The Business of Charity

Think breast cancer. For most the initial association with the words breast cancer will be a pink ribbon. Due to the efforts of the Susan G. Komen foundation, the now famous pink ribbon has become unquestionably linked to breast cancer awareness and the search for a cure to a disease that is anticipated to kill 40,000 women in the U.S. in 2014.¹ In early October, Susan G. Komen announced their “Doing Our Bit for the Cure” partnership with the oilfield services company Baker Hughes. The mainstay of this campaign is the painting of a thousand drill bits pink to raise awareness for breast cancer. These drill bits will be used in Baker Hughes' hydraulic fracturing operations, a technique for retrieving natural gas that is known to produce countless carcinogenic chemicals.² For the past two years Baker Hughes has contributed $100,000 annually to the Susan G. Komen foundation. More on this partnership later.

This is not the first time that breast cancer nonprofits such as Susan G. Komen have been involved in questionable partnerships. Some highlights include pink KFC buckets, Mike's Hard Pink Lemonade, and Avon Beauty Products. This type of collaboration between corporations and nonprofits forms a mutually beneficial relationship, which has come to be known as “cause marketing”. Why is it that cause marketing is so successful and what does this success say about our culture and values?

To answer these question I will start with a discussion of pinkwashing, a term referring to the widespread use of pink breast cancer ribbons on a multitude of products most of which have nothing to do with breast cancer. It is this pinkwashing technique that has led the Susan G. Komen foundation to become one of the the most successful nonprofits in the country with a total revenue in 2013 of 339 million dollars.³ This success is in large part due to their widespread commercialization. Corporations operate with one inherent goal, to make a profit. In many ways the Susan G. Komen foundation operates in a manner similar to a corporation with the end desire being to make money. However, many non-profits align themselves with corporations. So why is it that Susan G. Komen stands out as being one of the most successful? Perhaps it is in their marketing of the disease. Breast cancer is not sexy, it is a horrible disease that ravages the body. However, this is not an image that will sell to the American public. Breast cancer has become a product; it is pink; it is delicate; it is feminine; it is a lace ribbon. This is an image that is palatable, one that consumers are willing to support and that corporations are able to market.

In many ways corporations just like people go through the process of image creation and identity formation. However, with corporations this image creation must be particularly deliberate. In a 2006 study of millennials,⁴ after learning that a company was socially responsible 79% were likely to purchase that company’s products. In addition 89% were likely to switch from one brand to another if the second supports a cause. Cause marketing is big business with the opportunity for companies to reap large economic benefits. Doing good makes us feel good, everyone likes to feel like they are helping others and that they are able to have a positive influence on other people's lives. Cause marketing is merely capitalizing on this desire. When a company aligns themselves with a nonprofit they have now added a new feature to their product. By purchasing a product that has been aligned with a nonprofit it makes it easy for the consumer to feel as if they are doing something good for others and in turn this makes them feel good about themselves. Companies have actually created a new kind of product, helping others is labor intensive, sometimes expensive, and often requires a dedication of ones time. Corporations are presenting consumers with an alternative. Buying a product such as pink Pepperidge Farm Milano Cookies now becomes an act of charity that can happen instantaneously and provides consumers with a quick and easy way to help others without actually sacrificing their time or any additional money. It is instant gratification, it is “the commercialization of giving”.⁵ This form of commercialized charity is not inherently bad and does in fact raise money and awareness for nonprofit organizations. However, the issue with this type of charitable giving arises when consumers no longer feel the need to donate to charities directly because they believe that they have already done their part by purchasing products from companies aligned with nonprofits.

Now returning to the example we started with. How is it that the Susan G. Komen foundation can possibly rationalize their decision to partner with Baker Hughes? It seems that as public awareness grows of this issue, Susan G. Komen may be forced to rethink their acceptance of this donation. However, in the eyes of the commercialized nonprofit, money is the ultimate goal and quarterly reports are the benchmark of success. This prioritizing of money can have unintended consequences, leading breast cancer nonprofits to partner with companies linked to carcinogenic chemicals. Such is the case when Yoplait sold yogurt to raise money for Susan G. Komen as part of their “save lids to save lives” promotion. This yogurt was made with dairy stimulated with rBGH hormone which has been linked to increased risk of breast cancer, obesity, and diabetes.⁶ In response to complaints Yoplait has now been rBGH free since 2009. In addition, in 2009 Mike's Hard introduced a Pink Lemonade flavor of their alcoholic lemonade sporting the iconic pink ribbon to raise awareness for breast cancer. According to Susan G. Komen's own website “Many studies show that drinking alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer”.⁷ While examples such as these are more common then one would expect, this method of running a nonprofit is working for the Susan G. Komen foundation. As long as they continue to raise millions of dollars each year, it is unlikely that they will stop anytime in the near future.

Notes

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2014. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2014. <http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/acspc-042151.pdf>.
2. "Update on Hydrofracking." American Academy of Pediatrics. Web. <http://nysaap.org/update-on-hydrofracking/>.

3. "The 50 Largest U.S. Charities." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, Nov. 2013. Web. <http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/>.
4. "The Millennial Generation: Pro-Social and Empowered to Change the World." The 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study (2006). Web. <http://www.centerforgiving.org/Portals/0/2006%20Cone%20Millennial%20Cause%20Study.pdf>.

5. Polonsky, M. J., and G. Wood. "Can the Overcommercialization of Cause-Related Marketing Harm Society?" Journal of Macromarketing 21.1 (2001): 8-22. Web. <http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/21/1/8.full.pdf+html>.

6. "Milking Cancer." Breast Cancer Action. Web. <http://bcaction.org/milking-cancer/>.

7. "Alcohol." Susan G. Komen. Susan G. Komen. Web. <http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/DrinkingAlcohol.html>.