Marketing for change - giving brands a soul

Marjorie Thompson Saatchi & Saatchi, 80 Charlotte Street, London W1A lAQ, UK; Tel: +44 171 636 5060; Fax: +44 171 467 9628

Received (in revised form): 19th Februaty 1998

Marjorie Thompson is the Director of Saatchi & Saatchi Cause Connection - a specialist unit inside Saatchi & Saatchi UK, set up in September 1997 to foster mutually beneficial relationships between cotporates and charities resulting in social awareness advertising. Before that, she was Head of Communica- tions at the Commission for Racial Equality (1993-7), Adviser to the Breast Cancer and HIWAIDS Nursing Societies at the Royal College of Nursing (1991-3) and parliamentary officer for the Royal College of Nursing (1 988-9 1). Simultaneously she was Chair (1990-93) and Vice-Chair (1987-90) of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Prior to that she was parliamentary officer for CND, research assistant to Labour MP Ann Clwyd and worked for the Boston University overseas programme at the US Naval Facility at Holy Loch, Scotland - as well as briefly on capitol Hill. She has an undergraduate degree from the Colorado College and a Master’s degree in European politics from the London School of Economics.

ABSTRACT Is it possible to avoid becoming ~9avorrr of the rnorith and then being dismissed by bored constimers as a marketing gimmick? Saatchi G. Saatchi Cairse Connection oflers a dgerent twist: cotporates shoidd be taking the long view arid lending sirbstance and ‘Sotrl’ to their brands by efective thoirglit-t/iroirgh charity link-rrps. Cairse-related inarketing or CRM, as it is known, has been farniliar to Anierican con- sirniers for a nirrnber of years, whereas it

has only really becorne topical in Britairr since 1996. In sonie cases this might mean taking on an issire, birt in Britain, where the volirntary/charity sector has a long tradition of delivering services, promoting awareness and is Iit$lly professional, there is a real role for advertising to play in commirnicuting social responsibility in conjrrtiction with a charity. This paper provides a potted history ofthe anti-racist and anti-nuclear campaigns, challenges the current eniphasis on ‘discretion ’ in cotporate giving and orrtlines a simple checklist for irndertaking a relationship.

INTRODUCTION In April 1994, the day of the South AGican elections, a historic partnership was launched; Saatchi & Saatchi and the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) joined together in an ambitious undertak- ing ‘to make racism socially unaccep- table’.’ The agreement was that Saatchi & Saatchi would provide their creative time pro bono and the CRE would raise money to cover production costs. This was done with some success, especially as in the early years of the CREs campaign, funding sources were largely confined to trade unions, local authorities and football bodies. By 1996 a breakthrough was made into private sector and large corporate sponsorship, with numerous awards for the advertising and many projects being underwritten long term by companies;* additionally public awareness of the Com- mission rose from 35 per cent to 50 per

Journal ofh’onpmfir and Volunury Sector Markccing. Vol. 3 No. 2 . 1 9 9 8 . ~ ~ . 107-113. QHcnry Srewan Publicxiom. 1360-8576

cent between June 1994 and summer 1995.3

THE CAMPAIGN The campaign started with a simple theme of innocence - that racism is not something people are born with, it is learned. The ‘Babies’ image became extremely popular after its launch by Michael Howard (Home Secretary, June 1994). Other issues addressed during the course of the campaign, ‘Uniting Britain for a Just Society’, included discrimination in employment, the criminal justice system, education and racial harassment.

Many of the ads were never seen because of lack of media spend. The most widely seen and popular one, which became a youth cult status symbol and appeared around the world, was ‘Brains’. A very straightforward message showed three standard brains, below them written ‘African’, ‘Asian’ and ‘European’. A fourth brain, much smaller in size, was shown with the title ‘racist’. This ad was even copied by Benetton! Apart &om print executions the agency also had some extremely well-received television and cinema ads and radio coverage with a particularly impressive reach.

The widespread recognition of the cam- paign was a great achievement for all working on it, cataIysing debate in many European countries, widely talked about in schools and even creating a stir as far away as New Zealand. The fi-ustration however, was that these very important images and messages were largely seen as ‘one-offs’, because someone had donated the space or the airtime. With the exception of the ‘Brains’ television execution to the tune of a popular youth song (still shown on MTV late at night); there was no sustained, targeted, planned impact - the agency had to take what it could get, as is so ofien the case with charity or voluntary activity.

This had been a common theme with Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the early ’ ~ O S , attempting to raise awareness and encourage informed debate about what was and still is, possibly the most vital issue of our generation - the insanity of the arms race. Worthy leaflets do not necessarily change minds; although a progressive agency called Yellowhammer came up with a great campaign, ‘It Costs Millions, It f i l l s Millions and It’s Coming Down Your Street’. Such was the secrecy and paranoia surrounding our defence and security, that weapons of mass destruction were driving through villages at night and not even the fire and emergency services were being informed about it. We needed to notify people about this but encoun- tered more than just the financial obstacle - one cinema chain refused to show our ‘Morning Has Broken’ cinema ad. The screening of the Cat Stevens ad, made for just L5 ,OOO because of donated time by acton, camera crew and production personnel, was made possible only because we legally threatened them.4

It was a little easier at the Royal College of Nursing worlung with AIDS and breast cancer nurses - though HIV/AIDS was still controversial. Sadly the government awareness campaigns were not as effec- tive as they might have been with their ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ initiative. In fact the ‘Icebergs’ and ‘Tombstones’ straplines were treated somewhat humorously and neither issue was communicated to its hll potentiaL5

Aher the CRE experience, the time seemed to be right to reassess the whole area of ‘worthy, social responsibility com- munications’. Why is it not possible to receive sustained, informative, accessible information about how to lead healthier, happier lives in the way that commercial products like soap powder and soh drinks are subliminally registered into the con- sciousness?

t ERE ARE LOTS OF PLACES IN BRtTAIN WHERE RACISM DOESN’T EXIST.

CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING The author first noticed cause-related marketing in 1994 on a return visit to the United States. Dining in an exclusive restaurant near Los Angeles Airport she noticed a leaflet explaining that if the bill was paid with American Express, a certain amount of money would go to feed homeless people. There was something mildly ironic about this; however, the results were not ironic - it raised $15m for Charge Against Hunger and increased card usage by 10 per cent.6 Although it did not examine the underlying social causes of homelessness, it was clearly addressing a problem of which people were acutely aware - a problem that had been growing

since the early ’eighties. The trend towards CRM, particularly in the United States and Australia, seemed about to ‘take off in Britain.’

People wish to pay less tax. They seem to like the idea of less state involvement and more publiclprivate partnership - perhaps more so in the United States than in Britain - but as consumers they do not want to go on demonstrations to change things. They will, however, act through their consumer behaviour and support campaigns and causes through the products they choose to purchase. There is now a growing body of research and survey material available about CRM, notably all the Business in the Community material,

Figure 1 The changing emphasis of advertising

0 Spiritual or Ethical

0 I- Rational

Emotional

and the Cone-Roper and Pearlman reports from the United States.’

CORPORATE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY Many corporates already do a great deal of ‘community’ work; but most of them do not really tell the world about it. When they do, it can sometimes become a source of national amusement as in British come- dian Rory Bremner and the British Tele- com ads in a not-strictly CRM, but related ‘attitude changing’ campaign, ‘Why Not Change The Way We Work?’’

Much corporate charitable activity seems fragmented, with numerous charities being the beneficiaries of one corporate’s largesse. Even in recent years, when there have been attempts to rationalise these relationships and have charities compete for a ‘Charity of the Year’, there still do not appear to have been coherent, integrated, strategic communications programmes, which

explain what the charity does or at least the issues with which it is attempting to deal. Certainly, some corporates do have very good programmes that involve their staff, particularly in team-building exercises and competitions to raise funds for the chosen charity. lo

To take a more strategic view on this, CRM is an effective way of differentiating the marketing mix from that of com- petitors and ultimately from the brand. There is no argument to suggest that CRM is the ideal solution for every corporate, but those for whom it is not the solution are definitely exceptions. The vast majority of companies can benefit from CRM - and those who are in on the ground floor with a dedicated programme will be the ones who do best. There are other valid paradigms for a corporate’s responsibility, however, CRM is an effec- tive tool in achieving many objectives at once - including turning a profit.

There should be something beyond

‘on-product’ promotion and the traditional, almost Victorian ‘discreet’ munificence of corporate giving in Britain. The vision of Cause Connection, announced at the Media Trust Conference in June 1997” and operative &om 1st September, is:

‘To develop the spirit of corporate involvement in civic society and ensure that results are reinforced by greater consumer awareness.’

The mission statement is:

‘To encourage corporations to commit to an ongoing programme of activity in the charitable/voluntary sector and to develop it as an active ingredient of the consumer’s perception of the company and their product through advertising.’

In the ’sixties, the whole premise of advertising was based on the rational and logical, appealing to the mind. In the ’seventies and ’eighties, it became more emotionally orientated, the appeal was to the heart. In the ’nineties, there has been an emphasis on the ethical - what is right, how can I do good?’

Corporates should be seeking a shared brand identity with a charity - an oppor- tunity where both parties profit. Young people in particular are cynical if they see no obvious link between the corporate’s brand or services and the chosen charity or cause. But if it makes sense - like Dr Marten’s shoes and a campaign about kicking racism out of football - they are positive and enthusiastic. l 2

Given that a significant corporate ad spend can be between ElOm and LlOOm, it would seem to make sense for a com- pany to dedicate a percentage of that to promoting the good work that it already does. But it could backfire if it is seen to be patronising, or if there is no ob-

vious synergy between the brand and the cause.I3

This is not to suggest that corporates should disband all their links with charities, maintaining a link with one to the exclu- sion of others, because a variety of targets may need to be met. Demonstrating com- mitment to a local community through assistance for the children’s hospital, host- ing events for community groups and so on, is an example of this. To establish a primary relationship with one charity, and to promote that as an integral part of marketing, makes sense in today’s climate with more dweming consumers.

THE CHECKLIST Once this has been accepted in principle, the obvious mechanisms, or a ‘checklist’ swing into place:I4

- identieing the right issue/cause -selecting the right partner - drawing up an agreed brieflcampaign - transparency in negotiation -putting muscle into it - evaluation

Identifying the right issuekause Certain causes are more popular than others, eg children’s charities have an easier time of it than mental health charities, but it is important that there is brand synergy and that the link-up makes sense from a marketing perspective. And if society is moving away &om Victorian philanthropy, corporates (and their charities seeking links with them) should look for areas of mutual identification: is the charitable theme one of child protection? Does the brand have a similar identity? Can the two be twinned or ‘married’ so as not to put off the consumer, but in a way that will also communicate the message behind the charity? If this is not done, there could be ‘cause fatigue’ as people are assaulted from

every level by exhortations to buy - with no explanation about what they are doing.

Selecting the right partner Some organisations are like the multi- nationals of the charity world. They have so many relationships that perhaps brand synergy is not very important in their fundraising strategy. It should be! But as consumers learn to pick and choose (and possibly become bored by pure on- product promotion), the communication of the message will come to the fore. Both partners should have similar expectations about what the relationship will mean in terms of exposure and whether, given increased publicity, the charity can cope with increased demand for its services.

Drawing up an agreed brief planning your campaign Both partners should be clear about the aims or purpose, length and cost of the proposed campaign. Will there be staff involvement? Is it to increase sales? In other words, what are the agreed objec- tives and measurements of success?

Transparency in negotiation This is extremely important in order that both sides know what they are getting out of it. Sometimes it can be disastrous, as in the case of the children’s charity ‘twinned’ with the company that was found to be using child labour in develop- ing c~untr ies . ’~ Is the corporate just trying to rehabilitate a damaged reputation? Is the charity well managed? Employment policies, health and safety practices and investment portfolios all need to be inves- tigated.

Putting muscle into it Enough time and money should be allocated in order to make sure the

programme works. In some cases it is expected that the charity will do a disproportionate amount of work, but the desirable situation is where the charity is relieved &om doing much of the time- consuming work by the corporate, in order to focus more on service delivery. To achieve the right goals, the corporate has to ‘put its money where its mouth is’ and work with the charity to pursue the goals.

Evaluation There should be sufficient resources in the budget to ensure that a proper evaluation takes place at the end of the campaign so that agreed targets in terms of media coverage, increased sales and so forth can be measured, to mutual satisfaction.

CAPTURING THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE AND GIVING ‘MEANING’ TO MARKET1 NG The role of the state has had a radical reappraisal in the post-Cold War era. While Eastern European countries grapple with the ramifications of democratisation, advanced industrial countries are atternpt- ing to redefine the role of government and in Britain, even ‘rebrand’ the country as new young, vigorous and dynamic. Every- one is now a ‘stakeholder’ in society. With politicians and journalists not very high up in the league table as pillars of society, people expect business to provide some sort of moral leadership and to fill the vacuum left by a declining church influence. As commentators seek to make sense of the Millennium (Dome absur- dities aside) there is a real opportunity to inject a new sense of value into economic activities - caring, but account- able capitalism.

Consumer pressure has caused manufac- turers to pull out of factories where poor wages and bad conditions exist in develop-

ing countries - an ‘ethical’ kitemark is being proposed for toys, supported by major retailers who have declared their intention to sell only products with those kitemarks.16 T h e death of Princess Diana seemed, at least temporarily, t o focus peoples’ minds on compassion and her memorial fund is a testament t o her power to move people. A more appropriate legacy would be to see British business shifi fiom its timid attitude towards talking about corporate social responsibility and what they are actually doing” and to start telling consumers what they want to hear. This can only be ensured by following the checklist, or some variation of it - follow- ing it and following it through. Only then can business begin to maximise and build on its contribution to society, develop Customer loyalty and give brands a ‘soul’ - and only then w d charities get the communications vehicles they need to change the world.

REFERENCES ‘The Commission’, Channel 4 series (3 parts, screened November 1997). ‘Annual Reports, 1993, 1994, 1995,

1996, Commission for Racial Equality, Elliot. Percival, Greville (1995) ‘Opinion Survey’, Commission for Racial Equality - Public Awareness Campaign. Butler, Toby (1997) ‘A Common Cause?’, Third Sector, July. Terence Higgins Trust (1985) ‘Briefing on UK Govt Advertising HIV/AIDS Mass Media Campaigns 1985-86’. Griffith, Victoria (1997) ‘All in a good cause and profitable’, Financial Times, 12 May. Gray, Robert (1997) ‘Cause for thought’ Marketing Week, January. a) ‘Cone-Roper C R M Trends Report 1997’, Cone-Roper study on

cause-related marketing, 1996, Cone Communications Inc., Boston and Roper Starch Worldwide Inc. NY. b) ‘1996 Business in the Community Corporate Survey’, (1997) The Game Plan, Cause Related Marketing Consumer Research. c) ‘Cause Citizenship Marketing: A Competitive Branding Tool for the 1990s’, The Pearlman Group, Los Angeles. d) Rohde, Carl C. and Becchimanzi, Maria Rosaria (1 994) ‘Company Strategies for Social Responsibility’, Signs of the Time, The Research Centre for International Mass Communications, Milan, Italy Rory Bremner, UK comedian, December 1997. Clutterbuck, Dearlove and Snow (1992) ‘Actions Speak Louder - A Management Guide to Corporate Social Responsibility’, Kogan Page Ltd. Mc Cann, Paul ‘Pillar of the left defects &om C N D to Saatchi’ (1997), The Independent, 10 June. Nelson, Fraser (1997) ‘Big companies change tack to make money from the cost of giving’, Time, 3 September. a) Jones, Helen (1997) Reuters, 11 August. b) Butler, Toby (1997) ‘Company good causes ignore consumer wishes’, Third Sector, September. Di Marzio, Worthington (1997) ‘Consumers, The Community and Business’, The New Bottom Line, Cavill & Company, Australia. Andreasen, Alan R. (1996) ‘Find a Corporate Partner’, Harvard Business Review Profits for Non Profits, November-December. Barrett, Patrick (1997) ‘Retail push for ethics’, Retail Week, 23 October. Collins, James C. and Porras, Jerry I . (1996) ‘Building your company vision’, Harvard Business Review, September-October.