment until mid December and then hopes to issue a final version of the new Green Guides by the middle of 2011. Those will then become the “guardrails” for how future marketing on environmental issues can take place.
Tags: corporateresponsibility currentevents transparency sustainability labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
After a series of hearings and two years of anticipation, the FTC today issued much-needed updated guidance on how to responsibly market and advertise the environmental impact of products.
The top line is this: If a company wants to make a claim, it has to provide data at point of purchase to prove the claim. This means no more general claims, like “We're eco friendly,” unless the marketer defines exactly how, with facts, on the package.
The Commission is proposing to tighten rules for claims about a product’s degradability – by saying how fast something has to degrade and by banning use of the term if a product is headed for a landfill or incinerator.
The FTC also wants to limit the use of the word “recyclable” to describe a product; if recycling programs aren’t widely available where the product is sold, the marketing needs to admit that.
There are similar newly proposed requirements for more specifics around third party environmental “seals of approval,” and claims that products are “free of” certain ingredients or are made with renewable materials or renewable energy.
Here at Cone, overall, we think the Commission's proposed changes are a step in the right direction to solve a problem about which we filed comment to the FTC in its 2008 workshops. We know first-hand from doing environmental communications for companies and from our research that consumers are interested in environmental messages, but are confused about and often misunderstand what those messages mean.
By requiring companies to provide proof of claims, and to provide it at point of purchase, the FTC is taking a step toward helping consumers better understand whether something is good – or just less bad – for the environment and whether the benefit can actually happen when they dispose of the package.
There are, however, some holes in what the Commission is proposing. For example, they did not directly take on the word “sustainable,” one of the most overused and poorly understood environmental marketing terms.
There will no doubt be much debate about the FTC's proposed revisions in the weeks to come. The Commission is welcoming public comment until mid December and then hopes to issue a final version of the new Green Guides by the middle of 2011. Those will then become the “guardrails” for how future marketing on environmental issues can take place.
- Mike Lawrence, Chief Reputation Officer & EVP
Tags: corporateresponsibility currentevents transparency sustainability labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Crisis Preparedness is a Corporate Responsibility
October 1, 2010 at 1:53 PM by Research & Insights
Tags: corporateresponsibility employees crisispreparedness
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
Survey after corporate responsibility survey reveals the number one expectation individuals have of companies is to treat their employees well. Fair wages and benefits immediately come to mind, but have you ever considered a crisis preparedness plan as a benefit employees need and deserve? Does your organization have a plan in place? If not, you’re not alone, but you are at risk. Visit our sister blog, Brand Channeler, to hear Cone’s Chief Reputation Officer, Mike Lawrence, discuss why.
Tags: corporateresponsibility employees crisispreparedness
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Millennials Close at Moms' Heels: 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study
October 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM by Research & Insights
Although moms stand out as the most socially conscious segment of consumers, according to the 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study, it comes as no surprise that their Millennial-aged children (18-24), are close at their heels. Ninety-four percent believe cause marketing is acceptable, and more than half (53%) have purchased a cause product/service in the past 12 months (vs. 88% and 41% respectively for the average consumer).
The Millennial segment provides the clearest view of the nation’s future cause consumers – and the outlook is good. Nearly three-quarters (73%) are willing to try a new product they’ve never heard of if it supports a cause. And, more than a quarter (26%) are willing to pay more for products associated with a good cause.
Ford is looking to capture the attention of this segment through the allure of cause marketing. As part of a new collaboration with Pandora, a Web radio station popular with digital-natives (a.k.a. Millennials), Ford will make a donation to one of two charities, chosen by featured artists John Legend and Jewel, every time Pandora users share a “mixtape” by either musician. This is sure to strike a note with Pandora’s Millennial users, while also promoting the integration of the Pandora service into Ford vehicles.
More than their counterparts in other age categories, Millennials are even willing to keep the greater good in mind when making decisions outside the store – 87 percent consider a company’s cause commitments when deciding where to work. Companies are putting this into practice, for example Deloitte (client) uses its community involvement initiative as a core recruiting differentiator.
Millennials are entering our workforce and marketplace with a fierce sense of social and environmental responsibility. Whether companies are trying to recruit the next generation of talent or differentiate on the shelf, aligning with a cause is a powerful way to prepare for the future.
Tags: causebranding youth research cone trends employee
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
Although moms stand out as the most socially conscious segment of consumers, according to the 2010 Cone Cause Evolution Study, it comes as no surprise that their Millennial-aged children (18-24), are close at their heels. Ninety-four percent believe cause marketing is acceptable, and more than half (53%) have purchased a cause product/service in the past 12 months (vs. 88% and 41% respectively for the average consumer).
The Millennial segment provides the clearest view of the nation’s future cause consumers – and the outlook is good. Nearly three-quarters (73%) are willing to try a new product they’ve never heard of if it supports a cause. And, more than a quarter (26%) are willing to pay more for products associated with a good cause.
Ford is looking to capture the attention of this segment through the allure of cause marketing. As part of a new collaboration with Pandora, a Web radio station popular with digital-natives (a.k.a. Millennials), Ford will make a donation to one of two charities, chosen by featured artists John Legend and Jewel, every time Pandora users share a “mixtape” by either musician. This is sure to strike a note with Pandora’s Millennial users, while also promoting the integration of the Pandora service into Ford vehicles.
More than their counterparts in other age categories, Millennials are even willing to keep the greater good in mind when making decisions outside the store – 87 percent consider a company’s cause commitments when deciding where to work. Companies are putting this into practice, for example Deloitte (client) uses its community involvement initiative as a core recruiting differentiator.
Millennials are entering our workforce and marketplace with a fierce sense of social and environmental responsibility. Whether companies are trying to recruit the next generation of talent or differentiate on the shelf, aligning with a cause is a powerful way to prepare for the future.
Tags: causebranding youth research cone trends employee
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
