Matt Dacosta's blog post was about cause related marketing. Cause related marketing is defined as joint funding and promotional strategy in which a firm's sales are linked (and a percentage of the sales revenue is donated) to a charity or other public cause. However, unlike philanthropy, money spent in cause related marketing is considered an expense and is expected to show a return. To put it simply, companies are doing certain things that are considered philanthropic, but have ulterior motives that usually come down to making more money in the long run. Matt talks about how the relationship between professional athletes and not-for-profit organizations can be positive for both parties. Professional athletes are improving their public image which can increase their marketability for their teams and brands, and the not-for-profit organizations are getting players that are idols for many of their members. This can grow their brand and donations due to the name of the professional attending the event.
Matt questions if there are instances in which cause related marketing could be bad. Personally, I don't think there are any negative possibilities for these situations. As long as the professionals stay true to the values of their charitable organizations' values and don't do anything that goes against these, the relationship can only be positive.
Can you think of an example in which the relationship went sour? What were the consequences?
No comments:
Post a Comment