At the Cause Marketing Forum, we’re thrilled to see an increase in the amount of research being published by academic and commercial analysts. We’re all about sharing information and best practices in the pursuit of doing well by doing good.
Of course, we’re pleased when studies emerge that support the idea that companies and causes can create win-win alliances. But we also welcome critical studies that can guide practitioners and policy makers from making damaging mistakes.
Limited Data Used Should Not Equal Sweeping Pronouncements
Whether the studies cast cause marketing in positive or negative light, we are unimpressed, however, when researchers use very limited experimental data to make sweeping pronouncements about cause marketing.That, unfortunately, appears to be what is happening with “Can Supporting a Cause Decrease Donations and Happiness?: The Cause Marketing Paradox”, a new study by Professor Aradhna Krishna of the University of Michigan.
“Cause Marketing Lowers Charitable Donations,” is the distressing headline on the March 31 University of Michigan press release announcing an upcoming study that explores linkages between purchasing cause-related items and subsequent donations based on experiments involving several hundred college students.
Have You Read This Study?
I have. Fortified by a good deal of coffee, I dug into the dense 26-page paper to get the story behind the story. I found that the experiments on which it was based were quite artificial and that their implications were far overstated by the author.
One field study compared funds raised from passersby over four days by a fraternity raising money for the American Cancer Society under two conditions:
- The fraternity brothers only asked for donations — or —
- They sold Red Bull for $2.50 per can with a 50-cent donation and accepted additional donations.
Two laboratory studies examined the impact on donations under a number of scenarios when participants “were shown a number of products on which to spend a budget of $100 and/or donate to charity.”
Limited Implications
Based on what I’ve read, I could buy the conclusion that under some circumstances consumers who buy a cause-related product might make smaller donations. But the study in no way has the “oomph” to support such sweeping generalizations as “consumers who buy products linked to social causes end up giving less money to charity,” as the press release states.
Study Admits That Generalizations Shouldn’t Be Made
Unfortunately, I’m probably one of a handful of people who has taken the time to request the study and read it in full to understand its limitations. Read it closely enough and you’ll find that Professor Krishna states that:
- The Red Bull study “is very small scale and needs to be replicated before any generalizations can be drawn from it” and
- The study doesn’t prove that total donations decrease in the presence of CM, but only that they could.
I can only wish that this study had been titled “Avoiding Situations in Which Cause Marketing Could Diminish Donations” and that it had offered practical suggestions for avoiding such scenarios.
What’s your take on this study? Have you read it? Did you find any takeaways that could be helpful for the cause marketing community?
David,
Thank you for wiping away a bit of the grime so we can see through the window of hype on this article. I created a cause-marketing tool (the TisBest Charity Gift Card) precisely because I see cause marketing as a means to provide the public with “sampling” of the charitable giving experience, and thereby increase participation in charitable giving.
I am curious about the experiments that Professor Krishna performed. I too would like to read the study itself, rather than just the news articles about it. Can you provide me with a copy or direct me to the source for your copy?
Thank you,
Erik
ErikThanks for your thoughtful comments. We’ve sent you a copy of the study.
There are so many types of cause marketing programs, so many different relationships between companies and causes, so many different buying and selling situations, so many price and donation levels, so many other variables to consider. One shouldn’t make sweeping generalizations about the impact a program would have on donations.
Great post, Dave! I’m glad CMF responded to the study’s findings.
I make three points in my own post on the Michigan Study.
http://selfishgiving.com/cause-practices/cause-marketing-selfishness-good
First, there’s a lot of evidence to support that people are actually quite happy and more generous after support a cause via a cause marketing promotion. According to a 2010 Cone Study that involved a larger sample than the Michigan study, 86% of Americans say purchasing a cause-related product did not replace their traditional donation(s) to their favorite charity.
Second, the study points out that consumers are often unclear of how much of their money is going where. This is a problem. Fortunately, transparency is getting better with cause marketing and mobile giving, location-based services and QR codes promise a new level of openness and accountability.
Finally, the study’s lead researcher warns causes to be wary of unscrupulous companies. Always good advice, but you need to understand how purchase-triggered cause marketing–the ONLY type of cause marketing examined in the study–works. Companies are working with causes to help and to earn favorability, not damage their reputations. You can’t steal a halo. Also, the type of cause marketing the study examined is generally used by larger causes that know how to work with companies and protect their interests. Smaller companies and causes prefer direct donation programs like point-of-sale.
The overrding theme of the study is that selfishness in philanthropy is harmful. I’m not sure that’s completely true as there are many non-altruistic reasons for giving. A little selfishness might just be good for the greater good.
Joe
@joewaters
Joe — Thanks for adding your voice to the conversation.
As always you make your point insightfully and amusingly!
This study fails from the start for such a weak sample group and the attention is getting is disturbing. Here’s my longer response: http://mlcwideangle.exbdblogs.com/2011/04/07/cause-marketing-a-second-look/
Terrific post Mandy — thanks for contributing to our conversation. Looking forward to learning more about Iconoculture.
David,
Great analysis and response.
Like you, I read the entire report.
I found these two quotes from the lead author to be particularly interesting in light of the hype:
“There are many limitations of our research that need to be pointed out.”
“The pilot field study is very small scale and needs to be replicated before any generalizations can be drawn from it.”
Steve
David,
Thanks for the deep review. Wondering where we can get a hold of the full report. checked over at UM. Can you share a link? Or did I not see the hyperlink?
Thanks for launching this blog. It’s already a great resource.
Patricia
Hi David,
Thank you for reviewing the study. Definitely a reminder to dig deeper.
I’d also like to read the study. Could you post a link?
Here’s a link to download a copy of the study:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/UFh0Z281MGswVWxjR0E9PQ
The link is good until April 29, 2011.