Geneva, Switzerland / Photo : J.William Tavelli
This introduction is the first in a series of articles by the author who aims to explore our Charitable and Philanthropic Business Environment while highlighting its social and economic repercussions.
Corporate Philanthropy is an industry buzzword that was thrown around with gusto only a few years back. In the time since, there has been markedly less focus on those tenets which were, up until so recently, very much in vogue. Does this signal the end of a "generous" era, or, does it hail the beginning of a more results-driven method of giving?
In order to fully understand the often inversely-related forces at work, it is necessary to identify the underlying incentives to give in the first place. Be they magnanimity, visibility, goodwill, tax optimization or social awareness, those (indeed we) who give are often times led by several motivating factors. I have not donated clothes that I intend to continue wearing, I have not donated cash if bills remain unpaid, I rarely give blood and I have not been diligent in ensuring that my tithing is current. Does this mean that I am neglecting my duty to help those in need? Certainly not. Motivation should not and often is not a basis for justifying the act of giving. Some may argue that Corporate Philanthropy was introduced and has been structured in a way to promote the appearance of goodwill; actual or not. I proffer that there is a fine balance between the two.
Monetizing the act of goodwill is the critical basis by which the entire system has been measured for decades. It continues to be the hallmark approach for anyone, corporate or private, to promote their version of generosity to stakeholders. Brand visibility, positive media coverage and charitable affinity are all proven methods employed to increase buzz but, may not, necessarily contribute to the bottom line. So why give?
Enter: Social Media; the unintended driver of charity for the foreseeable future. As has been seen in various cultural shifts brought into global visibility recently, accountability is becoming inescapable. A shift from ad-hoc donating to focused objectives serves as yet another diversifier to differentiate among the myriad media opportunities companies have at their disposal. Brands that are seen to be generous must be, by inference, financially stable. Financial stability promotes confidence and can often increases sales. This indirect relationship must be identified and successfully exploited in order for giving to make economic sense.
Having had the opportunity to both work and volunteer for several NGO and Charitable Organizations, I was witness to the gradual shift from large, "all-eggs-in-one-basket" donors to smaller, fragmented pledges of support. Do four donors of $25,000 trump one donor of $100,000? Not at all; the end result is the same, however, it is certainly four times the amount of work. Fundraisers' focus must shift from outdated philosophies of catching the big fish to adapting to the needs of today's donor.
As with traditional advertising, being visible in multiple arenas may hold the key to brand awareness, but may also spark brand dilution. Companies considering giving based on this approach must keenly observe their current and targeted market segments. Being associated with galas, yachting, golf or speed-racing will certainly build awareness in rarefied circles, but it is less certain you will garner affinity with the majority of the general populace. This risk must be justified given the realities of razor-thin margins & cutbacks that seem to be today's norm.
Underlining my earlier premise that Corporate Philanthropy may be evolving into more focused, results-driven undertaking, we can clearly see the increasing amount of "causes" championed by society. Fashionable afflictions, diseases and inequalities have all come into the forefront of our daily lives owing to the visible support of Corporations, Entertainment and Political "Ambassadors" garnering support from their respective client/fan/ideological base. This visibility has and will certainly continue to be the new mainstay of funding revenue as other avenues are slowly redistributed to exclusive "own causes", effectively putting an end to indiscriminate allocation.
This brings me back to the previous question of accountability. Aligning your brand image with a certain name, political figure or, even, gala event concurrently elicits prestige and risk. Creating an in-house philanthropic division can buffer this risk but also limits scope. Corporate Philanthropy as the driver of change must be seen as distanced from the daily struggles and infighting seen in many organizations today. It must be a benevolent hand which gives freely and without the suggestion of collusion and only then will we truly reap the rewards on offer.
About the author :
J. William Tavelli is a freelance PR & Marketing Communications Director based in Geneva, Switzerland focused on Corporate Philanthropy & Responsibility.
