Being a student of Nonprofit and Marketing… I have been looking at the Corporate and Nonprofit tie-ups throughout my research and class discussions. I was constantly reminded of a type of symbiosis called “Mutualism”, which is defined as any relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals derive a benefit. Now, there is also another type of symbiosis called a “Parasitism”, in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.
So, when it comes to Corporations and Nonprofits, which one is it?
The answer is obviously – It Depends!
In every such tie-up both the company and the nonprofit benefit; but, which one benefits more is quite hard to say. Not only because – on companies’ end it is not easy to measure how many more products were sold due to their support for the cause. But also, if we take look at this from the nonprofits’ perspective, it’s hard to find out how many donors/volunteers got associated with the nonprofit because of the awareness from the companies’ promotions.
Nevertheless, if we see cause-marketing as a tug-of-war between Corporate sector and Nonprofit sector fighting to get more and more out of it. Then, I would say that the rope itself is growing. The lack of accurate data does not refute the fact that cause-marketing helps both the sides and the benefit is growing day by day as both the sectors are getting better at managing the relationship and engaging the individuals in the society to either donate or “Implicitly Donate”.
Thus, I would say this is a case of “Mutualism”!
But for once let’s look at the environment, outside of this symbiotic relationship. Does society at large need this? It is quite evident from numerous cases in the past and the present that corporations choose the most “politically neutral” causes to support, the causes that would be accepted by all in their target market. Then they put huge amounts of marketing into it, and include a part of donation into the price of the products. This has made them, in a way, to act as drivers of philanthropy.
So, my question is – now that I am buying Starbucks’ coffee five times a day from which 50 cents each goes to African nonprofits, is my share of “Good” done? Is this kind of “Implicit Donation” reducing the good old forms of donations in which I would decide to give those 2.5 dollars to a charity of my choice? And then the whole concept that – apart from the reason that Nonprofits need money, the other most important reason for us to donate is – the number of people who donate to a Nonprofit and the amount they donate shows the social support that it has. So, is the nonprofit sector getting the money but losing the support?
If this is the case, then may be in the long run, Nonprofit sector is being harmed from this relationship; which makes this relationship “Parasitic” doesn’t it?
Yes, I know… It’s weird, this time even I am confused!
Being a student of Nonprofit and Marketing… I have been looking at the Corporate and Nonprofit tie-ups throughout my research and class discussions. I was constantly reminded of a type of symbiosis called “Mutualism”, which is defined as any relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals derive a benefit. Now, there is also another type of symbiosis called a “Parasitism”, in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.
So, when it comes to Corporations and Nonprofits, which one is it?
The answer is obviously – It Depends!
In every such tie-up both the company and the nonprofit benefit; but, which one benefits more is quite hard to say. Not only because – on companies’ end it is not easy to measure how many more products were sold due to their support for the cause. But also, if we take look at this from the nonprofits’ perspective, it’s hard to find out how many donors/volunteers got associated with the nonprofit because of the awareness from the companies’ promotions.
Nevertheless, if we see cause-marketing as a tug-of-war between Corporate sector and Nonprofit sector fighting to get more and more out of it. Then, I would say that the rope itself is growing. The lack of accurate data does not refute the fact that cause-marketing helps both the sides and the benefit is growing day by day as both the sectors are getting better at managing the relationship and engaging the individuals in the society to either donate or “Implicitly Donate”.
Thus, I would say this is a case of “Mutualism”!
But for once let’s look at the environment, outside of this symbiotic relationship. Does society at large need this? It is quite evident from numerous cases in the past and the present that corporations choose the most “politically neutral” causes to support, the causes that would be accepted by all in their target market. Then they put huge amounts of marketing into it, and include a part of donation into the price of the products. This has made them, in a way, to act as drivers of philanthropy.
So, my question is – now that I am buying Starbucks’ coffee five times a day from which 50 cents each goes to African nonprofits, is my share of “Good” done? Is this kind of “Implicit Donation” reducing the good old forms of donations in which I would decide to give those 2.5 dollars to a charity of my choice? And then the whole concept that – apart from the reason that Nonprofits need money, the other most important reason for us to donate is – the number of people who donate to a Nonprofit and the amount they donate shows the social support that it has. So, is the nonprofit sector getting the money but losing the support?
If this is the case, then may be in the long run, Nonprofit sector is being harmed from this relationship; which makes this relationship “Parasitic” doesn’t it?
Yes, I know… It’s weird, this time even I am confused!
