2011 Corporate Social Impact Marketing Survey Final Results Report May 11, 2011 1 P age
Introduction Allison & Partners, a national PR firm, has partnered with the Cause Marketing Forum to gain insight into the successes and challenges of executives working in the corporate social impact marketing space. Social impact refers to the following disciplines: corporate philanthropy, corporate social responsibility, community relations and/or cause marketing. Cause marketing is defined as a partnership or partnerships with a charity partner or partners in order to benefit the company or brand as well as the charity. Methodology Allison & Partners invited 230 corporate executives to participate in the 2011 Corporate Social Impact Marketing Survey via phone interview, email or online. Thirty-five executives completed the survey; 16 participated in a phone interview, 18 completed the survey by email, and one participant completed an online version of the survey. The margin of error associated with a sample of this size is + or - 15%. Below is a list of the companies that participated in the survey: AMC Entertainment Amway Becton, Dickinson & Co. Best Western Brooks Brothers Bruster's Real Ice Cream Celebrity Cruises Chase Bank Comedy Central ConAgra Foods Do it Best Corp. Dole Food Company, Inc. DTLR General Growth Properties General Mills Hasbro Inc. HomeGoods IHOP ING Americas JetBlue Airways Jockey KFC Kids Can Press L'Oreal Paris Macy's Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. Mattel Polar Progressive Insurance Sodexo The Dannon Company The Walt Disney Company Timberland Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Walgreens Results The qualitative results presented in this report are a summary of answers given to open-ended questions and transcribed by phone interview, or written by participants in the email and online version of the survey. The responses have been grouped into categories to show similarities and dissimilarities in these qualitative self-assessments. The quantitative results presented in this report are an average of the scores respondents used to rate their own company on a 10-point Likert scale. 2 P age
Executive Summary The two most common factors that contributed to the success of a corporate social impact marketing campaign were: 1) the cause was a good match for the company, the brand, and/or the target audience (18% of respondents) and 2) the program provided a high level of consumer engagement (18% of respondents). The two metrics that were most commonly used for determining the success of a program were: 1) a significant number of employees, store associates, regional teams and franchisees participated in the program (18% of respondents) and a significant amount of money was raised for the cause (18% of respondents). The most common factor that contributed to an unsuccessful corporate social impact marketing campaign was that the cause was not a good fit for the company, brand or audience (24% of respondents), while the most common metric used to determine whether the campaign was successful or not was sales results, 14% of respondents cited low sales results as the reason their campaign was unsuccessful. The net result of these two questions is that there are two main factors that companies must focus on if they want their campaign to be successful. First, the cause must be a good match for the company, brand and/or target audience (29% of the respondents), and secondly there must be support across the entire company for the cause (29% of the respondents). The most common barrier executives faced in conducting these campaigns was lack of budget (19% of respondents). The most common challenge for executives to obtain internal buy-in was achieving internal alignment on the business case for the program, including how the business impact would be measured (21% of respondents). When the net result of both external and internal challenges is considered, 28% of respondents cited internal alignment on the business case for the program as their number one barrier or challenge. CEO engagement in these campaigns was given on average a 7.5 on a 10-point scale, with 58% of respondents scoring their CEO higher than the average. The importance leadership placed on linking these campaigns to sales was given on average a 7.1 on a 10-point scale, with 45% of respondents scoring their leadership higher than the average. Respondents rated the importance of soliciting employee or consumer feedback to select a charity partner on average a 5.5 out of 10, with 50% of respondents ranking this factor higher than the average in importance. Respondents rated the level of their employees engagement in these programs on average a 7.2 out of 10, with 58% scoring their company higher than the average. Charity partners received an average of 7.3 out of 10 on how well they collaborated with companies to engage its employees, with 65% ranking their charity partner above the group average. The three most common types of social media used in corporate social impact campaigns are Facebook (86% of respondents), Twitter (54% of respondents) and YouTube (23% of respondents). It is slightly more common for companies to promote their campaign results internally, as 80% of survey participants reported promoting internally, while 71% of respondents reported promoting results externally. Email (17% of respondents), a company newsletter (11% of respondents) and a company intranet site (11% of respondents) were the three most common ways to promote the campaign internally, while the company s Web site (26% of respondents), PR/media outreach (23% of respondents), and the Annual Report or CSR Report (14% of respondents) were the three most common ways to promote the campaign externally. 3 P age
Analysis Several implications for cause marketing executives can be drawn from these results. First, given that the factor that most contributed to the success of a campaign was that the cause was a good match for the company, brand and/or target audience, the companies who are not currently soliciting feedback from their employees and/or consumers may want to consider beginning this practice. Only 12% of survey respondents provided a high rating for soliciting employee and consumer feedback. Investing the time and resources to do this research before launching into a campaign will not only ensure that the cause resonates with these important stakeholders, it will also provide them with more ownership for the cause and increase the likelihood that they will become engaged in the campaign. The other factor that most contributed to the success of a campaign was that the entire company supported the cause. Therefore by including employees in the cause and charity selection process up front, the company will be more likely to embrace the campaign once it is launched. The most common barrier or challenge facing executives implementing social impact campaigns is obtaining internal alignment on the business case for the program. This fact will most likely remain a challenge as social impact programs continue to become more pervasive, however it is important to note that the top two metrics used to determine the success of a campaign did not have anything to do with sales. Therefore metrics such as the engagement of employees, regional offices, franchisees and business partners, or the amount of money raised for the charity, could also be acceptable metrics by which a program s success could be measured. 4 P age
Summary of Survey Results 5 P age
Factors contributing to and metrics of successful corporate social impact marketing campaigns The first survey question was designed to allow the participant to begin thinking about their company s social impact marketing campaigns, and specifically those that have been a success. While participants were asked to describe these programs in detail, the focus of the question was why the program was considered a success by the company. The reasons that were given fell into two different categories: factors that contributed to the success of the program and metrics that were used to determine that the program had been a success. It is also important to note that 20% of survey participants responded that they did not have a successful campaign to draw from or they declined to answer the question. Percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. There were two factors that were most commonly cited as contributing to the success of the corporate social impact marketing campaign. The first factor is that the cause was a good match for the company, the brand, and/or the target audience (18% of respondents). For example, one company s campaign has been successful because we are leveraging a cause that s authentic to the company; our foundation has a 20 year history of working in the child hunger space, and we ve recently taken the cause over to the consumer side for a traditional cause marketing campaign. The other factor that was most commonly cited as being a factor to the program s success is that there was a high level of consumer engagement (18% of respondents). Several companies noted that the consumer s role in activating the donation whether through electing to donate at the cash register or by dropping off or mailing in a specific item was key to the success of the program. A few other companies noted that engaging the consumer as volunteers and activists contributed to their success. One company provides 40 hours of paid volunteer time for employees to volunteer in their community and effectively engaged their consumers in the cause, while another company provided grants for consumers who had ideas on how to impact the cause they were supporting. Some of the other common factors contributing to the program s success that were mentioned include: all assets across the company were utilized to promote the campaign (14% of respondents), employees were effectively engaged (14% of respondents), regional markets (including franchisees) fully supported the program (11% of respondents), the program fulfilled a true need in the community and made an impact (11% of respondents), and there was a strong and collaborative relationship between the company and the non-profit (11% of respondents). There were two program metrics that were most commonly cited for determining the success of a program. The first most common success metric cited was that a significant number of employees, store associates, regional teams and franchisees participated in the program (18% of respondents). The majority of companies that cited this success metric have an employee volunteerism component that has a significant level of participation. For example one company has donated more than 4,000 volunteer hours to their cause, while another company that sends employees on a volunteer trip has hundreds of applicants on their wait list each year. One company that doesn t necessarily have a volunteer component noted that many of our franchisees and marketing co-ops have fully embraced the program and tie it into their traditional marketing efforts as well as local sponsorship activities. The other most common success metric cited (18% of respondents) was the significant amount of money that the program raised for the cause. Most companies that noted this metric as one that made their campaign successful raised more than $1 million. A few of the other common success metrics noted include: the exposure the company received as a good corporate citizen (14% of respondents), a significant number of customers participated in the campaign (11% of respondents), the program 6 P age
generated good media coverage (7% of respondents), and the program is continuing to grow and evolve over time (7% of respondents). Factors contributing to unsuccessful corporate social impact marketing campaigns The next question in the survey was designed to find out what qualities led companies to determine that their campaign was unsuccessful. As seen in the first question, the reasons cited were both contributing factors that negatively affected the campaign, as well as metrics or effects of the campaign that led to the unsuccessful conclusion. It is also important to note that 40% of the survey participants responded that they have not had an unsuccessful campaign or declined to provide an answer. Percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. The most commonly cited factor (24% of respondents) contributing to an unsuccessful campaign was that the cause was not a good fit for the company, brand and/or target audience. When taking into account the responses from the first question, this means that 29% of the respondents attributed the cause being a good match for the brand as the main factor in whether or not the campaign would be a success. For the companies that believed their campaigns were unsuccessful do to a mismatch between the brand and the cause, specific issues were found in mismatched target audiences, the cause having nothing to do with the company s core business, or choosing to support a different charity each year instead of developing an authentic tie to one cause. One company that was trying to reach a niche audience at a local event by hosting a food booth noted that all the money was donated to a local food bank, however there was no connection to our industry. A close second to this most commonly cited factor (19% of respondents) was that companies felt there was a lack of support or engagement of all the support needed to execute the campaign successfully, whether it was internally, regionally or with vendors and business partners. When something doesn t work, it s because we have not engaged all of the support criteria for a campaign; for example, we pushed it out too quickly, we might not have pulsed our associate population to see if they will support it, we may not have done our homework up front first to educate the organization on why we are supporting the cause, or we may not have had a champion. When the responses for the first question are taken into account, this means that 29% of the respondents attributed support across the entire company for the cause as the factor that would determine the success of the campaign. Other factors cited include not enough marketing or advertising support (10% of respondents) and external factors, such as the financial crisis or natural disasters, that are out of the company s control (10% of respondents). The most common metric used to determine whether the campaign was successful or not was sales results, 14% of respondents cited low sales results as the reason their campaign was unsuccessful. Other metrics that were noted include lack of consumer participation, lack of measurement in place, and the subjective nature of the measurement (5% of respondents for each). Barriers faced in conducting corporate social impact marketing campaigns The third question in the survey asked participants to consider the different barriers that they face in conducting a social impact marketing campaign for their company. Six percent of survey participants did not provide an answer to this question; percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. There were five barriers that were given as examples, respondents could choose from these answers or provide their own: 7 P age
a. Minimum financial commitment/requirement of chosen charity b. Product sales weren t as high as expected c. Didn t have buy-in from the C-suite d. Consumers complained about the program details (too confusing, not enough info, etc) e. Charity partner couldn t deliver on the promises they made A wide variety of answers were given, however overwhelmingly the most common answer cited was lack of budget as the largest barrier they face in conducting these campaigns (19% of respondents). One company noted that their regional teams wanted to participate in the social impact program, but due to budget constraints, they could not grow fast enough to meet the regional demands. Another company noted that one of our biggest challenges is that we are a national company, but we don t have enough money to support something really big nationally. Some of the next most commonly cited barriers include three of the examples provided: product sales weren t as high as expected (9% of respondents), didn t have buy-in from the C-suite (9% of respondents), and minimum financial commitment of the charity (6% of respondents). A few other barriers cited that were not provided as an option include: obtaining internal alignment across the company on the business value of a social impact marketing campaign (9% of respondents), activating the program at the consumer level (6% of respondents), and franchisee buy-in and ease of execution for them (6% of respondents). Challenges obtaining internal buy-in for corporate social impact marketing campaigns The next question was designed to focus the respondent specifically on the internal challenges of conducting a social impact marketing campaign. Six percent of survey participants did not provide a response to this question; percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. The most commonly cited challenge for obtaining internal buy-in was achieving internal alignment on the business case for the program, including how the business impact would be measured (21% of respondents). One company noted that their young male target audience has proven very difficult to activate, and so the challenge lies in getting internal alignment on what other metrics could be used to show positive business impact. Two companies noted that it is important to work closely with the Consumer Insights department so that research and measurement is comparable to all other marketing programs, and the business success of the social impact program could be accurately measured. The measurement component can be tricky when asked to demonstrate positive business impact; we partner with our Consumer Insights colleagues to come up with metrics, however it can be hard to compare other programs that have obvious measurements. When the responses for the previous question are taken into account and both external and internal challenges are considered, 28% of respondents cited internal alignment on the business case for the program as their number one barrier or challenge. Other commonly cited challenges include: store and/or regional activation (18% of respondents), lack of executive support (15% of respondents), support of all assets across the company (12% of respondents), buy-in that the cause is right for the brand (6% of respondents) and lack of budget/resources (6% of respondents). 8 P age
CEO engagement in corporate social impact marketing campaigns Survey participants were asked to rank how engaged they felt their company s CEO was in their social impact campaigns on a 10-point Likert scale, 10 being extremely engaged and 1 being not at all engaged. Six percent of participants declined to provide a response to this question; percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. On average, participants responded that their CEO would receive a 7.5 on an engagement scale of 1 to 10. Many comments provided supported this average, as some respondents noted that the level of engagement across senior management varied greatly. For example, even if their CEO was a 10, a long chain of command and a more immediate supervisor being a 2 proved to be a challenge. However, overall the assessment of CEO engagement seemed generally positive, as 58% of respondents gave their CEO a score above the group average (8 or higher). One company that gave their CEO a 10 noted that our CEO is extremely engaged, she is the founder of our corporate initiative and our corporate foundation bears her name. Importance to leadership that corporate social impact marketing campaigns be linked directly to sales The next 10-point Likert scale question asked participants how important it was to the company s leadership that the campaign be linked directly to sales, 10 being extremely important and 1 being not at all important. Six percent of participants declined to provide a response to this question; percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. Participants responded that the level of importance to leadership that the campaign be linked to sales was on average 7.1. Approximately one out of every four respondents provided a comment along with their rating indicating that the company was not participating in these types of programs to make more money, but to be involved in and giving back to the community. One company noted we do these programs because they re the right thing to do, not because they might make us and our non-profit money. However, 45% of respondents provided a rating above the average for the group (8 or higher), which means that roughly half of the group finds that the sales generated by a social impact marketing program are important to the leadership of these companies. Importance in obtaining employee and/or customer feedback in advance of selecting a charity partner(s) This question was designed to gauge the involvement of employees and customers in the charity selection process. Three percent of survey participants declined to provide an answer to this question; percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. The companies surveyed are split when it comes to soliciting feedback from customers and employees, given that on average their response was a 5.5 on a 10-point Likert scale, 10 being extremely important. It is important to note that 50% of respondents did provide a rating above this group average (6 or higher). Several companies (18% of respondents) provided a 0 or 1 rating; one noted that as long as I have the support of corporate, I have been able to move forward with little push back. Another noted that We don t survey our customers or retail partners because we re already working with the organizations our 9 P age
employees chose. However on the other side, a few companies (12% of respondents) noted the importance of employee feedback by providing a 9 or 10 rating, one company stated that employees are on the front lines so they have to be on board. Given that one of the most common factors cited for contributing to a successful campaign is consumer engagement, followed by employee engagement and support across the board within the company, it seems that companies may need to place more importance on engaging these key stakeholders in the decision making process. Employee engagement in corporate social impact marketing campaigns and importance for employee volunteer opportunities The next question measures the level of employee engagement, specifically in the volunteerism area, tied to social impact marketing campaigns. Eleven percent of participants did not provide a rating; percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. Even though they did not provide a rating, they all provided comments which demonstrate that there is some level of employee volunteerism taking place in conjunction with their campaigns. On a 10-point Likert scale, 10 being extremely engaged, respondents rated their employee engagement as a 7.2 on average. Overall it seems that employee engagement and volunteer opportunities are important, as 58% of respondents rated their company s employee engagement above this average (8 or higher). One company noted that volunteering is the core of our initiative and there are volunteer opportunities in every community where we do business. Several of the companies who ranked their employee engagement below the group average either noted that this is an area they are looking to improve or provided different reasons why engagement was low. One company noted since our employees are highly involved in the program activation, we do not have any regular volunteer opportunities yet, as we don t want to overcrowd this space for our employees. Another company noted the challenges in effectively communicating the volunteer opportunities to an extremely large employee base. Collaboration from charity partners to provide employee engagement opportunities The final quantitative question was designed to gauge the level of collaboration from charity partners to engage employees in corporate social impact marketing campaigns. Eleven percent of participants did not provide a rating; percentages provided below are of the population that answered the question. On average, participants gave their charity partners a 7.3 on how well they provided opportunities to engage the companies employees. In general, companies are satisfied with the collaboration of their charity partners, given that 65% of respondents rated their partners above the group average (8 or higher). One company who gave their charitable partners a 9.5 noted I have been so impressed with the ideas, insights and opportunities they bring to us, they demonstrate creative problem solving and a willingness to work together that shows they think as strategic business partners. However it appears that there are still charities that need to improve in this area. One of the survey participants that declined to provide a rating noted that they had a bad experience with one nonprofit and could not get them to return calls and get involved with their stores. A few other respondents noted that the volunteer ideas came from their end and that they wish charities were more proactive and creative in 10 P age
this area. We have to help them be creative on generating ideas for volunteering, but when they realize it is critical for continued support they can get very creative. Types of social media used in corporate social impact marketing campaigns Social media is becoming more and more important in not only telling target audiences about the social impact program, but many social mediums are being used to directly engage customers in the cause. When asked what type of social media their companies are using, the below percentage of survey participants reported use of the following: Facebook 86% Twitter 54% YouTube 23% Company Web site and micro sites 23% Blogs 20% (both corporate and blogger outreach) Email campaigns 9% Text campaigns 6% Foursquare 6% Company intranet 3% Online giving sites 3% The reported use of Facebook in corporate social impact marketing campaigns is higher than the use of Twitter and YouTube combined, making it the clear go-to social medium for driving these campaigns. An overwhelming number of respondents (63%) mentioned Facebook first in their line-up of social mediums, which also points to the dominance and top-of-mind brand equity Facebook has built up for itself in the minds of consumers and marketers alike. One company noted we have been doing some Facebook cause campaigns, and are testing one without any traditional media, so this is a growing component for us. Promotion of corporate social impact marketing campaigns results The final survey question was designed to uncover how much companies are promoting the results of their social impact campaigns, both internally and externally. It is slightly more common for companies to promote their campaign results internally, as 80% of survey participants reported promoting internally, while 71% of respondents reported promoting results externally. While not all survey respondents provided specifics on how they promote their campaign results, when asked how the results were being promoted internally, the below percentage of survey participants reported use of the following: Email 17% Company newsletter/magazine 11% Company intranet 11% Office displays 9% Company events or Town Hall meetings 9% Voice mails 3% Flyers 3% Videos 3% 11 P age
When asked how the results were being promoted externally, the below percentage of survey participants reported use of the following: Company Web site 26% Public Relations/Media Outreach 23% Annual Report/CSR Report 14% Social Media 9% Collateral (brochures, inserts) 6% Advertising 3% Retail locations (displays, etc.) 3% While the majority of companies surveyed tend to promote the results of their campaigns both internally and externally, it seems that their approaches vary widely. One company noted that their research showed that it is important for their target audience to see the impact of the action they are being asked to take; we work with partners to translate the results into real metrics and fun facts for our audience. On the other end of the spectrum, another company noted that due to a difficult financial period, we did very little to promote cause marketing efforts. Caught in the middle of these two extremes, a third company noted we shared the results internally to key stakeholders, but we are still figuring out how to do so externally; this goes with the philosophy for not trying to get extra credit for doing good as a company, but we are trying to figure how to be good cause marketers. 12 P age