Why give to charity when you can shop at Sainsbury’s instead?

Of course charities have to worry about whether companies' marketing messages are impacting on their donations. They would be acting irresponsibly if they didn't incorporate this potential threat into their SWOT analyses.

Mine and Sarah's point - as Howard has picked up on – was not to criticise companies per se and certainly not to make any comment about how fundraisers should manage their corporate and cause-related marketing partnerships. So our response, John, to your answer to Sarah's rhetorical question about why would people give to charity if they felt they had done their bit by shopping at Sainsbury's is: "Well, of course!" After all, that is job of a corporate fundraiser.

We're not even criticising companies for using these messages - merely highlighting the effect such marketing may have on donations, and I drew on the Giving Campaign's and Peter Halfpenny's research to give a plausible explanation of how that effect might come about.

However, I would make this point. However well-intentioned, however nobly-motivated, companies' advertising and marketing may be, it serves one purpose only - to get more people to buy their products. Although important for them, changing the world is a secondary objective.

The social values marketing currently practised by some companies is not Corporate Social Responsibility. Values marketing is not in itself a sign that the company is acting more responsibly; just that it is communicating that it is acting more responsibly. It is just marketing and it serves to give the company a competitive advantage over its rivals.

Now, what happens in a few years when such social values marketing is seen as a bit passé, or just doesn't work any more? I've no reason at all to doubt that Sainsbury's is totally and utterly genuine in its desire to improve farm standards, but in a year or two, the novelty of this will have worn off and it will no longer provide a productive marketing hook. Sainsbury's CSR and animal welfare best practice will remain; but its marketing will have moved on.

Charities on the other hand, will still be communicating the same core message but it may be harder to get it across and make it pay dividends because corporate marketing has used it for commercial ends and maybe changed people's attitudes in the way that Sarah, Howard and I (and many others, of course) fear.

It's something fundraisers should at least consider.

Ian

It's ironic that if companies act irresponsibly, they’re lambasted by charities. If, through that, they become more responsible, some charities then worry that they're impacting on donations instead of relishing the fact that their messages have started to get through and a change has taken place.

If that's the case, then it’s those charities that look to work collaboratively with the corporate sector that will do well as CSR fever takes a grip on the UK corporate sector. I doubt any charities will look for vaccine for this apparent rise in concern by companies for the world: “Hey you, take three of these a day to help you stop doing good!”

Looking just at animal welfare, The RSPCA does very nicely rewarding food producers with its Freedom Food kitemark...it gets a royalty for every product it adorns.

However, the corporate sector as a whole is not going to change the world's problems and it's the charity sectors' role to recognise and complement solid initiatives whilst also pointing out short-comings and providing long-term solutions for change. After all, every little helps - but a little doesn't help solve everything.

P.S. How many people that do the lottery even give a thought that a percentage is going to "good causes"?

www.changingbusiness.com
Change today for a better tomorrow

The clear corporate/charity partnerships that benefit a named charity with every purchase are fine. However, I share Ian and Sarah's concern that some companies are intentionally presenting themselves as agents of change using similar language and imagery as those used by charities.

Case in point - the Friends of the Earth-style campaign that M&S is running - "Plan A (because there is no Plan B)". Lovely to see a supermarket committing to these ideals and targets, but it irks me that it's borrowing the look and feel of campaigns run by FoE and co for the past 30 years.

Yes, shoppers *will* give to disaster appeals. But if after a few years of stumping up a little extra each week at Sainsbury's/Asda/Tesco/M&S etc for Fairtrade products, free-range organic eggs, cruelty-free soap, plus a Lottery ticket, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of shoppers had the fuzzy sensation that they'd already been contributing to Oxfam, RSPB, FoE, when of course not a penny (bar one fifth of that Lottery ticket) was being donated to a charity?

Will that become the standard rejection for face-to-face fundraisers? "No thanks. I'm already a regular giver to your lot - I shop at Tesco".

Q: "As Sarah said, if you are already doing your bit for animal welfare by shopping at Sainsbury’s, why would you also give to an animal welfare charity?"

A: So that such charities can continue to campaign against the 000s of other organisations, and countries, that don't give a damn about animal welfare? No point in putting all your eggs in just one basket. For example, The British Red Cross made 3/4m out of people buying their favourite products at Tesco last year. However, should there be another disaster and those shoppers are asked to give I don't think many will think "Hang on a minute, what about that tin of beans I bought at Tesco last year? Don't tell me you've spent the five pence donation that generated already?"

Also, I'm sure that if WSPA analysed its donors' shopping habits it would find many shopped at Sainsbury's and the other biggies.

www.changingbusiness.com
Change today for a better tomorrow