Response to Matt DaCosta Cause-Related Marketing

In what ways are cause-related marketing relationships good for the community? Are there any instances where they are not?

Cause related marketing is good for communities because the improvement of the community is one of the two objectives for he community. The other objective is to improve the companies public image and profits. Cause-related marketing in theory is supposed to be a win-win scenario for both the community and the company, however in practice it does have the ability to have an opposite affect for the community. The type of a cause-related market that would be bad for the community is one in which the company is producing something that is potentially harmful to the community or hurting the community through the company's method of production. An example of this was the  KFC partnership with Susan G. Komen. For every bucket that KFC they would donate part of their sales to the Susan G. Komen foundation. The problem with this is that KFC chicken is very unhealthy and carries with it possible health risks. So while this cause related marketing helped the community in one way, by donating to the Susan G. Komen foundation, it seriously harmed the community in another way by endorsing an increase consumption of fatty deep fried KFC chicken.

Product(RED) Entry

1.       Do you think a partnership with Product (RED) can improve Gap’s image? Is it a sign that they are making a commitment to corporate social responsibility or do you agree with critics who say their involvement is an attempt to spit-shine the company’s image while continuing to do business as usual?

 It is obvious that Gap's image has improved with its partnership with product (RED). While it was known that Gap's clothes come from sweatshops, the publicity and media attention that Gap received as being a philanthropic company joining the RED campaign to fight aids overshadowed the unethical practices implemented by the business. Proof of this is evident by the fact that the Inspi(RED) t-shirt was the best selling item in the past 35 years. The product (RED) collaboration also improved GAPs stock from $16.50 a share to $21.50 in just a three month period. The improvement from both their sales and stock show that the partnership has in fact improved the value and public relations of the company. Critics argue that GAP was continuing its same practices, but after only one year GAP had in fact ended its unethical practices. Many of the criticisms of GAP and sweatshops no longer exist as the latest report of child labor in sweatshops is from 2007. As of today GAP has made a commitment toward corporate social responsibility as they are is one of the biggest retail proponents against child labor as they have implemented a zero child labor tolerance and constantly audit their vendors factories to make sure that their policies are practiced. 

It has only really been within the last 20 years that customers have really focused or noticed the ethical/unethical practices of companies. Do you believe that companies that have enacted more ethical practices are doing so because it is the right thing to do, or because it has become the profitable thing to do? Will corporate social responsibility become the new part of standard business practices or will it go away once the consumer focuses on something else?