Page 198 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

190 The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

mentality” in which causes receive support based on their potential for
popularity rather than their need. Corporate social marketers should take
into account the urgency and neediness of a cause and not just its popular-
ity. As an aside, finding a part of the social marketplace that is not cluttered
with other companies can be helpful to company branding around a cause.
Corporate social marketing creates a chilling effect on nonprofits.
Public and nonprofit leaders sometimes must speak out on highly contro-
versial and polarized issues such as health care, welfare, or prison reform,
not to mention abortion, gay rights, or other topics that company leaders
typically avoid (Andreasen & Drumwright, 2001). Companies could cre-
ate pressure, even if subtle, on public and nonprofit leaders to hold their
tongues or refrain from building political coalitions for fear of offending or
alienating their company partners and losing funds for social marketing.
Such pressure could conceivably create ethical issues not only for non-
profit and public leaders but also for company leaders.
Companies wield too much power. Corporate social marketing part-
nerships are often characterized by imbalances in power, and typically the
company is the more powerful partner (Berger et al., 2004). Companies
may perceive that they “own” the initiative because they are the primary
funders, and they may attempt to call the shots and take a disproportion-
ate share of the credit and publicity. This perspective is at times reflected
in the initiative’s name, which often has no mention of the nonprofit or
public partner (e.g., Avon Breast Cancer Crusade, Yoplait Save Lids to Save
Lives). When disagreements develop over strategy or tactics, companies
may attempt to use their power to coerce their partners to comply. A re-
lated problem is the tendency of companies to micromanage their non-
profit or public partners’ participation in the initiative. These heavy-handed
approaches by companies can be perceived by public and nonprofit part-
ners as intrusive, arrogant, and disrespectful, and they can create ethical
issues.
Companies spend too much on the marketing and donate too little
to the cause. American Express, one of the early players in corporate social
marketing, was roundly criticized regarding both its Statue of Liberty and
Charge Against Hunger campaigns for spending significantly more to pro-
mote its partnerships than it donated to the causes (Ratnesar, 1997; Smith
& Stodghill, 1994). For example, American Express’s donation to Share
Our Strength, its nonprofit partner in the Charge Against Hunger cam-
paign, was capped at $5 million, but the amount the company spent on
advertising its partnership with Share Our Strength was two to three times
greater. One could assert that a disproportionate advertising-to-donation
ratio is irresponsible and unethical (Andreasen & Drumwright, 2001).