Singing The Blues For Pink

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/25/11.

For a color whose name doesn't even get top billing on the visible spectrum of light, pink has certainly developed potent staying power. From the Pink Panther to pink Cadillacs, and everything in between, this dainty mixture of red and white has also come to symbolize a less benign issue: the hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-a-year-fight against breast cancer - the third deadliest cancer in America today and No. 2 killer of women.

Are you surprised I didn't say it was the No. 1 killer of women and the second deadliest cancer in the United States? You can thank the power of marketing for shifting those perspectives.

Not only has breast cancer taken more than 240,000 lives since 2005, according to Cancer.org, it has also commandeered an entire month through powerful -- some would even say extreme, marketing influence. For the past 25 years, October’s ghosts and goblins have had to share the stage with the specter of breast cancer and its increasingly corporate-like kissing cousins – Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the inexorably linked Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.

While no one can deny the impressive global awareness and funding these organizations have brought to the breast cancer cause – Susan G. Komen alone raised about $420 million in 2010 – am I the only one who thinks that all the merchandising: the pink ribbons, the pink-clad NFL teams, the Bank of America pink checking accounts, the pink armbands, pink lunchboxes, pink Kitchen Aid food processors and whatever else has been Pink'd for October is diluting both the issue at hand and, in reality, siphoning more money toward profits than for research for an actual cure, and skewing public attention away from other serious cancers -- or other causes, period?

When was the last time you paid attention to cervical cancer, or colorectal cancer? Why don’t any NLF teams wear ribbons to support Male Breast Cancer – something that kills, on average, 450 men per year?

Pinkwashing: Where Does All the Money Go?

In 2002, Breast Cancer Action launched a side project called “Think Before You Pink,” whose goal was to raise awareness over the types of companies that chose to go pink, and “encourages consumers to ask critical questions about pink-ribbon promotions.” Doing battle with so-called “pinkwashing,” their motto is “raise a stink.” Here, too, donations go to cancer research. The organization asks consumers to do some research before a pink product is purchased, for example:

• How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer? Does it say so plainly on the box or packaging?
• Does the company you’re purchasing from have a cap on the amount it sends in donations regardless of the number of pink-related sales?
• Are funds being raised through direct purchase, or is a clever marketing scheme disguising the fact that you need to purchase additional merchandise from the company in order to make a donation?
• How, specifically, is your money being spent?

I was reminded of the need to research when I received an email from Etsy (a site for artisanal wares), promoting all things pink but without any visible endorsements. Showcased vendors were promoting their wares with descriptions such as, “This apron knot dress is a great way to show support for all those around us touched by Breast Cancer and a fashionable and fun way to show your support for the fight for a cure.”

I don’t know about you but I don’t that think fun and breast cancer belong in the same sentence, and it’s precisely this sort of overreach that at first confuses consumers (who exactly am I giving to?), then moves onto cause fatigue (not another pink promotion!!), and finally cause alienation (what a sell-out; I want nothing to do with that brand).

Have Sponsorship Dollars, Will Go Pink

Susan G’s overreach, too, seems to have gotten the organization into several snafus, the most notable when it partnered with Kentucky Fried Chicken to sell pink buckets of chicken to franchise operators, where 50 cents of every purchase went to the “For the Cure” campaign. Seriously, KFC?

Needless to say, the public and media backlash was acute, and the partnership short-lived. Is a pinkwashed KFC really going to unclog all those red blood vessels? Fried chicken is a well-known contributor to obesity, critics said, and obesity is also linked to cancer. How can a campaign be genuine if, on one hand, money goes to a worthy cause and, on the other hand, unnecessarily shines the spotlight on a fast food chain driving its sales and profits?

The truth is, it can’t.

Then there was the perfume brouhaha where independent testing of the chemicals in Susan G.'s Promise Me perfume revealed that some of them might be linked to cancer. For its part, the foundation released a statement saying that the levels of questionable ingredients fell “well within the guidelines of the International Fragrance Association,” but that out of an abundance of caution, the perfume’s formula was being tweaked.

Of course, the plot thickens when you consider the driver behind this story was cancer charity rival Breast Cancer Action. Is it possible their constant nitpicking is also part of their own marketing campaign called "my charity is better than/more deserving than yours?"

For consumers, it becomes very tiresome and, if that example raises questions of agenda bias on Breast Cancer Action’s part, this one won’t. Earlier this year, Stephen Colbert took Susan G. Komen to the court of public opinion when he teased the group’s million-dollar-plus effort to squash nonprofits that allegedly appropriated the “For the Cure” slogan. Who can blame these smaller nonprofits wanting to cash in on what's become a multimillion-dollar marketing machine.

To Komen’s credit, the organization makes no bones about its size, its influence or the way it does business.

“It’s a democratization of a disease,” said Komen CEO Nancy G. Brinker, in a recent New York Timesarticle about the pinking of professional football. “It’s drilling down into the deepest pockets of America. …America is built on consumerism. To say we shouldn’t use it to solve the social ills that confront us doesn’t make sense to me.”

Raising awareness is all well and good, and Americans have huge hearts and pocketbooks when it comes to giving, but why must that awareness come with a pair of New Balance sneakers or a Kitchen Aid blender?

The truth is that it shouldn’t. Since when did we start needing to get something in order to give?

Let’s Reconsider Our Disease Consumerism

Pink’s 2011 October reign is almost complete. Soon we’ll be on to November, which is officially recognized as Lung Cancer Awareness Month. You remember lung cancer, don’t you, the No. 1 American cancer killer that took nearly a million lives in fours years? It’s got a color and a ribbon, too, though it shares its pearl-colored badge of honor with multiple sclerosis. Only its marketing budget can't compete with pink.

As we close out the final months of 2011, why don't we leave the color spectrum and our "disease consumerism" aside? Perhaps my singing the blues over pink may convince others to think about the effect that one cause's marketing efforts have had on so many others.

From breast to colorectal to pancreatic and prostate to ovarian, esophageal and all the insidious rest -- cancer kills indiscriminately. Choose whichever form of runaway cell growth you want and re-focus on the color of money instead: donate all that you can directly to treatment and screening sources of these other unadvertised cancers – having done your research first, of course.

Trust me. That blender – pink or otherwise – can wait. Because all cancers and life-threatening diseases are equal-opportunity killers, even if the marketing budgets of the nonprofits that support them aren't.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of Thinkink, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/25/11.

Gauging Nonprofits Mobile Marketing App-etite

“The National Breast Cancer Foundation uses in-app ads to drive awareness,”….“UN Foundation leverages mobile to drive philanthropy,”….“National Geographic drives consumer engagement, revenues via mobile.”

The above headlines represent a recent snapshot of the goings on when it comes to nonprofits and their effective use of mobile marketing. From literally all corners of the nonprofit world, it seems, charities – and their supporters – are signing in, turning on and hitting “send.” So universal has the arena of mobile campaigns become – the US cell phone penetration rate was 91 percent in 2010 – that charities, especially smaller ones, can sometimes overlook the expenses and pitfalls when launching a text or app-driven donations initiative.

When launching a mobile campaign –regardless of size— nonprofits should take some simple advice offered by DIOSA Communications, a company that specializes in social media and web technology for nonprofits. Here are some tips for text, mobile website, text-to-give, and Smartphone Apps drives:

• Start small: In order to avoid some of the financial risks Harmon highlights. A donations campaign doesn’t have to be months long. Start with a few weeks. That way, even if your mobile campaign ends in the red, your nonprofit isn’t in deep red. Add a “mobile” subscriber field to your mailing list pitch on your website. That way, organization fans can “opt-in” (a formal consent to receive messages from your organization via text) setting the groundwork for future mobile events.
• Mix Up Your Message: At first glance, that piece of advice may cause a double take. Don’t worry. It simply means not to bore your supporters. Mix up your messages and send different ones to different sub groups.
• Less is More: Keep your text messages to no more than 140-160 characters and don’t bombard people’s inboxes at odd hours, particularly at night. Be particularly aware of different time zones. It’s always 5 p.m. somewhere, but it’s always 2 a.m. somewhere else.
• Apps in Caps: If going the Smartphone route, make certain your app is featured front and center on your web page and blog, complete with engaging screen shots and a “download here” button.
• Show the Money: Few things aggravate nonprofit supporters more than if a part of the technology behind your mobile campaign doesn’t work. Make sure the “donate button” inside the mobile webpage or app actually goes through.

Of course, to some extent, size does matter. Jacelyn Harmon, in her Marketing for Nonprofits blog, rightly points out some of those issues. From setup fees to monthly maintenance costs, to the two to three-month time it takes for cell phone companies to hand over donation earnings, smaller nonprofits with fewer resources, could find themselves in difficult financial straits. But none of that should deter those efforts. Nonprofits can go from fledgling to famous in a very short amount of time.

While no doubt true to some extent, it also sounds suspiciously like a catch-22. If mobile campaigns are all about reaching and connecting with more people, why must you already be in the nonprofit Major League in order to take advantage of it? In a perfect world, size –or lack of size—shouldn’t be a determinant in launching a successful mobile campaign.

In the last year and a half, texting and mobile donations campaigns have really come into their own. Many attribute that coming of age to the Haiti earthquake where in just days after the disaster, the American Red Cross received some $22 million via text. By January 21, 2010 –nine days after the crisis – text donations had surged to $30 million, representing 14 percent of all donations made to the charity.

This March, a combined human-natural disaster shocked the world as Japan was sent reeling from a catastrophic earthquake-tsunami duo followed by a partial melt down of its Fukushima nuclear power plant. Once again mobile donations proved an effective giving medium. In just three days the Red Cross raised $1 million through text donations.

And just two months later, the residents of Joplin, Missouri, like their Japanese and Haitian counterparts, were thankful for mobile donations’ growing reach. On May 22, a powerful tornado ripped through the city. Two days later Verizon Wireless had already launched a mobile campaign. Unlike previous examples, Verizon customers were not limited to a single charity. Instead people could send their $10 donations to a number of organizations including: the Salvation Army, United Way, and Convoy of Hope, among others.

Whether your nonprofit is a burgeoning behemoth like The Red Cross, or just starting out on its own smaller campaign, mobile initiatives –in their various formats, can be the way forward.

When it comes to your organization’s mobile and texting app-etite, just don’t bite off more than you can chew.

Star Struck or Struck Out? The Pros and Cons of Celebrities and Nonprofits

For nonprofits looking to expand their charitable giving, a little star power can go a long way. But if not chosen carefully, the wrong celebrity – or the wrong cause – can have you and your organization seeing stars.

There’s been a lot of talk over whether or not an association with celebrities –from Justin Bieber to President Obama – help or hurt charitable organizations and their ability to raise money. On one hand, a celebrity’s star-status all but guarantees that their legions of fans will at least become familiar with your organization’s cause. Perhaps, with the proper mix of traditional and social media marketing, familiarity can grow into fundability? That seems to be the presumed thinking, at least.

Too often, however, nonprofits and celebrities find themselves in less-than-ideal marriages where a host of problems arise ranging from the cost of retaining a superstar. Think Oprah’s and Rosie O’Donnell’s charities, whose overhead costs were eating into donations. Or the ethics of accepting donations from a star like Mel Gibson whose light continues to dim following repeated alcohol-fueled anti-Semitic rants and rumors of domestic violence. Last summer Gibson reportedly gave $25,000 to a battered women’s shelter in Boston. While the organization ultimately accepted the donation, the shelter’s director said it was unlikely the board would accept another gift from Gibson any time soon. At least the “guilt money” was put to good use.

Overpriced and overexposed celebrities aside, earlier this summer Mashable.com, in its own look at the power and pitfalls of celebrities and nonprofits, praised teen idol Justin Bieber and his work with Pencils of Promise, an organization that builds schools and increases educational opportunities in the developing world. Well known for his millions of tween-tweeting followers, Bieber directed his fans to begin raising money in their schools to help bring educational equipment and tools to those regions. The school that raised the most money would win a visit from the Biebs himself. The bottom line, Bieber’s interest in the cause is genuine and that’s exactly what donors are looking for. Founded in 2008 by longtime Bieber friend Adam Braun, (his brother is Bieber’s manager) the pair envisioned their “Schools 4 all” campaign while rooming together on a trip to Africa.

Pencils of Promise also hasn’t oversold their mascot – a valuable lesson for any nonprofit. A click on Pencil’s homepage shows no immediate Bieber blast. In fact, I even had to re-Google the terms: “Bieber” and “Pencils of Promise” to confirm that he was really onboard. He is. In 2010 the charity raised $300,000 in donated goods and services.

Thankfully for nonprofits, social media savvy Bieber is not alone.

Beyond Bieber, President Barack Obama has gotten involved with The “It Gets Better Project,” founded in 2010 to help LGBT teens reach adulthood knowing they’re not alone in their personal identity struggles. The project gained notoriety when the President delivered a 3-minute video blog post from the White House website, discussing the tragedy of several teens who had taken their own lives. Also posted on YouTube, the video has been seen by some 1.5 million people.

It Gets Better has also recruited celebrities like Collin Farrell, Ellen DeGeneres, Sarah Silverman, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and even the quasi-celeb staffs of Facebook, The Gap, and Pixar to post web videos with the nonprofit’s main message: It does get better. Better than that, thousands of non-celebrities have been inspired to post their own unique messages and stories with the goal of helping other teens. If you thought the president’s video view count was impressive consider this: It Gets Better videos – some of which link to The Trevor Project, a related outreach nonprofit that works to prevent LGBT suicide – have been seen by some 30 million people.

The bottom line: For a campaign and their celebrity pairing to be a success the celebrity needs to:

• Genuinely care about the particular cause
• Physically attend events
• Not oversell or over market the nonprofit in question; the cause is the real star
• Articulate their passions without charging their parent charities an arm and a leg for their presence

And finally, make certain the cause you are promoting matches your celebrity. Like the case of Mel Gibson, mismatching the celebrity and the cause can appear at best disingenuous and at worst, financially disastrous.

Early fall is an ideal time for nonprofits to begin organizing their celebrity-hitched campaigns and causes. The holiday season is often nonprofit’s busiest time of year, with donations and sponsors peaking during the week between Christmas and New Years.

So with barely eight weeks until Black Friday – the season’s unofficial kickoff – the time to prepare is now.

Ready, set, celebrity, GO!