Piaras Kelly PR - Public Relations in Ireland

Ad Age has an eye-opening article about the perceived lack of success of the Red Campaign. Despite multiple celebrity endorsement, huge brand linkups and a big advertising spend, the campaign raised $18 million dollars so far, a figure which has drawn criticism from some quarters. As the article points out:

The disproportionate ratio between the marketing outlay and the money raised is drawing concern among nonprofit watchdogs, cause-marketing experts and even executives in the ad business. It threatens to spur a backlash, not just against the Red campaign — which ambitiously set out to change the cause-marketing model by allowing partners to profit from charity — but also for the brands involved.

Transparency is a huge issue for charities. When somebody puts money in the donation box, they automatically think that the all the cash goes to a good cause. The public feel great discomfort to know that some of that money covers the organisation’s administration, advertising or communications costs. Speaking as a PR professional, I know there is a huge backlash from the public when charities’ spending on public relations is disclosed. Surely if their cause is just then their voice will be heard? Unfortunately that necessarily isn’t the case. Despite the pro-bono work that is being done by agencies and specialised firms that are able to cater charitable organisations, there will always be charities looking for assistance.

On the other side of the fence, companies realise that by being good corporate citizens, they build better relationships with their customers, prospects and key influencers. Research has shown that 35% of consumers make purchase decisions based on social responsibility aspects of the brands/products or services they buy. As the Ad Age article points out though, the same level of transparency that is required of charities, is also applicable to organisations engaged in CSR. If consumers are spending their hard earned cash on products thinking that they are helping the world, but as it turns out lining someone’s pockets, then they are bound to get very annoyed. The article draws attention to some of the reaction:

The campaign’s inherent appeal to conspicuous consumption has spurred a parody by a group of San Francisco designers and artists, who take issue with Bono’s rallying cry. “Shopping is not a solution. Buy less. Give more,” is the message at buylesscrap.org, which encourages people to give directly to the Global Fund.

“The Red campaign proposes consumption as the cure to the world’s evils,” said Ben Davis, creative director at Word Pictures Ideas, co-creator of the site. “Can’t we just focus on the real solution — giving money?”

Trent Stamp, president of Charity Navigator, which rates the spending practices of 5,000 nonprofits, said he’s concerned about the campaign’s impact on the next generation. “The Red campaign can be a good start or it can be a colossal waste of money, and it all depends on whether this edgy, innovative campaign inspires young people to be better citizens or just gives them an excuse to feel good about themselves while they buy an overpriced item they don’t really need.”

Transparency doesn’t just affect charity organisations. For example, ITV has recently been forced to cancel all its premium-rate phone-ins on its channels. The Register has the full story here. It is a huge issue for the broadcaster as the premium rate services did a good job of recouping some of its fall in advertising revenue. However, the lack of transparency and the current investigation has shaken consumer confidence. Ultimately, charitable organisations and companies alike have to ensure that the public understands where their money goes.

Technorati Tags: CSR, Piaras Kelly, PR, Public Relations, Red