Thanks for the insight. It seems that my 3-year-old blog post is often misunderstood. But yes, you are right – it’s far, far much better to get company to support a cause in exchange for buzz instead of not giving at all.

Reading the comments on this blog post, I conclude that one of the fundamentals of giving – anonymous giving – is not really applicable in commerce world. It seems that in business, giving will always mean getting something in return.

One question: Is the source of fund will make a difference at all? I mean, for example, if a money laundering or any other organisation gives to charity, is it ethical to accept the fund?

I like what you’re getting at, and I totally agree that most companies doing philantropy, but I think to discourage giving simply because it’s generating “buzz” or business is not a good angle to take.

First of all, I would much rather see a company donate money to a cause instead of their own pockets, no matter how much “buzz” it generates.

Second of all, while the notion of being anonymous in your giving is amazing, there is much value in the buzz generated by these companies. It gets out a message that giving is something worth doing, no matter what the reason is, and I think that’s better than a message of not giving at all.

Lastly, I love knowing what companies have donated to what causes.

Many thanks for your great insight! I agree that philanthropy is one of the better, social responsible ways for a company to market itself.

Through this article, I didn’t say that philanthropy while gaining publicity is evil… Of course, charities need any help they can get and entrepreneurs should respond accordingly. What I encourage is for businesses to do philantrophy activities the right way – that’s all… If putting banner ads and marketing messages are acceptable for both participating businesses and charities – than it’s nothing to complain about… What I don’t like to see is for businesses to push unethical “philanthropic” activities knowing that charities are having lower “bidding position” in the partnership agreement. Charities should be selective in choosing their partners – it’s only common-sense business practice, I suppose…

Regarding your disagreement toward this article is nothing new… This article has always been misunderstood for years :)

Again, many thanks for your insight!

Lets say majority of a company’s marketing returns comes as a publicity gained from giving money to a good cause. Now this generates more money for the company and it can then again give more money to this cause. And then the cycle repeats. It’s a win-win situation for the company, the charity, and the cause itself.

Whereas if the company would be using it’s money on traditional marketing channels the only one to gain would be the company itself.

For this reason there is absolutely nothing wrong with companies gaining something from philanthropy. In fact it’s good, because it encourages companies to give more money when they otherwise wouldn’t or couldn’t. Companies have a limited amount of funds to spend and if they don’t get return from philanthropy they are obviously going to do less of it. Otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Philanthropy is the socially responsible way a company can market itself. Everyone benefits from it.

Except of course those who think that it’s wrong to get any benefit from philanthropy and would just rather have big bad companies spend all their money on traditional advertising. No matter it hurts the charities and causes too – after all one’s personal ‘ethics’ is the most important thing and not things like curing diseases and feeding children in developing countries. Right…right? Maybe not.

The reason I’m so opposed to articles like this is that they spread the word that companies who do philanthropy and gain publicity are ‘evil’ – in fact even more evil than companies that don’t do any philanthropy at all. Which, if spread widely enough, can have only one outcome: companies start doing less philanthropy and go back to traditional marketing. In which case the only ones who really suffer are the charities and the people they try to help. Not the companies, they can just turn to other less socially responsible marketing methods.

Sure – be my guest :)

That could be it – philanthropy is so effective in enhancing a business reputation and brand image that it is packaged (or repackaged?) in the form of CSR. CSR done right can make a big difference to the society, regardless of what intentions businesses have.

My argument – if it is solely for a good cause, why bother creating a press release campaign about it?

People would argue – as long as it is doing something useful for the society, why bother whether it is on spotlight or not?

It is a gray area, really.”

–HHMM… MAYBE BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO UPLIFT A COMPANY’S REPUTATION. PHILANTROPHY IS CSR. CSR IS ONE OF THE GOOD PR STRATEGIES PERFORMED BY THE PR PRACTITIONERS AND BUSINESSMEN NOWADAYS TO HELP MAINTAIN MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP AND UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ORGANIZATION AND THE OUTSIDE PUBLIC. SINCE THIS IS A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION, IT CAN APPARENTLY HELP BUILD THE COMPANY’S CORPORATE IMAGE AND GOODILL.

I won’t lie to you – I’ll take it, as long as it’s legitimate :) Of course, if it’s a bribe money or money laundering I won’t take it by any means – LOL

Being ethical philanthropist is for each and every individual or business endeavour – It’s not something to point our fingers to. For instance, suppose I own a non-profit organisation; If you gave me $10 millions in exchange for a branding opportunity on one of our campaigns, I’ll gladly accept it! It will help my non-profit organisation’s mission a lot! The issues whether it’s ethical or not is for you (and the public) to decide.

Cheers!

I’m curious, If any of those Companies you were referring to who look for returns
(whatever they might be) offered to give you and/or your Company $10 million, would you accept it or return it? Just curious!!!

Hugh