From the NY Times via Council on Foundation's Philanthropic Advisor Network List Serv:
Alliances between corporations and nonprofits for the benefit of this or that cause are hardly a rarity these days. In fact, U.S. companies now sink about $1 billion a year into partnerships with do-gooder organizations, about 10 times what they spent a decade ago, according to David Hessekiel of the Cause Marketing Forum. Some of these efforts are successful; some aren't. But rarely does one manage to do what the Live Strong yellow bracelet has done, which is spark a consumer craze.
The bracelet -- a round hunk of synthetic silicon rubber stamped with the phrase ''Live Strong'' -- started selling in May at Niketown outlets, as well as at Foot Locker stores and various independent retailers. It cost $1, and proceeds were sent to the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the nonprofit charitable organization associated with the champion cyclist, who is a famous cancer survivor. ''Live Strong'' is the foundation's motto; yellow, among other things, echoes the color of the lead rider's jersey in the Tour de France. Nike underwrote the production and distribution of the entire first run of five million, meaning that 100 percent of the proceeds, plus another $1 million Nike threw in, went straight to the foundation.
What do you think? Who is helping or exploiting whom, to what effect? Symbiosis or profanation? Charity as PR? Brand building with the cachet of Lance Armstrong, with charitable purpose as cheap access to his name and image? Fad marketing? The elision of social life with the brazen rituals of big bidnis? When charities think like (speaking as a marketer myself) professional brand builders, who wins and loses? For myself I find campaigns like this to cheapen charitable giving by mixing it with so many motives that redound to private rather public benefit. Worse, each time charity concedes public to private purpose, and subordinates caritas to marketing, we give up a little piece of our "souls." Or, just say, that the mixture, or even predominance, of noncharitable benefits tends to dilute the charitable "brand" and call it into disrepute. You can only sell your virginity a few times; and even getting a good price does not make it high class. As you sell out, and get the rep you deserve, the price tends to fall anyway. When so few do, I wish charities would stake the highest ground they can.
