Is “Mission Marketing” the New Cause Marketing? (Part Two)

Last week, I began this two-part post with some of the results of a survey by Boston-based marketing consultancy Cone Communications that irrefutably shows that the annual onslaught of pink products to support breast cancer awareness is backfiring among customers.

I posited that consumers see these efforts as what they really are:  a short-term promotion designed to drive a bump in sales, but without any long-term commitment to the cause.

To see what I mean, take a look at online retailer Etsy’s “Tickled Pink” campaign.

The atrocious title aside, the site is remarkably long on pink product, but virtually lacking in any specifics about how much of a donation would be made to breast cancer charities, or even which charities would be the beneficiaries.  One blogger dug deeper and found that of the 24 products listed, only eight actually claim to support breast cancer organizations.  To my mind, this is far from anything resembling cause marketing.

I remain a fervent believer in the power of cause, not just as a way to drive sales and build brand trust and affinity, but also as a means of visibly and concretely demonstrating what the brand/company – and its people – stand for.  But, to do so, cause must be looked at seriously and strategically, with an allocation of significant resources, a long-term view, total transparency and specific and measurable metrics. (See Part One, for two sterling examples from Avon and AT&T).

In the midst of this October’s breast cancer campaigns, I was delighted to see another kind of purpose-based marketing initiative emerge:  Red Bull Stratos and its sponsorship of Felix Baumgartner’s record-breaking fall to earth from a height of 24 miles above the Earth.

I have read several posts from marketing commentators and columnists that called this a terrific example of corporate sponsorship.  And, I would agree.

But, I think there is more to it than just sponsorship.  I would call it “mission marketing”.

It was indeed a once-in-a-lifetime event viewed by many millions around the world.  It also resulted in breaking such records as free fall from the highest altitude, longest free fall time, and fastest acceleration (by human or object) to the speed of sound.  But Red Bull Stratos focused on the even bigger idea:  that this was also a meticulously planned and executed mission with a goal of delivering substantive scientific data.

Red Bull’s sponsorship included the deployment of a team of the finest aeronautics and medical professionals who studied the jump for its scientific value.  According to the Red Bull Stratos website, that included:

• Aiding development of a new generation of space suits (including enhanced mobility and visual clarity) to aid passenger/crew exit from space;
• Developing protocols for exposure to high altitude/high acceleration
• Exploring the effects on the human body of supersonic acceleration and deceleration, including innovations in parachute systems.

In my opinion, this is big – huge – thinking at its best.  It is also in complete support of the kind of benefits that Red Bull aspires to represent:  energy, concentration, focus and determination.

Appropriately and refreshingly, it was a low-key – dare I say humble – partnership.  Take a look at the website at the center of the campaign.  The brand is almost nonexistent in its presence, just enough to inform the visitor of its sponsorship.  The event and the science constitute the visitor experience.  And Red Bull underwrote lots of digital content for deep immersion.

What I also found rare was Red Bull’s exceptional patience for the payoff.  The jump was first announced in early 2010, over two-and-a-half years before it actually occurred.  But once Baumgartner jumped on October 14th, the world turned to the Red Bull Stratos site, the official home of all information related to the jump.  The media coverage alone must have numbered in the billions of branded impressions.  Red Bull made excellent use of its social media properties to drive engagement and consumer connection.

Is that enough?   Will it drive sales and closer brand affinity?  It may be too early to tell and will certainly depend upon how Red Bull continues to find ways to extend its connection to the event and to the scientific mission.  But, given how well the brand has succeeded to date, I have every reason to believe they will.

Is “Mission Marketing” the New Cause Marketing? (Part One)

It’s October.

And again this year, as in every October in the past ten years or so, consumers are inundated with every sort of beauty, fashion, household and entertainment product you can imagine — even cupcakes, disposable pens and smart phone covers – all emblazoned in pink to show support and/or funding for National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Now, I am all for the color pink as an awareness tool.  It’s become a vivid icon for eradicating this disease.  Its symbolism is galvanizing, especially when it shines on the crown of the Empire State Building or is worn by both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney at this past Tuesday’s debate.

But are pink products the be all and end all for brands that want to jump on the cause bandwagon?

Not necessarily, says a new study from Cone Communications, a Boston-based consulting firm that has razor-sharp insights into consumer attitudes around cause marketing.  Cone’s survey showed that 77% of consumers believe that companies engaging in October “pink” marketing are doing so “solely for corporate gain”.  Only 26% believe that such support has made any real difference.

Can these types of one-month one-offs even be defined as cause marketing?  Most cause marketing advocates – and I consider myself one of them – would say no.  I’ve long believed that cause marketing must be a strategic endeavor that partners brands with causes over time (like the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade, which is entering its third decade of continuous 365-day-a-year support).  Best-in-class cause campaigns harness the full resources of an organization – its people, top executives, intellectual property and marketing muscle, and may also fund research and advocacy.  All of these efforts work together in the service of specific, well-articulated and measurable objectives and outcomes.  And, of course, the cause must align with the brand’s or company’s ethos, the passions and interests of its customers and employees, and its larger philanthropic goals.

One superb recent example (though not breast cancer-related) is AT&T’s long-term effort to persuade drivers to stop texting while behind the wheel.  It’s “It Can Wait”campaign has been vigorously promoted by AT&T’s top executive, Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson.  It is fully obvious that this is an issue Mr. Stephenson cares about passionately.  The campaign has an extensive digital and social media presence, has partnered with such organizations as the DOT and FCC to amplify its messages, has sponsored summits for teen drivers, has commissioned research studies and has produced a documentary and television ads that ran during the Summer Olympics.  This clearly is an immense undertaking that requires a significant investment in financial and human resources.

Now, just compare AT&T’s campaign to the “here today, gone tomorrow” approach seen in the annual “pink parade”.  The pink products are the stuff of promotions, nothing more.  They really the same as just another date on a marketing calendar:  no different from a back to school circular or a holiday shopping in-store promotion.

Consumers get that.  They are increasingly seeing through the pink haze.  According to the Cone study, 90% want to see corporate support all year long, not just for a few weeks.

A year or so ago, Fox Home Video released pink-ribbon adorned versions of such DVDs as “An Affair to Remember” and “The Best of Everything” as part of its “DVDs for the Cure” campaign, with a promise of some portion of proceeds benefiting breast cancer charities.  It struck me that these two films were made in the 1950s.  None of Fox’s much more recent releases, such as “The Devil Wears Prada” were anywhere to be found in the promotion.  To me, it smacked of opportunism: a way to sell dusty back-list titles that otherwise would languish. From the best of my research, it appears that Fox has no other connection to the breast cancer cause.  This promotion begs the question, “was there any meaningful goal applied to this effort other than a bump in monthly sales?”  If so, that is exactly what drives the kind of consumer doubts that the Cone study reveals.

The Cone study emphasizes that, in the case of breast cancer support, only 6% of consumers are satisfied with such broad, generalized objectives as “improving awareness”, or vague statements about benefiting charities.  They want to see specific, meaningful, measurable goals such as medical research (46%), screenings and prevention (26%) and support to patients and their families (22%).

In part two of this post, I’ll share my thoughts on what I call “mission marketing”, best exemplified by the Red Bull Stratos project.