// Cause Branding 2.0

 

Is there reason to be skeptical about yet another slice of marketing jargon that isn’t really on anyone’s radar other than on those within the marketing industry? Should we even worry about the differences between branding and cause branding? When does cause branding make sense? What’s the net effect?   For non-marketers, I suggest not reading beyond this paragraph because “cause branding” really is nothing more than a term to identify the latest and most engaging aspect of branding. If there’s one message to take away it’s this: cause branding is what branding should be in a post-BP disaster era. Why? Because with cause branding wefinally have a roadmap that locates a company’s values and responsibilities clearly in every aspect of how it acts within society.   Cause branding shouldn’t merely be the foundation for how a company wants the outside world to see it. Rather, it should be a code of conduct as to how their promise will be authentic and not merely marketing spin. How? By being true to themselves, their people, the planet and the bottom line. Last, and probably most important, it’s how companies can build real relationships with current and future customers.   On a more technical level I think we need to look at the definition of cause branding as more encompassing than definitions to date: a potentially profit-making initiative by a for-profit company or brand to raise awareness, money, and/or consumer engagement in a social or environmental issue.¹   Read how..