Give and take

Reuters

Helping themselves by helping others

THE 107m Americans who tuned in to watch the Super Bowl on February 7th did not see any advertisements for Pepsi. Instead of spending $20m on a handful of 30-second spots, the firm decided to give that amount away. Under the slogan “Refresh Everything”, the Pepsi Refresh campaign asks the public to vote online for charities and community groups to receive grants ranging from $5,000 to $250,000. A few days before the game its arch-rival, Coca-Cola, was also bitten by a charitable bug. It promised to give $1 to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America every time someone watched its Super Bowl ads on its Facebook page, up to a maximum of $250,000.

Pepsi Refresh is probably the most prominent example so far of “cause marketing”—trying to win customers by ostentatiously doing good. Other recent examples include Chase Community Giving, in which small charities competed to win $5m in donations from JPMorgan Chase, and American Express and NBC Universal's “Shine A Light” programme, which awarded a grant of $100,000 to a small business chosen through its website.

Marketing people say consumers are increasingly trying to do good as they spend. Research in 2008 by Cone, a brand consultancy, found that 79% of consumers would switch to a brand associated with a good cause, up from 66% in 1993, and that 38% have bought a product associated with a cause, compared with 20% in 1993. Rather than try to make products that can be marketed as ethical in their own right, such as “fair trade” goods, firms are increasingly trying to take an ordinary product and boost its moral credentials with what one marketing guru calls “embedded generosity”. The fad for online competitions to award the handouts also appeals to another trend, so-called “slacktivism”, whereby people are turning to the internet to give their consciences a boost without doing anything more onerous than clicking a mouse a few times.

The strategy seems to be working, judging by the proliferation of articles (such as this one) noting Pepsi's campaign. JPMorgan Chase claims its campaign was not marketing, but simply an attempt to manage its existing corporate philanthropy more imaginatively. If so, its marketing staff are missing a trick, given that around 2m people signed up to vote on Facebook, many of whom were not existing Chase customers. Moreover, the favourable headlines generated by Chase's $5m outlay contrasted strikingly with the grudging reaction to Goldman Sachs's launch around the same time of a $500m campaign to support small businesses.

Although the public likes online popularity contests, they can have unintended consequences. Chase, for example, caused a fuss by excluding a pro-life group and an outfit that wants to legalise cannabis from its competition. Moreover, many firms see virtue in tying themselves to a particular cause. Ten firms, including Gap, Apple and most recently Nike, have deals with (RED), a scheme fronted by Bono, a rock star, to raise money to fight AIDS. It has raised $140m so far, despite fears that, as Susan Smith Ellis, its boss, puts it, “it would be just a big launch on Oprah then never heard of again.” Equally, Pepsi's efforts to promote healthy lifestyles while selling healthier products and Coca-Cola's various initiatives to protect water supplies in developing countries are critical to the pair's future. Refreshing everything, in contrast, is a more nebulous goal.