filter by tag: philanthropy

January 26, 2012 at 4:34 PM by Research & Insights

While charitable giving is finally back on the rise, so too are the pressures facing nonprofits in appealing to corporate partners. Gone are the days of writing checks to the CEO's favorite "pet" charity, as companies look deeper into the business case for philanthropy. Two new studies released this week demonstrate that employee engagement and ROI from product donations are often key drivers in determining which nonprofit organization to support.

 

 

A recent study by Forbes Insights found that 72 percent of the 311 global senior executives surveyed said they primarily donate to charities that also allow their employees to volunteer. Moreover, respondents cited that in addition to social benefits, the top two goals behind philanthropy and community involvement programs are employee motivation and increased skills/leadership. In the case of MasterCard, sending employees to volunteer with Grameen Foundation in Colombia gave staff on-the-ground experience in microfinance and mobile technology, as well as a new perspective of the financial reality of people across the globe. Employees returned armed with new skills to make a difference in their own communities.

Another recent report released from Indiana University examined the business case for product philanthropy. The report found that beyond environmental and social benefits, there is actual return on investment in donating excess inventory instead of liquidating or destroying it. Nonprofits are already cropping up to fill this need, including Good360, an online product donation platform used by some of the world's biggest brands.

While companies may be writing new rules for corporate philanthropy, nonprofits can come to the table prepared. Nonprofits can look to create a diverse spectrum of employee engagement opportunities from company-wide days of service for broad participation to leadership skills-based volunteering. Organizations that work to create sought-after business case metrics for corporate philanthropy will take the lead. While these pressures may be difficult for many nonprofits to manage in the short-term, the end result is strong corporate partnerships, a new group of ambassadors and enhanced capacity for greater social impact.

Tags: philanthropy product employees corporate donations giving

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

July 29, 2011 at 12:45 PM by Research & Insights

Just a year ago, mobile giving was the new darling of fundraising. It was an easy and effective way to tap in to new and established donors with an immediate call to action. Today, the future of mobile giving is already ominous. A new study from the Association of Fundraising Professionals and Kaptivate Research reveals over 50 percent of nonprofits have been disappointed with the results of mobile fundraising campaigns – disenchantment that has led to a 20 percent decrease in the use of mobile giving technology in campaigns over the last year.

 

 

Is mobile giving dead? Hopefully it's experiencing more of a rebirth. Although the overwhelming success of campaigns like the American Red Cross’ Text 2Help campaign prompted many nonprofits to rush to use mobile as a fundraising mechanism alone, some organizations are taking a step back to realize the potential of mobile as a communication tool first.

Silver Ring Thing, a Christian group that is using mobile to inform rather than solicit, is sending out news and links to blogs twice a month. DoSomething.org saw radical results from a call-to-action text message sent to its teenage constituents. Since then, DoSomething.org has used texts as a central part of its communication strategy – but it has not asked for donations. Doug Plank, chief executive at MobileCause, explains in a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article, “The old rules of establishing trust, building community, fostering engagement still apply regardless of the medium.”

 

Nonprofits don’t need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to mobile fundraising; your best practices still apply. Tell your story first, grow a relationship and then ask for a donation. And yes, it can all be done through the simple text message.

Tags: philanthropy campaigns nonprofit fundraising mobilegiving

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

June 10, 2011 at 1:08 PM by Research & Insights

Which consumer brand has the power to sell a new line of merchandise to retailers sight-unseen? Or, to drum up a viral frenzy for a new product before it’s even revealed? If you answered Nike or Apple, it would be understandable – but this week, you’d be wrong. If you said TOMS, you were probably clicking “refresh” on the brand’s website right alongside us Wednesday as TOMS and its slip-on shoes strode into the ranks of America’s power brands.

“What’s inside?” was the question on everyone’s mind leading up to the “Next Chapter” unveiling of TOMS new one-for-one effort. TOMS, known for its buy one, give one shoe model, announced at this year’s South by Southwest conference that the brand would move beyond shoes to become a broader one-for-one company by introducing a new product line. The buzz has been building since.  

 

 

 
TOMS-branded mystery capsule sighted at The Tannery on Boylston Street, Boston, MA.

TOMS-branded mystery capsules started popping up in stores across the nation from Nordstrom to Neiman Marcus, bolted with a hefty lock and only to be opened on June 7 during a simultaneous worldwide reveal. Retailers had such faith in the TOMS brand they bought the secret products sight-unseen, waiting like the rest of us to find out what was inside. Twitter lit up with the hashtag #TOMSnextchapter and eyes were glued to the brand’s website and Facebook page when founder Blake Mycoskie finally announced his latest project: eyewear. Now, for every pair of TOMS glasses sold, the company will give sight to one person through medical treatment, sight-saving surgery or prescription glasses. A flurry of blog posts, Tweets, Facebook statuses and news stories ensued, and the TOMS reveal YouTube video has garnered over 65,000 views since Wednesday.

Why all the hype? TOMS already had a cult following and was a consumer and media darling for its steadfast one-to-one commitment. The brand extension is an exciting new chapter in the brand’s story. But, the “Next Chapter” campaign was also a carefully orchestrated effort. TOMS spent five years perfecting its one-for-one shoe campaign, achieving high brand recognition as a legitimate social enterprise before extending its efforts. The strategic move builds upon the company’s years of experience in both retail and philanthropy with a product that complements its existing product line and its social aim.

Now the question is, what’s the company’s next “Next Chapter”? Will it wait another five years before innovating once again or will new products become more prevalent as the brand moves to shake its shoe company image? We just hope TOMS doesn’t over-extend itself and stays fixed on what it does best – creating trendy consumer goods that also fulfill fundamental human needs (and proving that social business really does work).

Tags: philanthropy TOMS brand socialenterprise

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

May 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM by Sarah Kerkian

Not satisfied to just sign a check, an increasing number of for-profit businesses are changing the rules of corporate philanthropy. Panera Bread Co. began its foray into more hands-on philanthropy a year ago when it converted a store into a pay-what-you-want (or at least, what you can) restaurant where proceeds are donated to charity. It was a bold experiment, but one The Associated Press reports has been successful. The store generates $3,000 to $4,000 a month in profit, money Panera is putting toward a job training program for at-risk youth. The company now operates three charitable restaurants and intends to open a new location about every three months.

 

Johnson & Johnson* is aiming to make it easier for its own consumers to connect to charities through a new endeavor called “&you.” The digital tool helps consumers find volunteer and donation opportunities, cause-related news, events and even nonprofit jobs, all in one spot. It allows nonprofits to “amplify” their outreach to volunteers, donors and supporters by aggregating their opportunities and information from a host of partner sites (including VolunteerMatch, Idealist, DoSomething.org, GuideStar and Network for Good). Users create a widget to post on their webpages or social media sites that refreshes as new opportunities appear that meet their interests.

 

Businesses give billions of dollars to charities every year, but the greatest source of donations is still individuals. As a result, companies are finding innovative ways to ensure they not only make a difference themselves, but that they provide simple tools and opportunities to maximize an even more powerful resource – the consumer’s desire to give.

 

*Cone client

Tags: corporategiving philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

May 13, 2011 at 1:02 PM by Sarah Kerkian

Robots aren’t taking over the world, but they wouldn’t mind taking your spare change.

Two pint-size automatons have hit the streets on three continents to ask passersby for their pocket change. DON-8r (“donator”) relies on coin donations to keep it moving throughout the streets of Scotland. It seems citizens weren’t particularly inspired by the little guy’s “hello, hello, hello” and color-changing head because DON-8r didn’t get very far. During a nine-hour test, he raised a little less than $43. Korean-made “Dona” used her robot charms to greater effect. Donning a red cape, she bows, blinks, waves and wiggles, all the while raising $30 an hour during tests in New York City’s Union Square and Korea’s Seoul Museum of Art. Unlike her Scottish counterpart, Dona stays stationary, and it’s hard to ignore her wide-eyed pleas for support.

 

Are robots the future of philanthropy? Unlikely. These little gizmos are at the mercy of thieves, mechanical malfunctions and street sweepers. And although they are novel approaches that will no doubt capture attention and a few dollars along the way, we know the keys to successful, sustainable fundraising are personal relationships and human stories. Then again, a Salvation Army Red Kettle that did a little dance for your donation would not be half bad.

Tags: fundraising philanthropy trends technology

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (2)

April 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM by Sarah Kerkian

Move over SMS and QR, there’s a new acronym in the giving game – ATM. That’s right, the old automatic teller machine may have a new life as a powerful channel for consumer philanthropy.

 

 

Since March 14, a “Donate to Charity” button on Wells Fargo ATMs has raised $1.5 million for the American Red Cross for disaster relief in Japan. The month-long program is believed to be the first national effort by an American bank to solicit ATM donations. The campaign may owe its success, in part, to its simplicity. The program is flexible, allowing consumers to donate any amount from one cent up to $249.99, and each ATM automatically prints a tax receipt for the donation. But what really differentiates the effort from other giving applications today is there is no overhead or transaction fee – 100 percent of every donation goes directly to the Red Cross. Wells Fargo is also chipping in $500,000 of its own, as well as matching employee contributions up to $500,000.

 

Unfortunately, the effort ends today, but we hope Wells Fargo and its competitors pick up where this campaign leaves off. What could be better on an ATM than these words: “In lieu of a $2.00 fee, would you like to make a donation to charity?” Now that you could take to the bank.

Tags: AmericanRedCross corporategiving donations Japan disasters philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

November 5, 2010 at 11:31 AM by Research & Insights

Storefronts can be for more than just peddling wares - they can also serve as a vehicle for promoting the greater good. Although selling products associated with a cause has become mainstream, there are a small number of retailers going beyond the shelf and creating new models for pairing business and philanthropy.


Seattle-based department store Nordstrom caused a flurry of chatter when it signed a lease for a prime NYC location. But the venerable chain isn’t moving into a new flagship location. Instead, Nordstrom will be opening a nonprofit subsidiary that will be branded separately from the well-known retailer. Though the details are still in the works, a Nordstrom spokesperson confirmed “all [store] profits will go to nonprofit organizations.” Perhaps Nordstrom is in search of philanthropic success like that of Geoffrey Beene, the legendary men’s retailer, which donates 100 percent of net profits to nonprofit organizations, raising $145 million for various charities to-date.

In May 2010, Panera opened a pilot nonprofit restaurant driven by the motto, “Take what you need. Pay your fair share.” That’s right – at Panera Cares Cafés, you name your own price. Using the company’s existing distribution system, the goal is to feed community members who can’t afford food for low/no charge with overhead costs, such as rent, staff salaries and food costs, covered by generous patrons who pay full price or above for their meals. Given the success of the first Panera Cares Café in St. Louis, the restaurant is poised to open a number of nonprofit locations around the country.

While each of these retailers is taking a different approach, all are leading the way in creating an entirely new model of philanthropy and cause marketing. These models may seem to contradict the spirit of capitalism, but in actuality are quite progressive, as the role of business in society evolves to one of true citizenship. Only time will tell if these new approaches will serve as viable strategies and help transform retail giving in the future. For now, we commend the innovation of these retailers to align storefronts and giving back.


Tags: causebranding charitablegiving philanthropy retail trends donation corporategiving

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (2)

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)

July 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM by Research & Insights

From philanthropy to cause marketing to CSR, no good deeds went unpunished this week in opinion news. Professor Angela Eikenberry says in The Conference Board Review that cause marketing “distracts our attention and resources” from the issues. Writer Chrystia Freeland in The Washington Post called CSR a “cult” that “muddies the waters” of core business needs. The Wall Street Journal Europe’s opinion columnist Jamie Whyte writes “corporate philanthropy is tantamount to theft.”

These arguments would sting if they weren’t so tired and misinformed. Esteemed bloggers immediately went on the defensive to highlight the fallacies in these arguments, including Fast Company expert blogger Alice Korngold, who put it nicely – “CSR isn't about puppy dogs and ice cream. CSR is about conducting business with integrity and attention to the community in a way that benefits shareholders.”



Freeland and Whyte pulled the old Milton Friedman card, writing, “The job of business is to make money.” No arguments there. But this is just part of the story: corporate philanthropy, cause marketing and responsible business build reputation and drive shareholder returns. Here is even more proof: according to APCO Worldwide’s latest research, addressing business issues such as philanthropy, community engagement and energy efficiency spur reputation growth. And a better reputation translates into bottom-line benefits: the study notes that with a mere 1 point increase on its Reputation Index, the average consumer will spend an additional $133.05 every year. What will the shareholders think of this?

The big picture these criticisms are revealing is this: Cause marketing, CSR and philanthropy are so engrained in the way businesses should – and in many cases, do – operate today, that a critic can get valuable column inches just by offering a dissenting opinion. It gets attention and starts a flurry of letters to the editor, blog posts and tweets. But as long as efforts are authentic, sustainable and core to business values and operations, leading companies will rise above the dissenters, disprove the naysayers and continue to focus on meeting the demands of the increasingly conscious stakeholders with both business and societal returns. The critics have spoken, but your actions continue to speak louder.

Did you read any of these articles?  What did you think? 


Tags: corporateresponsibility causebranding philanthropy research corporategiving

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (3)

February 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM by Research & Insights

The following is a guest post by a Cone client. Evan Hochberg directs Deloitte’s national Community Involvement program where he provides strategic direction for philanthropy, volunteerism, pro-bono and workplace giving.

 

It has been 10 months since the Serve America Act was passed into law. During that time, the tremendous buzz created by President Obama and others on the subject of service has been palpable. However, much of the discussion has been focused on driving numbers – volunteers and volunteer hours. Today, as the corporate giving community celebrates International Corporate Philanthropy Day, I encourage the corporate philanthropy and nonprofit communities to extend the service dialogue beyond transactional goals and metrics. If volunteerism is to be a powerful driver of social impact and business value, we must focus not just on more volunteers, but on more productive volunteering.

 

It is not enough to simply encourage our employees to volunteer, when volunteerism too often equates to unskilled labor. Nonprofits are sophisticated organizations and they need more from us. When it comes to impacting critical issues through volunteerism, we must remember that this is not an area where more volunteers necessarily equals greater impact. Volunteers are a means to making a positive contribution to society, but it's what these generous people do with their time that is really important. We must design volunteer efforts that can truly make an enduring difference. For example, at Deloitte, we have developed initiatives that harnesses and contributes the best thinking of our people, including our $50 million pro bono program, our Deloitte Center for Leadership and the Community, and many other skills-based volunteering programs. By sharing our personnel’s critical business skills and knowledge, we are able to deliver more valuable outcomes to the nonprofits with whom we work and to the communities that depend upon them.

 

Deloitte has also been proud to serve as a co-convener of Reimagining Service, a coalition of leaders from the government, nonprofit and corporate sectors who seek to increase the impact of volunteers and their ability to address our country’s most pressing social issues.

Too often, talented people with good intentions are given volunteer tasks that do not leverage their skills and knowledge. A key to our success as a service nation is not just getting people to care, but also helping them figure out how they can make the greatest difference, given their time, their skills and the pressing needs of the community.

- Evan Hochberg, National Director of Community Involvement, Deloitte Services LP 

Tags: philanthropy research corporategiving

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (1)

December 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM by Research & Insights

We’ve all seen examples of companies jumping on the cause bandwagon, but this may be the first boat. According to a recent article from The Wall Street Journal construction is underway on Utopia, a luxury cruise ship that is using more than onboard amenities and exotic ports-of-call to sell its multi-million dollar residences. More than just a luxury cruise, it’s being touted as a “‘platform’ for learning, cultural exchange and philanthropy,” complete with an on-board Philanthropy Concierge.

 

 

So what is the connection to philanthropy? The cruise liner’s Web site indicates residents have opportunities to host galas on board – with mention that fundraising solicitation of other residents is not allowed – a Philanthropy Concierge who will book a lunch or dinner with other philanthropists at destinations along the route or day trips to visit an orphanage. All of these “philanthropic” options are situated alongside amenities such as “shopping” and “indulgences.”

 

But there’s something about Utopia that has us feeling a bit sea sick. Philanthropy requires a contribution to organizations seeking solutions to social problems, yet the Utopia program appears to fall short. There is no clear connection between the on-board services offered and any tangible outcomes, or even tangible opportunities for that matter, which makes it feel more like a way to balance extravagance with altruism than a true commitment to social good.

 

What do you think? Is Utopia smart to promote philanthropic behavior on its luxury ship, or are they simply using the buzzword to appear committed to the greater good?

Tags: causebranding philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (2)

December 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM by Research & Insights

We hardly need another reason to extol the value of dedicated volunteers to the work of nonprofit organizations, but bear with us a moment, this one is pretty compelling. According to a new study, not only do volunteers add value to an organization, but it turns out they give value, too.

 

A study of more than 1,000 people from the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and VolunteerMatch revealed, on average, people donate 10 times more if they have volunteered during the past year. Specifically, the study showed Americans who had volunteered in the past 12 months donated an average of $2,593 compared to $230 from non-volunteers. Finally, this benefit is staying inside the organization’s walls in most cases: 67 percent of American volunteers say they generally give back to the same organizations where they volunteer.

 

These powerful statistics are further underscored by the shared attitude (for two-thirds of survey respondents) that “true philanthropy” translates to both time and money. The survey only spoke to individuals, but this sentiment also holds true for companies who can multiply their own impact on important causes by dedicating both time and financial resources. The takeaway is that “true philanthropy” requires a holistic approach, and frankly, we couldn’t agree more.

Tags: Volunteer philanthropy charitablegiving

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (1)

November 13, 2009 at 12:14 PM by Research & Insights

With all the chatter about the ups and downs of charitable giving during the down economy, it’s refreshing to hear some definitive - and positive - news. According to the 2009 Giving in Numbers Report, released this week by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP), corporate giving was actually up during 2007-2008, despite worries that corporations would back down from charitable commitments as the economic turmoil raged in the second half of the year. What’s more, the data show that companies got creative when the economy started to sink, opting for pro bono work and skills-based volunteerism instead of simply backing down from their social commitments. In fact, the Wall Street Journal this week profiled how four chief executives at leading companies are rethinking their philanthropic strategies.

 

 

Other key findings from the CECP report include:

• A majority (51%) of companies surveyed increased giving from 2007 to 2008 despite 68 percent experiencing profit declines
• Among Fortune 100 companies, who experienced greater-than-average profit declines, 60 percent increased giving from 2007 to 2008
• Of companies surveyed, a full 91 percent report having an employee matching-gift program
• Ninety-four percent of survey respondents have at least one formal domestic volunteerism program and 49 percent of respondents have at least one formal international volunteer program
• The median number of pro bono time donated was 1,080 hours by companies that reported having such programs
• Consistent with past years, 86 percent of companies report having a corporate foundation

To download the full report for free, visit CECP’s Web site.

 

Tags: Volunteer economy donation philanthropy corporategiving research charity

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

October 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM by Research & Insights

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is taking a results-driven approach to promoting American investments in global health efforts by releasing an advertisement centered on impact. The video, part of the Living Proof Project, will strike a chord with policy-makers, philanthropists and citizens alike not by centering on unmet need, but by highlighting true and measureable change: “Polio cases reduced by 99%;” “Mother-to-child HIV prevention in 16 million pregnancies;” “Malaria cases down 50% in 29 countries.” This approach instills confidence that funding saves lives.

 

 

Aimed at policymakers to sway additional funding, the positive message will reach stakeholders beyond those already engaged with the project. The Gates Foundation hopes the commercial, and specifically the measured results, will encourage grant makers and individual philanthropists to give where it counts. As Bill Gates points out, “We see that these things are working, and we’re willing to continue to make investments. I think then other people say, Okay, it must be working or people wouldn’t put their own money into it.”

 

Additional messages on the project’s Web site encourage advocates to pass along the positive thinking and to “Dispel the myths. When you hear someone say ‘It’s just money down a hole,’ or ‘Saving lives just leads to overpopulation,’ tell them why they’re wrong. These investments work. They empower people, and they’re appreciated."

 

In the bevy of important social and environmental issues that ask stakeholders for financial support every day, programs that show impact are in high demand. The pressure is now on nonprofits to show the ROI.

Tags: philanthropy roi nonprofitcausebranding global nonprofit advocacy corporategiving

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (1)

October 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM by Jillian WilsonMartin

Aristotle once said, “He who cannot be a good follower cannot be a good leader.”

While I can’t say he was referencing Twitter, the wise philosopher certainly knew what he was talking about. In the age of new media, following is an increasingly overt component of leadership. Leading companies take advantage of Facebook, myspace, Twitter and the like, to follow the conversation about their brand and business opportunities and engage with stakeholders in transparent and courageous dialogue resulting in mutual gain.

 

But who should you follow? It depends on your target audiences and needs. For companies promoting corporate philanthropic programs, a few ideas on who to follow and why are below.

• Nonprofit Partners: Learn what they’re doing, who they’re working with and how you can help. Don’t forget to encourage them to promote your program using new media.
  
  
• Employees: Connect with your employees online and outside of work to create internal and external program ambassadors, solicit feedback on the program and identify volunteer opportunities.
  
  
• Customers: Gauge consumer interest in your cause of choice, monitor for program commentary, and spread awareness by activating consumers virally online.
  
  
• Issue Leaders: Stay abreast of the latest trends from the mouths of the movers and shakers; identify opportunities to engage and collaborate on the next big idea.
  
  
• Issue Competitors: Keep track of the newest programs other companies are implementing that impact your issue, discover best practices and apply them to ensure your program becomes the best.
  
  
• Convening Organizations: Learn about upcoming conferences and events and program promotion opportunities and identify the value of participating.

 

- Jillian Wilson Martin, Senior Account Executive

Tags: philanthropy nonprofitcausebranding newmedia Twitter corporatepartnerships

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

September 25, 2009 at 12:11 PM by Research & Insights

The 5th Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting (CGI) wraps up today, leaving in its wake a list of new commitments to solve the world’s most pressing problems. The event is structured to spark action – boasting discussions, not presentations, and requiring results. Former president and meeting host Bill Clinton states, “If you don’t make a commitment or you make one and don’t keep it, you don’t get to come back. That’s what started it, that’s what makes it run.”

 

 

The results of the initiative to-date prove the effectiveness of this model: $46 billion in funding has been directed toward causes such as education, climate change and healthcare since the CGI inception in 2005.

 

Cross-sector collaboration is the other key tenant of the CGI. This year, a record 960 attendees representing 84 countries took part, including heads of state, celebrities and nonprofit and corporate leaders – a true Who’s Who of cross-sector leaders and dignitaries with personal passion for societal solutions. The media buzz alone surrounding the event helped spur action by attracting attention and notable donors to important causes. This year’s event focused on harnessing innovation for development, strengthening infrastructure, building human capital and financing equitable sustainable future. For the first time, the event also focused on narrowing the gender gap.

 

Action speaks loudly. As President Obama stressed during his kickoff speech, “You can't just be an advocate of someone else doing it, preach lofty goals and wait for someone else to act. You have to step up." Could his words hold true for G-20 Summit leaders gathering this weekend in Pittsburgh?

 

Tags: philanthropy currentevents charity sharedresponsibility CGI

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

September 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM by Research & Insights

Attention employers: your employees need some focus. OK, maybe not news to you, but we’re not talking about the memo that should have been done last week (hardly our business!). We’re referring to your employees’ company-supported charitable giving.

 

 

 

At a time when many companies are moving toward more focused corporate philanthropy, fewer may be tapping an underutilized resource – their employee giving programs. More strategic employee giving can provide a number of benefits for the company, its staff and the nonprofit beneficiaries, and like its name (“strategic choice employee giving”) implies, it can be both focused and flexible.

 

To learn about strategic choice employee giving and the role it plays in a focused corporate philanthropy program, download Cone’s latest insight, “Corporate Philanthropy: Are Your Employees Working Hard Enough?” and read on… Then take a moment to participate in our poll question on this topic to the right.

Tags: philanthropy corporategiving employees

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

May 15, 2009 at 2:23 PM by Research & Insights

Want to really engage consumers in your cause efforts? Then give them a voice. Target, well-regarded for its philanthropic commitments, relinquished some control this week as it launched “Bullseye Gives,” a campaign allowing consumers to decide how to give away Target’s money. The company will divide a $3 million donation among its 10 charity partners, determined by consumer votes on the Target Facebook page.

 

 

Consumer-centric philanthropy campaigns like this are not new, but they are clearly resonating. In the past year, American Express, Western Union* and Trip Advisor have all launched similar consumer-driven online contests, powerful because they offer unique benefits to all parties.

 

First, online contests’ user-friendly, low- to no-cost tools provide companies a channel to connect with consumers on a more personal level than traditional checkbook philanthropy (in turn, perhaps breeding greater trust, engagement and loyalty). It allows consumers to select a cause of importance to them, which, according to Cone’s research, is the leading factor (84%) they say will influence their support of a company’s social efforts. And, as The New York Times says, such campaigns are “adding yet another weapon to charities’ fund-raising arsenal” while also building awareness. Most importantly, it helps level the playing field for both consumers and nonprofits who all have an equal voice in influencing the outcome. Bullseye.

 

 

For much more news on this topic, please see our weekly newsletter. Subscribe to Cone's newsletter here.

 

*Cone Client

Tags: engagement campaigns fundraising causebranding newmedia philanthropy marketing donation

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

February 5, 2009 at 8:00 PM by Cone Communications

With our world turned upside down through so much economic calamity, greed and selfishness, is it finally time for women to rule the world?

At the recent World Economic Forum at Davos, some 100 women got together on a Saturday morning to hear a panel discussion called "The Girl Effect." These female leaders from around the world talked about focusing on helping girls and women in developing countries gain better access to health care, education and job opportunities.

"This is the solution to a long list of world messes from poverty and hunger to the spread of HIV and violence -- and in this financial crisis its one of the best investments we can make," said Helene Gayle, president and CEO of CARE USA, who moderated the panel. Joining her were Nike CEO Mark Parker, Mari Pangestu, Minister of Trade of Indonesia and Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus.

Kudos to Nike who has focused much of its recent charitable efforts on helping girls in poor countries. Kudos to Kiva.org with its microfinance focus on women. Kudos to Connie Duckworth who created a rug weaving business in Afganistan called Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women initiative, that aims to educate emerging women business owners with certificates of business and mentoring to help their ventures grow.

 

read more...

Tags: philanthropy conferences Women Leadership

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

December 19, 2008 at 11:44 am by Research & Insights

The GE Foundation just announced  that it will shift its philanthropic focus in 2009 toward meeting basic needs. The company will redirect $20 million dollars, a fifth of its total giving, to feeding, clothing and providing shelter for people in need. What’s more, GE is engaging its employees in the effort by increasing its match for employee contributions up to two-to-one if they are giving to organizations meeting basic needs in their communities. 

http://www.ge.com/citizenship/index.jsp

Although the issues from which the money will be diverted will no doubt feel the pinch, GE is taking a bold position in fulfilling its social contract by tailoring its philanthropy to those areas where it sees the greatest immediate need, while maintaining its existing commitments where possible. The announcement brought to light Cone’s recent prediction that companies will move their giving toward local causes and basic needs as they strive to support the communities in which they have a presence during tough economic times. Companies continue to invest in issues core to their business success, while also recognizing the need to meet social needs as they arise. It's about being focused, but fluid.  Leadership companies with strong values understand their obligation to make good on both ends. 
 
The evidence indicating companies have no intentions of giving up on their commitments to society in 2009 is plentiful, but as GE has shown, the approach, priorities and objectives are likely to change. To see Cone’s complete article on how companies will sustain their cause initiatives in the new year, please click here . 

Tags: economy philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

October 15, 2008 at 2:46 pm by Cone Communications

Companies and individuals are increasingly approaching global and domestic issues in a new way. The days of simply cutting a check to support a charity have changed. Since the issues and challenges we face today are global, individuals and companies are choosing to not just give to people in need, but to invest in helping others and address issues around the world. 

 

The difference between giving and investing lies both in the expectations and the results.  Where giving may end with the check being cut, investing requires an ROI.  Giving is largely measured in outputs (i.e., # of books donated), whereas investing is more concerned with outcomes (percent of women moving out of poverty as a result of education).

 

Kiva.org is a great example of individuals investing in the efforts of people around the world as they try to pull themselves and their families out of poverty. In the corporate world, ITT (a Cone client) is investing in sustainable water solutions in communities to increase child success through education, while decreasing absentee days due to illness and unhealthful sanitation experiences. ITT has a three+ year measurement system in place to track this social investment. 

 

Five years ago, companies would give money to help build a school somewhere in the world.  Today, they are investing not only in the school building, but in the development of the children who will benefit from the school.  Investing is sustainable and will help drive true social change.

 

How about you?  What do you think?

 

 

Join today’s Blog Action Day dialogue about poverty and share your thoughts and examples about how companies and nonprofits alike are moving from giving to investing. 

 

- Jeff Terry, VP Cause Branding

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

July 7, 2008 at 7:41 pm by Cone Communications

Can a simple act change one person's life? A village? A country?

 

Nicholas Kristof wrote on July 4th a column in The New York Times that stopped me in my tracks. The story is about a young woman, Beatrice Biira, and a goat.

 

Beatrice and her family lived in western Uganda. Her parents, impoverished peasants, could not afford to send her to school until fate, in the form of a goat, intervened. Children from the Niantic, Connecticut Community Church wanted to do good, so they donated goats to African villagers through Heifer International .

 

One of the goats, at a cost to the children of $120, went to Beatrice's parents. The goats had twins, and they eventually gave the family an income from their milk. This gave Beatrice the opportunity for schooling.

 

A diligent student, she worked fiercely to succeed. An American visiting her village met the young girl, which inspired a children's book, Beatrice's Goat . It became a best seller.

 

Beatrice's dedication to school paid off. She earned a series of scholarships: to the top girls' school in Uganda; a Massachusetts prep school and then Connecticut College, from which she graduated this spring.

 

Her next step is graduate school at the Clinton School of Public Service in Arkansas. Then she plans to return to Africa to help women increase their earning power.

 

While Kristof ended his piece: 'The challenges of global poverty are vast and complex,' I think that sometimes a simple action can change a life, a village and even a country. It may not even take millions of aid dollars, just hard work, serendipity and a small goat named Luck.

 

How wonderful that simple, joined with a determined human spirit, can be so powerful.

 

-Carol

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (2)

June 30, 2008 at 9:00 am by Cone Communications

The Northern California Grantmakers recently held a conference devoted to helping companies responsibly navigate their giving strategies during an economic downturn.  None of the companies in attendance anticipated a decrease in their philanthropic budget for 2008 or 2009, yet all recognized their staffing and resources to execute programs would decrease.

 

I joined impressive speakers from Levi’s, IBM, Starbucks, Target and Cisco, companies who despite past recessions, have all maintained their commitments as leaders in giving back.  Below are some key best practices that were shared collectively:

 

1. Build the business case to your senior executives for maintaining your philanthropic budgets as it is a key strategy for building reputation and strengthening relationships with diverse stakeholders.  Levi’s and Bank of America stressed that they sought and educated select senior level champions to advocate on their foundation’s behalf.  They also built a “spiderweb” of networks and relationships within the organization at all levels and divisions. 

 

2. Focus your giving and resources on 1-2 issues.  It allows you to have a greater impact on the issue and say “no” to the many organizations knocking on your door.  Pacific Gas and Electric moved from five diverse issues to focusing on empowering its employees and customers to take action on the environment through programs such as its Solar Schools and Solar Habitat Program . 

 

3. Give more than the 5 percent of your endowment, if you have one.  This is the rainy day that you have been waiting for.  Years back, Levi’s gave over 15 percent of its endowment to maintain its giving levels!

 

4. Rely more heavily on the assets you have beyond cash, especially your employee volunteerism, if your budgets are stagnating or decreasing.  Gap significantly increased its volunteerism in the early 2000’s, while IBM focused on lending technical expertise and software.

 

5. Reduce or suspend matching gifts.  Some companies only matched if it was consistent with their giving focus area.

 

6. Create turn-key programs with nonprofits that require minimal corporate staff time to manage.

 

7. Hold your nonprofit partners accountable for measuring the social impact of your contribution.  Market results back to your internal and external stakeholders.

read more...

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

June 25, 2008 at 10:04 am by Cone Communications

According to new research, money can buy you happiness – but only if you spend it on someone else.

 

It seems lately that everyone is on a quest for happiness. Some believe a higher income will make them happier, but study after study has shown that once basic needs are met, little increase in happiness comes from a higher salary. Giving money away, however, may be just the trick. 

 

An article in the March issue of Science magazine covered a series of studies on spending conducted by Harvard Business School professor Michael Norton with two colleagues from the University of British Columbia. In one test, employees receiving a company bonus were surveyed about their happiness before and after the check. Those who spent a larger portion of their bonus on others experienced a greater lift in happiness; the actual size of the bonus had no impact. In another study, people were given $5 or $20 and told to spend it over the course of the day with instructions to spend it on themselves or others. Once again, those who gave the money away - regardless of whether it was $5 or $20 -  were happier than those that spent it on themselves. Key takeaway: even $5 can have an impact. 

read more...

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (2)

June 13, 2008 at 12:27 pm by Research & Insights

According to initial findings released by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy this month, corporate giving grew by 5.6 percent last year to a per company median of more than $26 million.  The findings, compiled from data collected from 155 companies, revealed that about two-thirds of companies increased their giving, including seven of the eight who reported losses.  The data are reassuring.  Even as the economy weakens and amidst what Newsweek calls “ The Coming Charity Crisis ,” companies recognize the significant reputational and social benefits their corporate philanthropy provides.  Nevertheless, companies will face increasing pressure to justify their commitment to corporate philanthropy to the very stakeholders who have high expectations for it in the first place, from consumers (who are struggling with higher prices), to employees (as they worry about job security), to executives and shareholders (who want to see the ROI).  Today and always, a strategic, focused philanthropic program has the most measurable business and social impact, so we recommend a number of elements for companies to consider to better ensure the sustainability of their corporate philanthropy programs in uncertain times:

• Choose a social issue to support that is aligned with your business to leverage your size and assets for greater impact.
• Focus your giving within this issue space (considering revisiting your employee giving policies as well).
• Prioritize giving in key markets based on your areas of greatest need (e.g., increase employee morale and minimize turnover, spread corporate culture to a new facility, leverage existing sponsorships in certain cities, etc.). 
• Evaluate/reevaluate your nonprofit partners to ensure they fit within your focus area, meet your established partnership criteria and have proven, measureable social impact.  Limit pet charities. 
• Engage your nonprofit partners to identify ways, beyond cash, in which you can provide much needed support.  Professional expertise, employee volunteerism, cause marketing and advertising or marketing support are just a handful of ways in which you can add value.
• Measure to ensure demonstrable business and social return. 

Alison DaSilva, Cone’s VP of Knowledge Leadership and Insights, will be speaking on this very topic next Tuesday at the Northern California Grantmakers Corporate Philanthropy Institute.  For more information, please visit the Web site . 

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

May 23, 2008 at 11:24 am by Cone Communications

In the last several weeks, two natural disasters swept Asia.  The May 3rd cyclone in Myanmar has a projected death toll of 140,000 people with millions more in need of help, while the May 12th earthquake in China has killed close to 35,000, leaving 250,000 people hurt and millions homeless. 

 

In the wake of such disasters, we can’t help but be reminded of other tragedies during the last seven years and the generous and effective response of so many U.S. companies.  Companies donated approximately $600 million toward Hurricane Katrina relief in 2005, $565 million toward the tsunami response in 2004 and more than $750 million to benefit those affected by the September 11 terrorist attack in 2001.

Many of the major corporate donors who responded to these earlier disasters are the same ones lending aid in Myanmar and China.  Approximate donations by some leading companies include:

 

• Abbott:   $800K (Myanmar), $1 million (China), $4 million (Tsunami), $6.5 million (Katrina), $2 million (9/11)
• Pfizer:   $150,000 (Myanmar), $10 million (China), $10 million (Tsunami), $2+ million (Katrina), $10 million (9/11)
• Cisco:   $1 million (Myanmar), $1 million (China), $1 million (Tsunami), $2 million (Katrina), $6 million (9/11)
• Chevron:   $2 million (Myanmar), $1.4 million (China), $10 million (Tsunami), $1 million (Katrina)
• UPS: $200,000 (Myanmar), $1 million (China), $2 million (Tsunami), $1.5 million (Katrina)
• Wal-Mart: $430,000 (China), $2 million (Tsunami), $17 million (Katrina), $7.3 million (9/11)

read more...

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

April 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm by Cone Communications

Betting, clicking, searching, recycling.  A diverse set of actions, yes, but increasingly with one key thing in common:  they are each providing people with opportunities to make a difference.  In the news this week are a number of innovative, albeit small, ways in which individuals are employing everyday actions to support nonprofits and causes. 

 

From politics to pop culture, Bet2give lets users make a wager on anything (Clinton vs. Obama?  Brangelina’s impending demise?), but with one caveat- all winnings go to the user’s charity of choice.  A growing number of Web sites allow users to donate to charities simply by clicking on banner ads or performing everyday searches.  And, a group in Japan is demonstrating its philanthropic prowess in a rather unusual way- by recycling used dentures .  It turns out dentures are veritable treasure troves of precious metals (a typical set is about 30 percent gold, silver and palladium).  Since late 2006, the Japan Denture Recycling Association has recycled 30,000 dentures, generating more than $176,000 for charity.  More striking, though, is that the project leader estimates that if all 3.6 million dentures containing precious metals were reprocessed for their valuable parts, it would represent more than $68 million.

 

In today’s slowing economy, and as nonprofits struggle to meet the needs of their beneficiaries in the midst of increasing food and fuel costs , infusing diverse opportunities to give into everyday activities will help keep potential donors engaged and attuned to the issues around them.  Though they will never supplant more traditional, long-term fundraising approaches, these simple, yet savvy fundraising efforts may help generate buzz and engage new donors who are used to being courted by brands via sophisticated and innovative technologies.

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

March 18, 2008 at 10:42 am by Cone Communications

If you’re looking to build a compelling employee giving program as part of a philanthropy initiative, or you’re hoping to increase contributions to a non-profit, behavioral economists may have some answers for you. “ What makes people give? ,” an article in last week’s New York Times Magazine , explored the results of new studies designed to answer that very question. One found that the promise of a 1-to-1 match enticed more people to give to an organization, but anything above that (a 2-1 or 3-1 match) did not significantly increase donations. 

 

On the surface, this does not make much sense – a higher match is essentially a discounted donation because it allows a donor to have the same effect for less money, and who doesn’t love a discount?  However, these results prove the theory that people care just as much about the “warm glow” they get when they donate money to a good cause as they do about the impact that money will have.  People want to help feed starving children, but they also want to be the type of person who helps feed starving children.  This is crucial to keep in mind when trying to engage employees in a matching gift program.  For instance, instead of trying to entice more employees to give by offering a 2-1 match, consider offering a 1-1 match and using the additional money to celebrate contributors in company publications or on an intranet site.  The “warm glow” can be contagious, and this type of public recognition will likely inspire others to get involved as well.

 

-Leah Gutstadt, Assistant Account Executive

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (1)

March 14, 2008 at 10:32 am by Research & Insights

A controversy has arisen about the decision of a Columbus, Ohio children’s hospital to name its emergency department and trauma center after locally-based retailer Abercrombie & Fitch.  The company made a $10 million donation in 2006. 

 

Clearly, this is not the first time the Nationwide Children’s Hospital has offered corporate naming rights in exchange for donations, but this is the first time the decision has been so controversial.  Critics argue this instance “is more egregious” as the hospital is linking itself to a brand some consider highly provocative and inappropriate for a young audience.

 

In light of increasing pressure among nonprofits to compete for the major donor dollar, many are struggling with how to provide the strongest recognition and ROI.  Anyone can question the hospital’s decision, but it is ultimately up to the organization and its stakeholders to decide what is appropriate.  The key is whether they have clear criteria in place to guide these decisions.  Would they grant Columbus-based Victoria’s Secret, a major segment of Limited Brands, the honor of naming rights in exchange for a significant philanthropic gift?  It’s a slippery slope, and established guidelines are critical to help navigate the decision-making process.  Questions to consider:

 

- What industries, business practices, products and/or services conflict with the mission of the organization? 
- Are the company’s values and brand in alignment with the nonprofit?
- How authentic is the company’s commitment to the issue and organization?
- What are the reputational risks of aligning your brand with theirs? Has the company been involved in any questionable practices?
- Are there other ways the nonprofit can work with the company that will provide value to each entity, beyond naming rights?

 

For those who think the critics can easily be ignored, note that one of the major groups behind the hospital initiative, the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, launched an aggressive public relations campaign around McDonald’s sponsorship of student report cards.  The company discontinued the program earlier this year.

 

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

February 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm by Research & Insights

McKinsey recently released a new report about the state of corporate philanthropy, and a notable finding is that nearly 90 percent of companies say creating business benefits (including enhancing corporate reputation or brand, improving employee recruitment and retention and competitive differentiation) is a key goal for their organizations’ philanthropy programs.  This might indicate a move toward more strategic corporate giving if it weren’t for a later stat that points to the CEO’s and board members’ personal interests as the leading driver of a company’s philanthropic focus.  This is an obvious disconnect.

 

The vast majority of companies view business benefits as a critical outcome for philanthropic efforts, but the personal interests of senior management trump business factors (e.g., alignment with business needs, option to leverage existing corporate capabilities or assets) when determining direction.  Perhaps this is a contributing factor to why only 14 percent of companies believe their philanthropy programs are very or extremely effective at meeting their business goals and only about a fifth of respondents believe they are very or extremely effective in meeting their social goals and stakeholder expectations.  When philanthropy is regarded as strategic among CEOs, it will be more aligned with a company’s business needs and more effectively integrated throughout the organization.  Only then will the right assets be leveraged to drive toward more attainable and sustainable business and social outcomes.

 

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (1)

February 22, 2008 at 11:36 am by Research & Insights

And the winners are: a small Oklahoma charity that aids orphaned Chinese children, a small animal rescue group in New Jersey and an organization that fights epilepsy.  These are the winners of major new charity contests designed to promote online fundraising, such as “America’s Giving Challenge” and the “Causes Giving Challenge.” These contests are just one new media application providing unprecedented opportunities for smaller nonprofits to extend their reach and competitively vie for donor attention.  Though they provide greater access than ever before, such activity has stirred a debate about whether this success comes at the expense of the traditional charitable players.

 

According to a Reuter’s article this week, “Tough times, more charities pinch Salvation Army,” the Salvation Army and perhaps other large organizations are experiencing a decline in the rate of growth of their donations.  The increasing cost of living and the threat of a recession certainly play a role, but Sandra Miniutti, a spokeswoman for Charity Navigator, believes that other factors also come into play. She states that the growing number of charities vying for donations and the changes in what are considered “trendy causes” over time (today, the environment) are shifting the priorities of donors.  It comes as no surprise to say that nonprofits, even those with a long history of donor loyalty, will have to become increasingly innovative in communications efforts to stay top of mind with potential donors who have a veritable buffet of cause options at a click of the mouse.      

What do you think?  Do grassroots new media efforts that bolster small, lesser known nonprofits run the risk of doing so at the expense of the traditional, large nonprofits?  If you’re interested in joining the discussion, please share your comments below.

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

February 6, 2008 at 2:28 pm by Cone Communications

Intel has received much negative press lately for ending its partnership with the nonprofit One Laptop Per Child (OLPC).  OLPC’s program was designed to produce low-cost computers ($100) to bring technology and educational opportunities to children in the developing world.  Intel joined the project last July only to pull out mere months later.  What went wrong? 

 

 

OLPC encountered problems from the beginning.  Despite announcing that the technology could be created for only $100, it has been unable to get costs below $188. Intel produces its own low-cost laptop, the Classmate.  (The major difference in these machines is that the Classmate runs on Windows and costs slightly more.)  When OLPC demanded Intel stop marketing the Classmate, Intel refused and dropped out of the OLPC project.  As a result, Intel has been faulted for everything from offering an inferior product to trying to take a nonprofit out of business.  This raises a few questions in my mind:

 

1.  Is the Classmate really “inferior”?  Not every community has the same technology needs.  I have trouble seeing how offering multiple options can be harmful. 

2.  Are we really setting children up for success if we are not giving them the system that most others are using?   According to Market Share, Windows currently has over a 91% share of Operating Systems globally. 

 

3.  Finally, if the primary goal of OLPC is to educate children around the world, why does an additional company providing low-cost computers pose such a threat?  I would think that more support for the cause would not be looked at as competition.

 

OLPC has no doubt created a breakthrough technology; however, it seems very sad that these two organizations could not work together in a shared mission.

 

-Dena Pizzutti, Senior Account Executive, Cause Branding

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

January 25, 2008 at 12:38 pm by Research & Insights

Bill Gates spoke at Davos this week with a call-to-action for companies to embrace “creative capitalism,” pushing companies to focus on building products and services for the poor.  "Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don't fully benefit from market forces," Gates explained.

At Cone, we refer to this dual-purpose as “Socially Aligned Business Initiatives(sm),” strategies that leverage an organization’s operations and scale to drive long-term social change, while providing the greatest opportunities to grow and reinforce the business. 

Gates urges that the key to successful creative capitalism is for businesses to “dedicate their top people to poor issues.”  To go above and beyond traditional philanthropy, it is essential that the effort is cross-functional and taps not only corporate giving, but also human resources, marketing, product development and other areas.  The leaders in the space—Nike, GE and Home Depot, to name a few—realize the benefits they can derive from their efforts: enhanced reputation and brand equity, stronger relationships with NGOs and influentials, increased sales, market development and product innovation.

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

November 27, 2007 at 10:26 am by Cone Communications

Carol, Kiva and I returned last week from the Institute for International Research “Future Trends” conference in Miami with a welcome message for this holiday season – the more you give, the more you get. Below are some interesting takeaways from the conference supporting this message:

Arthur Brooks, an economist, author and keynote speaker, has written about the economics of giving. Based on analysis of several studies, he claims the ROI of individual giving is 3.75 to 1. That’s right, give a dollar and make $3.75, give $100 and make $375. For more on Brooks' analysis, see his recent article in Condé Nast’s Portfolio magazine.

An exciting concept – but how, and why, does it work?

This curious economic case is apparently one that makes good psychological sense. Many of us have heard of a “helper’s high” or the “Mother Teresa effect” – ideas that charitable acts lead to positive feelings. Brooks notes: givers are 33% more likely to say they are happy than are non-givers. Books like Luks’ and Payne’s “ The Healing Powers of Doing Good ” or Stephen Post’s “ Why Good Things Happen to Good People ” cover the actual change in brain chemistry that occurs after doing something charitable. Giving actually produces endorphins and reduces stress hormones in a similar way that exercise does. And, studies show that people who are happier and less stressed tend to be more productive and more apt to succeed.

Cheryl Swanson of Toniq claims that as a nation we are obsessed with the notion of happiness because we are clearly missing it. Professor Tal Ben Sahar, backs up Ms. Swanson’s point – his course, Positive Psychology, is currently the most popular one taught at Harvard . While Brooks claims the return on giving stems in part from decreased stress, Sahar provides more fodder for this case, noting the costs associated with high stress. He claims that stress is actually the leading cause of productivity losses due to absenteeism, illness, turnover, etc.

America has always been driven by money, and we are clearly seeking greater happiness. In our stressed out, overly “plugged in” state, what better way to achieve both than by giving more of our dollars and our time?

First, imagine the implications for you personally and for your family. Act as a role model for your kids by giving and volunteering regularly, and in turn, teach them valuable life lessons that benefit society while keeping them healthy, happy and wealthy.

Now, take that up a notch and imagine the implications for your company. For Cone, the idea that giving breeds wealth and power is one that we believe in, as we work daily to help companies “stand for something” and focus giving around business-aligned social issues to achieve financial and/or reputational goals. Cone’s research shows that 87 percent of Americans are willing to switch brands, price and quality being equal, if the other is associated with a good cause. Average corporate giving was about .93 percent of pre-tax profit in 2006 ( CECP Giving in Numbers 2007 ) and best-of-breed companies like Target are committed to giving five percent of income to select worthwhile causes.

But don’t stop at just making corporate cash donations. Offer more opportunities for employees to volunteer, encourage individual employee giving by matching donations and recognize top givers/volunteers to increase incentives. Employees will model your behavior as a good corporate citizen and you will breed a happier, healthier workforce...and thus a much more productive one. Cone’s research further shows that 83 percent of employees believe it is important for their company to provide ways for them to get involved in causes. At Cone, we too have realized that ROI is becoming increasingly critical for our corporate clients to “sell-in” strategic philanthropy initiatives or to justify continued giving. Our proprietary Cone Social/Business Return Indicator(sm) can actually measure the specific ROI of your company’s philanthropy program(s).

Extend this notion further and imagine the implication for our country, our economy even. Sir Bob Geldof , musician, philanthropist and founder of LiveAid and Live8 and another conference keynote, shared his prediction that cooperation will be the key driver in the future success of our country, our economy and those of developing and other wealthy nations. He believes the era of competition must be over and the era of cooperation and integration must begin – this includes, in large part, the charity of wealthier nations to benefit poorer ones. Based on the theories discussed above, such charity will also improve the wealth of those nations doing the giving. As Mr. Brooks stated it best, “Charitable giving is not just smart investment strategy, but also a patriotic act.”

-Anne Erhard, Account Director, Cause Branding

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (1)

November 21, 2007 at 10:09 am by Cone Communications

Last week, Alison DaSilva and I attended in Louisville, KY an internal meeting of Athletes for Hope , a seven-month old nonprofit focused on assisting professional athletes with their charitable endeavors.  The idea of an organization created to help professional athletes with their philanthropy is nothing new; organizations like The Giving Back Fund and the Sports Philanthropy Project have been around for years. 

But, Athletes for Hope (AFH) is different.  It was created by athletes for athletes.  Its founders are some of the best known sports personalities on the planet, including Muhammad Ali, Lance Armstrong and Andre Agassi.  These icons have joined with nine others, including Cal Ripken, Jr., Jeff Gordon, Mia Hamm, Tony Hawk, Mario Lemieux, Andrea Jaeger, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Warrick Dunn and Alonzo Mourning, to pass on their passion for philanthropy to other athletes.

AFH has a three-pronged mission: to educate professional athletes on philanthropic options, connect them to charities throughout the country based on their specific interests and ultimately recognize and honor athletes for the significant contributions they are making to communities.

The group's development comes at an interesting time in sports philanthropy.  The sizeable increase in the number of athlete charitable foundations is being met by another trend—increased skepticism by the public and media.  This is due in large part to media reports from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal which have criticized several athlete foundations for (1) operating as little more than a way to provide jobs for family and friends and (2) their operating costs at times far exceeding the money or services provided to the community.  The result is a much higher level of expectation for not just athletes but for all facets of the sports community—leagues, teams and even owners, when it comes to their charitable efforts.

With its impressive lineup of founding athletes, its multiple free services for athletes and sustained financial support from Genworth Financial and Stanford Financial Group , Athletes for Hope is well positioned to be a force in sports philanthropy, helping athletes develop sustained philanthropic programs that meet the increased public demand.

Travel Tip: Next time you make it to Louisville, be sure to check out the Muhammad Ali Center .  Located on the Ohio River, this beautiful facility is part-museum, part-cultural center, where groups of all types—local to international—travel to meet and learn from one another. Just as Ali hoped.

-Rich Maiore, Account Director, Cause Branding

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

November 11, 2007 at 5:52 am by Cone Communications

Hat Tip to the gang from the Marketing & Strategic Innovation Blog for this one.

There is more proof that the hormone Oxytocin is an important factor in social behavior - and more specifically, giving.

According to Paul Zak, a professor of economics and director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Californiahas, studies now show that subjects who inhaled oxytocin gave away 80% more money than subjects who inhaled a placebo.

Researchers found that when participants were given oxytocin through a nasal spray, participants playing the ultimatum game were 80 percent more generous in their offers to split the money.

“People left the lab with less money,” said Zak. “But they weren’t necessarily unhappy.

Here is the full post .

Zak’s work is another big leap forward in the effort to help us better understand the motivation behind charitable giving.  And there are certainly implications for both for-profit and non-profit leaders seeking better ways to interact with their buyers or donors.

-- Brian Reich, Director of New Media

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

November 2, 2007 at 2:27 pm by Research & Insights

This week Wall Street Journal MarketWatch commentator Herb Greenberg delivered interesting commentary on how corporate philanthropy often reflects that a company has strong cash flow and overall positive financial performance.  He likens philanthropy to paying dividends: it sends a positive message to investors not only that the company has cash on hand, but that the company is a good corporate citizen. 

We are delighted to see this because, as we have found in our research , companies that are good corporate citizens do win the favor of investors.  In 2007, we found that 66 percent of Americans consider a company’s commitment to social issues when deciding which stocks or mutual funds to invest in, a longitudinal increase of 65 percent from 2001.  There seems to be a cyclical effect here: as companies perform well, they have the ability to increase their charitable giving, which in turn creates an increasingly positive vibe among investors who will then increase their support for the company in the financial marketplace.  So, to stay ahead, companies should sharpen their focus on investors, making sure they make a significant effort in analyst presentations, annual reports and news releases to communicate their commitment to social issues.

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)

September 13, 2007 at 4:52 pm by Research & Insights

September 11th marks a day we will never forget. We can all remember where we were and our thoughts about what we could do to help the victims of one of our nation’s most significant tragedies.

Corporate executives responded with tremendous speed and generosity to show their support. Within hours of the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center, many companies pledged $1 million or more in aid.  In fact, the growing list of corporate contributors became a highly tracked who’s who of the Fortune 500.  Following the September 11th and Hurricane Katrina tragedies, companies have learned a lot about “thoughtful patriotism.”   

Is making a large cash contribution the right approach?  What should companies do to be responsible corporate citizens?

We offer the following five tips for companies to best support future relief efforts:

1. Cash first, but then think longer-term:  Immediate cash donations allow relief organizations to buy items that meet their most urgent needs. Companies may also want to reserve some support until long-term reconstruction goals become clear.

2. Align longer-term giving with current social commitments:  Many companies already support a specific issue, such as health, education or the environment.  These programs and relationships may be leveraged to support reconstruction activities.  For example, a company that supports education could provide transitional programs for displaced students.  This maximizes in-house expertise and builds a company’s reputation for supporting a specific cause.

3. Don’t give products just because you have them:  By sending in-kind products that are not immediately needed by relief organizations, companies can actually slow down the relief process by creating unnecessary administrative burdens.  Companies should instead proactively seek out in-kind requests from government agencies or relief organizations.

4. Involve your employees:  Employees want to help.  Companies should provide a way for their employees to donate and should also consider offering a matching grant program to inspire them to give.  Companies may also deploy employees as volunteers to assist with reconstruction activities if they have the needed skills.

5. Communicate efforts internally and externally:  No company wants to appear exploitative or inappropriate during times of tragedy.  At the same time, companies that fail to communicate their efforts may be criticized by employees and customers for neglecting to contribute.  To ensure transparency, companies should communicate internally to employees; issue brief and modest, facts-only news releases on Business Wire or PR Newswire to communicate with the media; and reach external stakeholders by providing updates on company participation via the company’s Web site. 

Immediately following any humanitarian tragedy, companies should create a cross-functional team to develop a charitable response strategy.  This team should include senior management from corporate giving, human resources, operations and communications to determine the level, type and timing of support.  Companies must also conduct due diligence on immediate and longer-term grant recipients to ensure their money is being used effectively.  Finally, the team should agree on a transparent internal and external communications strategy.

While we hope tragedies like September 11th and Hurricane Katrina never occur again, we must all strive to be better prepared in our response to assure a truly meaningful impact for those who need it most.

-Alison

Tags: philanthropy

Did you like this post? Please share it:

Email Post
Comments (0)