The wealthiest corporations and companies in the world got to the position they are in today by following the number one rule in business, increase profit. The presidents and CEO’s of these businesses have such a screwed up moral compass that it does not matter what they have to do to make money. If it means selling a pink jersey and claiming to donate some o the money to find a cure for breast cancer even when they are not, sign them up. If it means putting the name of an American icon on the side of a shoe for all the wrong reasons, so be it. As a sport management major, I would like to get into marketing sport or a certain sport product. If my boss came up to me and proposed this type of marketing scheme, as a professional and another person possessing a screwed up moral compass I would go along with it.
Again, the number one goal in business is to make money and if doing something that is morally incorrect to do so, I am willing to do it. It is not to be said that this is by any means possible to make money, but for the most part I would be willing to work with these types of marketing schemes, especially in today’s screwed up economy. Not to be ignorant or inconsiderate, but the fact that there are children in other countries making these products does not bother me. The possibility of the money not actually going to these foundations affects me more than the illegal laborers in other countries. Although the time would be taken to look into a marketing scheme like this when asked to take part, I would look into where the money actually goes and how much of this money is actually being donated before signing on, but for the most part I would take part and continue with my career.
In Samantha King’s: A Dream Cause”, she states, “companies and brands associate themselves with a cause as a means to build the reputation of a brand, increase profit, develop employee loyalty to the company, and add to their reputation as good corporate citizens” (King, 2001, 30). Even though companies might not believe in the cause they are claiming to support, it is still a genius plan and helps lead to maximum profit. One must think if the money is not getting donated to where these companies say it is how does this work? Yoplait yogurt’s promotion, “save lids to save lives” asked you to save your pink lids from your yogurt and mail them into Yoplait. Yoplait claims that they will donate x amount of money for every x amount of lids mailed in, what most people do not know is that Yoplait donates a flat amount of money regardless of how many lids are turned in. This is a very successful promotion and continues to make money as it is moving into its ninth year of doing so. To end this argument, making money, again, is the number one rule in business.

Neoliberalism has a huge influence on our society today. One way in which it is evident is in the marketing of products that are supposed to give money to a good cause. These products include Live Strong bracelets and different “pink” products. Other items such as sneakers and clothing also try to influence customers to do some good and buy their product. Meanwhile the people whose foundations or causes, which these products are trying to help, would often not approve of this process.
I have never really looked at this subject in this way. I was one of those people that felt like I was doing something good by buying a product that donated money to a certain cause. After thinking about it I agree that it really isn’t morally correct. The fact that these products are likely made by a young child for a minimal amount of money is not right. The customers buying products such as these shoes are being ripped off spending so much money thinking that they are doing something that is morally right. If anyone were to think about what is really going on they wouldn’t feel nearly as good about themselves.
I also never really thought of the minimal amount of money that is actually being used to benefit whatever cause the company says they are working with. Telling a customer that a certain amount of their purchase will be used for a good cause will influence them to buy the product. If they can buy a shoe that they needed anyway and be doing something they believe is morally correct they will do it. It is just a marketing scheme to get more people to buy the product. In an article by Samantha King she says that these methods, “…act upon the desires of consumers to be generous and civic-minded citizens in the service of selling products”(King, 2001, p. 2). Nobody ever knows what percentage of the money is actually being given to the cause. As long as they can feel good about themselves they will be happy with their purchase. While I feel that this is morally wrong, it is genius marketing on the part of the company. They are selling overpriced objects and getting people to buy them. If I were in the position of someone who had to make a decision on whether or not to continue selling a product this way I would probably have to continue it. I wouldn’t want to lose my job and I wouldn’t want to stop something that is making so much money for our company. While it is morally wrong it is still making some money for a good cause and it helps people feel good about themselves.
-Josh McGrath

Yes sir/madam I will produce these shoes for you and sell them the best I can. Even thought it is MLK tribute shoes it still my job that I would not want to lose. Also they probably could find someone in a second if I say no.
It will be better and is better to sell something that a percentage will go to a charity rather than the Capitalist owner taking ever penny for a shoe. Just remember ONE cent is better then NONE. It would be easier for many lazy Americans to go out and buy a pair of these shows to donate to charity rather than getting out and finding another way to donate to a charity.
In the article A Dream Cause it says, “The problem posed by these new standards is that until now many corporate giving programs have had no clear mission statement…” (King, pg 4). This shows that these companies don’t have proof that they are even going to give the money to charity or take it for themselves. Also people would be able to find out much information about what the companies cause is about.
I know I would feel bad because it is against the cause that MLK himself was against but it is still for a cause and MLK was for causes himself to. Most people don’t know but many 5 year old kids are working on these shoes. First I know it wrong but seriously these kids are 5 years old and they can make shoes in America, they should be considered geniuses. I feel still bad for them and the country needs to figure out a way to put child labor laws into place. Also it not only the kids fault there family is working though them with jobs that are dangerous for that age. America is just finding the cheapest way to make something and we know everyone likes cheaper items.
In the article Corporate Strategic Philanthropy: Implications for Social Work Marx says, “Strategic philanthropy directs contributions to stakeholders and to societal issues that are important to the success of business strategic plans” (Marx, pg 35).
So making a shoe, wearing a pink bracelet for breast cancer, or doing anything or wearing anything for cause is better then doing nothing at all. Also it gives a company a way to look good for saying they are donating to charity but they also make money while doing it. Getting the athletes that support their product is also a good way to make money and get the younger population to buy it.
So I would say yes sir/madam keep on selling because a cause is still a cause. Also doing something is always better than nothing so if you can’t help by getting out to support charities, go support by buying something where some of the money will go to these charities. Let go see them play.

I agree with almost everything you said and it is true that corporations are just exploiting these causes just so they can make more money. They say they will donate the proceeds to whatever cause they are representing but the truth is that small amounts of money are actually going to the proceeds and they are just making more money to line their own pockets with. One proceed that I do support every year is the Jimmy V fundraisers on ESPN because there is no corporation involved and most of the workers that help with the event are volunteers. When you buy something at a store and it says that a part of the money will go to a foundation, I bet less than 20% actually goes to the foundation where as I bet more that 90% of the proceeds that are made from the Jimmy V telethon goes towards research for cancer. In the King article it says “The threat of global competition with the opportunities presented by the citizen’s sense of alienation and lack of fulfillment, and cause related marketing, they suggest, presents the most promising solution to this bind” now I think this exert from this article is very true. People think that they are better people when they buy something that helps a proceed and in some ways they are, but what people don’t realize is that there are other ways they could be helping out that will benefit the cause they are supporting rather than giving their money to the corporations. If I was in the situation where my boss forced me to sell these products, I feel like I would have to in order to keep my job, but I would really have to question both the bosses and companies morality. I would ask them if they are actually supporting this cause or just looking for another way to increase their profits. Things like this really make me question the people in this country who purposely exploit foundations just to put another dollar in their pocket. Companies need to start looking at themselves and answer the question is having this extra money really worth exploiting this foundation and the public? And 95% of the companies will say “Yes” with no hesitation at all.
Corey Cline

If I was faced with this decision, I would choose to say no and get fired. I don’t think I would be able to do something for a living that requires me to sell something that goes against what those very same individuals stood for. I would not want to add to the problem of profiting off consumers by using a prominent person or cause. I can’t imagine myself working at a place that is using a person like Martin Luther King or Kurt Cobain for the main purpose of simply making money. I would try to put an end to the on-going use of branding famous people and causes in order to make a profit, I would rather encourage people to actually try and show their support by doing something other than just purchasing a product and feeling like they made a difference in the world. Samantha King articulates the companies that do this type of promotings point of view “companies and brands associate themselves with a cause as a means to build the reputation of a brand, increase profit, develop employee loyalty to the company, and add to their reputation as good corporate citizens.” The companies are looking out for their own best interests, instead of taking into account what the cause being represented would do in the same situation.

-DJ Walker

Thankfully, as I will never be a Sports Manager, I will never have to deal with my boss asking me to endorse or promote various products. These products that are on today’s market, such as limited edition celebrity-backed shoes, are supposedly in collaboration with a variety of charities and causes in order to raise money to support the particular cause. Unfortunately, as the consumers, we have no idea what portion of the money we spend will actually be donated towards the various charity or organization the product is backing. Even so, if my boss were to come to me and ask that I tailor a marketed item towards a cause/charity/ etcetera, I would probably do what was asked of me, especially if my job was on the line.
Adding a special endorsement to the product is helpful, not only for the company who makes the product, but also for the cause the endorsement is benefiting, no matter how small the monetary gain may be. The products created for distribution in today’s society are already over-priced and are of low-grade quality. This is sad, but true, as the companies would never prosper if the product they created was top-notch; they would never be able to convince the consumer to continue buying their product if the product never went bad. Making a product and attaching it to a “good cause” makes it all that more profitable. The consumer, who has to continue purchasing these low-grade products, are then drawn to the “limited/special editions” which are said to raise money for a particular cause.
Would a cause be greater benefited if the consumer took the time to actually work directly for the cause? Yes. Would the cause be greater benefited if the consumer took time to go to local politicians and celebrities with their concerns/ideas? Yes. Would the cause be greater benefited if the consumer was more careful and less ignorant in creating the problems these causes help fix. Again, yes. But the harsh reality is that many Americans, and most people in general, do not or are willing to give up their time to aid these causes. We live in a fast pace, rushed society where we learn impatience; we want everything done now. Having these special causes, like funding for Brest Cancer Research, attached to products, such as Yoplait yogurt, allows the consumer to feel as though they are contributing to a greater cause. Chances are, as a consumer, the individual was already planning to buy the product (like the yogurt). Faced with the choice of buying the yogurt that promotes Breast Cancer Research, the Yoplait, or the other brand yogurt which does not, the consumer would probably choose the Yoplait. This way the consumer feels that they are helping out, but don’t have to go out of their way to do so. “While cause-related marketing sells goods. . . it also packages generousity as a lifestyle choice through which individuals can attain self-actualization and self-realization by [purchasing something] so that. . .a percentage of the charge will be donated to a nonprofit organization” (King 2). As wrong or unethical as this may be, I have to attempt to find the positive in the situation; at least something is being done to abet these various causes.
Even more unethical than simply the consumer purchasing these limited edition products is where the products themselves are being created. Chances are, the products are being created in third world countries by children who are willing to work for almost nothing. Again I have to ask myself a variety of questions. Is this morally or ethically right? No. Is child labor okay? No. Are poor wages and poor working conditions acceptable? No. And while I, by no means, agree with how the system is played out, I have to realize that this is the way things are. Because the child working to make the special edition shoe is more than likely the same child creating any other shoe on today’s market. The shoes and other such paraphernalia created in these awful conditions are not top of the line, but they are affordable to the average consumer. And with the United States in a Recession and thousands of people in debt all over the world, people can not afford to purchase the high priced items that are not created in this fashion. So if a product that is literally necessary for living or that is already planned on being purchased is joined with a cause, at least the consumer can contribute in some convoluted way.

In the dog-eat-dog that we live in today, I would have to agree with the sale of these items but in no way be happy with the message they produce. The corporate world feeds of the empathy of people in society, where they have people believe that if thy purchase an item labeled with a “cause” that they are making a change. They disguise their true meanings behind glamorous billboards and advertisements and this is clearly illustrated through King’s statement that corporate philanthropy is, “a highly calculated and measured strategy that is integral to a business's profit-making function” (King, 2). People today see the negativity of today’s world and see no hope but to purchase items that were built to wear out (i.e. Sneakers, and clothes) from companies who try and push their product as a means for a cause. They attack the emotion of the public and use names to provide adequate insurance that they achieve marketable success. As much as I am disgusted with this corporate way, I would have to agree with the sale of these items in the case of job security and support of my family.

If I were in that situation I would probably go with the product because my job would be to make a profit. I think that I would propose a better way for the money to be allocated and provide full disclosure to exactly how much of the proceeds would actually go to the associated cause. I feel that products that are associated with a cause can create awareness, which can be the first step in actually getting people to contribute in a meaningful way. In a capitalist economy it creates a minor win-win-win situation. Like Samantha King states, “companies and brands associate themselves with a cause as a means to build the reputation of a brand, increase profit, develop employee loyalty to the company, and add to their reputation as good corporate citizens."
Causes get exposure and money while the consumer gets a product that would have purchased anyway along with a small sense that they are doing a good deed.
While as a Psychology major I doubt I will find myself in this situation, I see no point in refusing to sell the product and losing my job, what would that accomplish? Becoming a martyr for some idealistic personal moral cause would be the equivalent of tilting at windmills. The reality is that these products aren’t going away and the public is still going to buy them. It would be better to work within the system and find a way to create products that are respectful of the images and organizations associated with them while remaining profitable.
-Alex Hughey

Evan Johnson

If I were in this moral dilemma I would figure out a different way to move forward. One thing I have noticed for a while is that people believe ignorance is bliss. Since about 2004 the yellow Lance Armstrong wristbands have been everywhere I look from the gym to the office. The majority of people who wear these wristbands are just wearing them for style points and they don’t really know where their money goes for buying them. A person is buying a sweatshirt at Modells sporting goods and at the checkout line he sees a live strong wristband and decides to buy it for whatever reason. Is that person really concerned about social awareness for cancer or does he just think that dropping 2 or 3 dollars on a stylish rubber band will help him feel like he contributed to a good cause. The yellow wristbands have made Nike and the Lance Armstrong foundation lots of money over the years and they define cause related marketing success.
The MLK tribute Monta Ellis sneaker is another sly ploy to close a shoe deal with a social activism-marketing component. The AND1 Company is marketing the ME8 sneaker as a performance basketball shoe that also helps give back to the community (the MLK foundation and Institute). I think this is a sad attempt from AND1 to try to get more sales by infusing their new shoe with a MLK tribute implication. AND1 is trying to capitalize on the fact that their sport (basketball) is so racially dominated by African Americans that this tribute shoe will actually increase sales because of MLK’s significance to the African American community at large. This new AND1 shoe is Monta Ellis’ shoe and the MLK tribute attachment is just a cheap ploy to gain sales from their target audience.
Both of these are great examples of cause related marketing which according to the Samantha King article “A dream cause” is a very popular strategy to link together corporate philanthropy and the profit motive. The dream cause referred to in the article is breast cancer, which points out the successes of many corporate campaigns against the disease (NFL, BMW, Boston Market, and Pier1). This type of marketing is very successful in today’s environment and it will continue into the future

I would decide to say 'Yes Sir/Madam and keep selling things like this. Business, specifically sales is built around manipulation and advantage. That is exactly what corporations like the NFL, and Brand name products are doing when they incorporate non-profit organizations into their market strategy. The bottom-line is that those organizations are raising more money then they would have without large businesses marketing using their cause. King stated, ". . . from a relatively random, eclectic, and unscientific activity to a highly calculated and measured strategy that is integral to a business profit-making function" (King, 2). A hundred years ago you couldn't find companies investing in marketing strategies for clothing; it was unscientific and truthfully did not matter. Today, what you wear is measured, what you wear is who you are. It might be a shallow ideal, but the same follows when deciding if corporate philanthropy is right or wrong. Just as clothing companies target specific demographics and establish that specific brands can portray a class level and even go as far to exude ones personality, well is thought to at least. This type of marketing has the ability to change a persons view of themselves, why is it a worse concept for a 'good-cause' to be sold. People must remember the organization is still making money to fight cancer, help students go to college, or expand 'go green' efforts. I personally would not lose sleep knowing that the corporation I work for is using a non-profit organization to benefit financially. My beliefs have not changed and when I donate money its for the reasons I choose and not greed. In conclusion, I believe there are two factors that lead me to the decision of just saying yes and doing my job. First is simple, it is a responsibility of the individual to know exactly what their career entails. When a person decides to study sports management or a similar field, it is implied that, that will be their focus through out school and their focus in their future career. No matter what circumstances, with the exception of illegal activities, the decision to just say yes and do your job was already made answered when an individual chose to study in this field. Secondly, I believe every person has a system of values that one can raise or lower the bar. The rise or fall of the bar depends on the safety of a persons surrounding such as family and job security. If your career asks you to deviate from your values only slightly in the reassurance that ones job and ability to support your family is stable, that person should not think twice.
Kathryn L.

As a Sports Management major I have been in other classes that have proposed similar moral dilemmas. I realize that in the future I will undoubtedly be faced with having to make a decision like the one that has been posed. I believe I will say yes ser or madam and continue to sell the products. The only moral dilemma I actually see is having five year-old girls sewing shoes in Indonesia. I think that is horrible; I understand children over the age of sixteen working. However, five-year old children or younger working is inhumane and ridiculous. I believe the marketing of institutes such as the Martin Luther King institute or causes such as prostate cancer or breast cancer with clothes or shoes can sometimes be useful. I think any awareness is better than no awareness. Companies such as Nike or the professional sport leagues can not be faulted for trying to also improve their popularity and business while in addition raising awareness. These companies need to do well for their investors and employees who depend on them for income. As I saw someone write, not all companies are non-profit organizations. It can not be argued that some products like the Live Strong bracelets have created an amazing amount of awareness. I think these companies are useful in using their products to create a concern or awareness for certain causes. I truly believe that without them there would not be as much awareness on issues such as breast cancer or prostate cancer. I can not fault these companies because there are hundreds of companies who do nothing at all, who don’t talk about diseases or make any donations.

Travis Macklin

As consumers in a capitalistic society, we are in a relentless pursuit to satisfy our own personal needs, while being cost conscious at the same time. In other words we are always looking to get the most bang for our buck, no matter what the industry may be. In the case of buying products that “support the cause,” it is important to examine the intangible benefit that buying these kinds of products yield. To be quite blunt, we as consumers choose to purchase products that support causes because it makes us feel good on the inside. In some ways this act could be construed as therapeutic. Buying a Livestrong bracelet, or purchasing the MLK tribute shoe, with the belief that every cent of your purchase is going to a good cause is a subconscious exercise in consumer ignorance. Sure we want to believe we are doing the “right thing,” in purchasing a product that supports a cause, but in reality most of us choose to purchase the product in the first place because of the personal gratitude it gives us. If I were asked by a major corporation to scheme up an idea for a “tribute,” product, I would answer yes with a smile on my face. Over the years companies have learned that making products that appear to “support a good cause,” are successful because of the psychological benefits that they yield. These same companies continue to scheme up marketing plans year after year to appeal to and satisfy these intangible consumer needs. It is no secret. The reason a pink ribbon bagel is going to sell at Panera Bread has little, or arguably nothing to do with the bagel itself, but rather the peace of mind that it gives to the person buying it. While we as consumers will tell ourselves this is not the case, and that our intentions overall are indeed selfless, in reality you and I both know we buy these products because it helps us to sleep easier at night.
Sorry for being so cynical…

James Hanley

It’s hard to put myself in this hypothetical situation. I am an exercise science major and with that being said I doubt I will ever have to face this kind of decision. However, I am one of those, hard-headed and strong-willed people who will speak up if I feel strongly about something. Yet again, would losing my job and possibly a shot at a great career be worth it?
In this case I would most likely say no and get fired. I think it’s sickening that the heads of corporate companies are using legends such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Curt Cobain to hype up their products. If the public knew how much these institutions or organizations were really receiving in the big picture, I doubt half of them would go back and purchase these items again. But that’s when I began to really think- how many of us are guilty of having that yellow “LIVESTRONG” bracelet floating around in our rooms somewhere, or how many of us HAVEN’T supported the cure for breast cancer? It’s almost impossible to go through the motions of an average day without being confronted by this kind of capitalism. I guess some contributions are better than none, but why not make donations directly? Why go out and spend $60+ on the newest Under Armour sweatshirt with a pink ribbon on it? Why spend your money on a pair of shoes that are tied to MLK not really knowing how much money the institutions are getting? What does that pink ribbon or symbol on a pair of sneakers really do for us? Samantha King explained this kind of marketing “as a “filter,” a way to attract the attention and loyalty of the consumer, who is understood to be increasingly adept at reading marketing messages and dissecting the meaning and symbolism of any particular commercial or advertisement.” American history is falling to this kind of cause-related marketing, brand names and CEO’s wealthy enough to end poverty in several countries.
Knowing what I know now, it would be harder to say “yes sir” than “no.” Consumers are feeding into a realm of money-hungry businesses that are merely trying to stand and make another dollar. It should make consumers rethink their spending in every way possible.

As much as I hate the idea of corporations trying to take advantage of any opportunity to make profit (especially the large ones that are already settled), given the difficult economic circumstances, I could not just refuse to do it and get fired. Instead, I would have to say yes and try to work on something to improve this concept and hopefully not feel as guilty. Unfortunately, regardless of my decision, there are still going to be many corporations all around the country using this “strategic philanthropy” to sell their products while deceiving customers who actually believe that they are contributing to society as much as they can or should. It is sad to see how unethical these campaigns are, all pretending to show social responsibility and generosity when, in reality, corporate philanthropy is “a highly calculated and measured strategy that is integral to a business’s profit-making function” (King, 2). I do believe that people have the right to know what the bottom line is. So I guess my approach would be to allow people to make an informed decision by giving all the information. For instance, show explicitly the amount and allocation of the funds collected, how they are going to be used and what else could be done to help out in the given cause. This should help people realize how “convenient” it is for corporations to promote these philanthropic campaigns, not only for the one I would work but most of them. The truth is that if somebody wants to help, there is no need to show it off through big advertising campaigns. However, I am sure that there are some corporations that actually mean well and help people in need like it should be, with honesty, respect and generosity.

Evelyn Izaguirre

If a future job required me to make a choice to market products like the ME 8, Jordan Melo 5.5, and Kurt Cobain One Star or to connect my company’s franchise or league to things like Breast Cancer Awareness, I would with a clear conscience say yes sir/madam and continue selling things like this. These are companies whose objective is to make as much money as possible. These are not non-profit organizations whose purpose is to support social causes. I do not see any type of moral dilemma in a company using a cause to increase their profits, as long as both the company and the cause benefit. The use of a cause by a company to advertise a product is simply a technique that acts on the good nature of people. As Samantha King state in her article “A Dream Cause”, “these are techniques by which to understand, represent, and act upon the desires of consumers to be generous and civic-minded citizens in the service of selling products.” The world today is driven by money, so therefore in my opinion the most productive way for a citizen to be generous and civic-minded is through monetary donations.
The ME 8 is a tribute basketball shoe intended to raise money for the Martin Luther King Memorial and Institute. The company And 1 is trying to sell shoes and is using our feelings of admiration for MLK to do so. This seems to be a win-win situation for all involved. The company is going to make a profit, the MLK Memorial and Institute will receive a percentage of the profit, and the purchaser gets to contribute a small part to the MLK Memorial and Institute and wear a tribute to MLK on their feet. One could argue that the MLK Memorial and Institute would get more from a person helping to build the place, furnish it, or speak about Dr. King’s beliefs. In response I would argue that the average person does not have the time, motivation, or education/skills to contribute in this way.
Another sneaker the Jordan Melo 5.5 has been marketed in conjunction with HBO’s show “The Wire” in an attempt to advertise the shoe as being “authentically urban”. Just because the shoe is being advertised as “authentically urban” does not mean that urban populations are their only or even primary target market. The idea of things being “hood”, “gangsta”, or “authentically urban” is a trendy topic that sells with a large percentage of the entire youth population throughout our country. Another factor that may have lead to the union between the Melo 5.5 and “The Wire” is the fact that the show is based in Baltimore and the athlete Carmelo Anthony is for the Baltimore area. Nike is simply using the current trendiness of being “authentically urban” and the hometown hero to sell shoes.
While Nike uses the hip-hop culture to sell the Melo 5.5, they use the Kurt Cobain to sell to the grunge/rock subculture. Kurt Cobain is the face of this grunge subculture, so it is only makes sense he would be used to market to this subculture. Unfortunately, Kurt Cobain is not alive to decide whether or not he would want to use his name to endorse Converse shoes. The Kurt Cobain One Star shoe may be against Kurt Cobain’s anti-corporate beliefs, but it is not Nike’s responsibility to respect Kurt Cobain’s wishes. The blame goes to whoever is in control of his estate (Courtney Love?) and is peddling his name without consideration of his beliefs.
Numerous companies are using the “Breast Cancer Awareness” pitch to sell their products. The San Francisco based activist group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA) argues that companies are profiting too much off of breast-cancer-related marketing and not giving enough. In one of their ads the BCA states that “Preventing, curing, and guaranteeing quality treatment for breast cancer will require real change- and not the kind you carry in your pocket.” This sounds like they are implying money is not needed to defeat breast cancer. Then they point to products that contain toxic ingredients that may be linked to breast cancer. Well how do they think we discovered that these toxic ingredients may be linked to breast cancer? The answer is through research and research cost money. This type of breast-cancer-related marketing is generation money for breast cancer research. According to Samantha King “the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation has more than a dozen national sponsors, a Million Dollar Council made up of twenty businesses that donate at least one million dollars per year, and a slew of other corporate partnerships at both local and national levels.”
As I said before the goal of a company is to make money and cause-related marketing has become a very effective tool to increase profits. I would imagine that there are negotiations that go on between the company and the “cause” organization, maybe the numbers just need to be slightly adjusted during these negotiations. An organization such as the “Komen Foundation” or “MLK Memorial and Institute”, should be aware of their marketing potential their organizations have and demand more money for their cause. In my opinion these companies may not be doing good simply because it is the right thing, but in the end they are doing good.

Lucas Conrad

First of all, we need to rename the type of economy the US apparently has. Capitalism does not truly encompass the fundamentals of our economy. I suggest that that we rename it to a “Machiavellianistic” economy. By any means necessary. Jerry McGuire says it best “SHOW ME THE MONEY!” It’s all about the money and the means of getting the money is irrelevant. You can cheat, steal, lie, manipulate, destroy, etc… all for the money baby. Companies do this to gain an edge over the competition and the main contributor has been this philanthropy marketing or cause marketing strategies. King describes this as a “struggle to gain ownership over the ethos of generosity; corporations have invented new ways to their versions of generosity from those of their competitors.” This has been programmed into our heads from day one; we have to get the good grades to go to graduate and go to college, we have to do well in college so we can get a job that to pay well and MAKE MONEY. This type of mindset is consistent with the media, marketing, advertising, everything. Life is about making money by any means necessary.

This is a tough question to answer because of that. If you as an employee fail to make your employer money then you are expendable and can be replaced. So honestly, as much as I want to say screw the corporations who are trying to benefit from these marketing and philanthropy gimmicks, I more than likely would do whatever my boss is telling me; especially if I’m a new employee and haven’t been established in the industry or field. I feel as if you need to be a veteran or a more established worker in order to make a difference and have more power and say in the organizations decisions and strategies. So for the first 5 or maybe more years, I would bite the bullet and succumb to these ploys/gimmicks. I mean I have college loans to pay back and need a steady income. However, once I have established myself in the organization/industry I would question and challenge these strategies.

Ryan Kannegieter

Working in the business world today is all about making money, and marketing your product the best way possible. Corporations do whatever they can to make the most money; they even hire young children or underprivileged workers in foreign countries, and pay them pennies compared to how much they make off their services. So why wouldn't it be a good idea to attach a worthy cause to there product. If consumers think they are buying a product that has a breast cancer ribbon on it and the company is going to donate a percentage of the product cost to breast cancer awareness, then customers will buy there brand rather then others. People are lazy they think if they buy a product with a certain label they are helping, but how much money is that company really donating to the cause. In most cases your better off donating directly to the cause, and buying the cheaper brand product. But in that case it also comes down to the brand label, and us Americans love our labels. In Samantha King’s article A Dream Cause she states “ breast cancer marketing has become the focus of much commentary and analysis among marketing experts seeking to understand and chart the passions, interests, and desires of contemporary consumers. Under headlines such as “Cancer Sell,” these experts have labeled breast cancer “a dream cause” and pointed to the success of corporate campaigns against the disease as a way to encourage other companies to pursue cause related marketing.” If you would like to keep your job you are almost forced to go with the flow of a new type of marketing, or come up with another, extremely beneficial way to market your product to the masses. This is what America has come to, and if you want to make money you have to join the crowd.

Kristen Stottler

As much as I would like to choose option #3:Figure out a different way to move forward, I’d have to say realistically if I was just offered a job and didn’t have much say that I would Choose option #1 of say yes sir/madam and continue selling things like this. As an executive told Brinker, “We sell glamour. We don’t sell fear. Breast cancer has nothing to do with our customers.” The business of offering donations to charitable causes has make shifted a form of doing business with the American public on a sub culture marketing level. Although Brinker’s statement was the truth, it is now viewed that offering a proceed of your money in buying a product of a corporations is the “right” thing to do. Inevitably, corporations main goal is to make as much money as they can while maintaining a positive relationship with their customers. This form of marketing is a great way to establish both. In order to be an employer of corporations such as these, it is pounded into our minds from the early years of college that the number 1 priority in maintaining a profitable business is to make as much money as possible, no questions asked. Due to this mindset one must have in order to be an employer of such company’s , arguing this mentality may cause doubt in your employers eyes of what you are capable of. There is no doubt that corporations use charities in order to selfishly make more money but do you blame them? In our society and the financial crisis we are in, it is more likely a company will associate themselves with a cause in order to build their reputation and have a good relationship with their customers. All in all, “ cashing in” on their customers untrained eye.

As one of two physical education majors in this class, I am lucky enough to not ever have to worry about this decision. This question though, would be an easy one to answer. I would say no and get fired. I would rather spend my time at a job actually fixing a problem then to work at a job that only covers or masks the real issue. Growing up I have always been against doing what everyone else does, even if that meant supporting a cause. I never wore a liveSTRONG bracelet or a bracelet that looked like one because everyone else was wearing them. I felt like most of the people were wearing them for a fashion statement and were doing nothing else to help support the cause. I agree with your statement in your blog,

“Wouldn’t the institute get more out of a day of your and my work helping to build the place, furnish it, or even speak to local and national politicians about the things that Dr. King was working for rather than buying a pair of shoes? Yet through the workings of clever corporate leaders we, the American public, have been convinced that we are better people for buying something like this pair of sneakers, or a Yoplait yogurt with a pink top, or a Panera Bread pink ribbon bagel, or a yellow livestrong bracelet in lieu of actually being a part of the national political process.”

While I may sound like a bad person because I’m not supporting causes like everyone else does, I feel like I should actually do something about it. I also don’t believe that the money I donate actually goes to the cause they support, and if the money does go to it it’s about 10% of less of it. I have a high moral standards and I would hope the place I work for would also, but if not then why would I even work for them in the first place. If people want to say that they have high moral standards they need to work for an employer that does as well. I don’t feel as though people can say “yes, I’d keep working” but in their heart say “I would get fired” that’s being hypocritical and naïve, good luck to those people, because their jobs will suck!

As a future sport manager I believe that I will eventually be faced with having to make one of those difficult decisions. A decision that goes against what you morally believe is the right thing, but a decision that would be profitable to the company your are working for. If i was faced with a situation today like promoting the MLK Tribute sneaker even though I knew some girl in Indonesia was working in slave-like conditions, i have to be honest, I probably would go through with promoting it because I would not want to be fired. I believe that the fear of getting fired would drive most people to promote the sneaker especially with the current economic times because jobs are so scarce. From a promotional standpoint I can understand why these sneaker companies would want connect with a major public figure like Martin Luther King. Its because people will buy a sneaker that supports a foundation with a reputation like the Martin Luther King Memorial Institute. Although most people think that American people are smug and cynical, the American people tend to give a lot of donations and also will purchase a product if a percentage of the money is going to a good cause (even if that percentage is small). This is why corporations team up with such corporations like the MLK Memorial Institute and Breast Cancer Awareness foundation. Samantha King is quoted as saying "breast cancer is a way to differentiate their products and to cut through the clutter of commercial communications, they have had the effect of making breast cancer marketing ubiquitous." This quote supports the notion that it is profitable for companies to collaborate with such causes and profit is the main goal for every corporation.

Tanner Strow

Connecting MLK to any product in regards to corporate capitalism is a sham and travesty. Now that that’s cleared up. I think there can always be a compromise found between the extremes of the spectrum of getting fired and being a slave to the empire. The answer is ensuring that top management’s intentions going into the project are to not only profit for oneself but to equally profit for the foundation or group they market the product with. Obviously as a peon in a company you can not effectively influence the decision making of your superiors, so I think instead of putting yourself in a morally questionable situation that is undesirable; it is important to make an educated evaluation about the moral and ethical standings of a company before jumping aboard the band wagon.
In the reading, the author states “(The) shift toward strategic philanthropy is typical of corporate America’s move to treat donations like investments and thus to expect a return on them…” (pg. 7) This idea is to me is a complete oxymoron. You are constantly taught through socialization that it is better to give then to receive, but now it is becoming it is better to give, only if your will in return receive. Ethical standards as a whole are being skewed and the lines blurred from what is right and wrong. Unfortunately these are the steps that need to be taken to stay a float in a struggling economy where business's thrive on the emotional attachment of the masses to profit through cause related marketing.

While I do agree with the points that have been made, and how major companies have in the past exploited many different people I think my decision would be to continue selling products like this. As we all know the main goal of most companies is to profit; some are even willing to lie, cheat, and steal just to move ahead. However, at least AND1 is trying to support a good cause. Of course this cause is being exploited and the MLK memorial will receive only a small amount of the proceeds but at least they are getting something. For this specific instance I am not 100% convinced that AND1 is acting immorally. Why not in at least some way promote a good cause? Some money is better than no money for the MLK memorial and Institute. Not only are they receiving funding but they are also getting publicity. As said by Samantha King: "companies and brands associate themselves with a cause as a means to build the reputation of a brand, increase profit, develop employee loyalty to the company, and add to their reputation as good corporate citizens." By AND1 connecting themselves to someone of MLK's status they will only bring positive feedback from their patrons. This will in turn help them to boost their profits and at the same time help out a great cause with little spending.
-Josh Stein

In King’s reading she refers to a statement that Jerry Welsh, the president of Welsh Marketing Associates expressed “his concern that some cause-related marketing campaigns do not give consumers a good reason to remember the company or brand (at the end of the day)” (King, 6). CEO’s of major companies just want the world to know about their company. They will market in anyway, good or bad, in order for everyone to know what they are trying to sell. If I was faced with a boss that insisted on marketing towards “donations” to other institutes I would say yes sir/madam and come up with a plan to market this way but I would also come up with a back up proposal. People may notice that your company is trying to be kind by donating to other foundations but is their product good quality? I believe that doing different studies on products and coming up with a statistical way to market items would be way better. Thinking of a certain symbol and linking it with great quality, inexpensive, and fashionable will sell a lot also. I also think the timing of the economy matters a great deal because even if so much money is going to a foundation/ institute, a lot of people can not afford that little extra right now. When people are in the marketing business they will be faced with many challenges that they do not believe in but either do what your boss wants or have no job in the future. As long as that person keeps the sales up, with their marketing technique, than they will not be faced with no job.

If I had the chose I would say yes sir because I would not want to lose my job in the first place and they would be able to find someone to replace me in a second or less. Also even though I would know that only the smallest present would be going to MLK Memorial but that is still something. Another thing is that people would see the shoe and know it is for a good cause and may cause someone else to buy that shoe. If anything I would also try to make another way to make money for MLK plus sell the shoe. Maybe at the shoe store have a box for it so people can also drop money and will make your company look good too. SO my answer would be YES SIR.


Scott Disson

This is a hard question because no one wants to get fired. I think that if I were just starting out at a job I would say yes and go along with whatever my boss tells me to do. Although I think that there is a line somewhere that i would not cross. If I do something at work that I am not comfortable with I won't be able to leave that at work. If I were to do something at work that I wasn't comfortable doing or thought that it was unethical or illegal I wouldn't be able to leave that at work. That decision would be on my conscious even at home. I would not be able to live with myself. Thats why it is very hard when pressured by your boss to do things. Your boss not say that you will be fired but hint around that if you do not do the task that you might be fired. Hopefully I do not find myself in a situation where my boss asks me to do something that is unethical, but I am sure I will. I will be sure to keep my resume handy and up to date. As for how business is run today they do what is best for them. It is all about the bottom line.

i do not really know what i would do. Before i read all this i would have probably said yes sir and kept on with my job, but that was before i knew where the money is really going and who really profits from "caused-related" products. MY feel now on the situation is to find an alternative way to move forward. Even if the money does not go to the right charities or such, the charities and organizations are still getting their name out and people noticing them by these products representing them. no matter what we say this is still America and people still love stupid things. Also we would need to make sure who is really profiting from the product and try to find a way to make sure it profits the right organization and purpose. But i do wonder if the organizations know what is going on, then why do they still let these products represent them? I beileve it is because they are still getting publicity and to make even some money for a growing program is good help.

When posed with the choice of whether or not to market “cause-related” products such as the ME8’s or Melo 5.5 shoes, my simple answer would be to say yes sir/madam and continue to sell the products. I say this is a simple answer because I didn’t even think twice about it. Yes, it can be argued that cause-related marketing exploits things like breast cancer to gain profits for a company, and I do believe that it does. How could you dispute that when Samantha King throws out information like this: “According to oft-quoted statistics from Mintel Marketing Intelligence, American Express’s campaign in the late 1980s to raise funds for the renovation of the Statue of Liberty generated an estimated $1.7 million for the cause, a 27 percent increase in card usage, and a 10 percent jump in new card membership applications.” (King, 11) This clearly depicts the kind of power cause-related marketing can create in gaining more money for an organization. But is this entirely wrong? While they earned a profit from this, they also gained almost $2 million towards their cause. Maybe the ME8 shoes only earn $50,000 for its cause, maybe less. There is nothing wrong about it if it actually supports a cause. They may be exploiting the cause to get even more money for themselves, but, in my opinion, if even $1 is earned towards any cause, it helps. My personal life is very connected to cancer, which may be why I view this issue in such a way. Every dollar helps, and I can honestly say I don’t care if the company marketing the product makes 100 times more.

Nice job so far everybody. I think Bryan is making a good point...if you don't say yes you'll likely be replaced by someone that does, and you are losing all authority to act on your moral standpoint. Obviously you have to hope that there is wiggle room in your jobs to be able to say yes and work within the system to change it, otherwise we will just be contributing to the system that, we are increasingly coming to the understanding, is broken.

Before reading the King article I didn’t even realize how much companies profited by claiming to donate profits to a “good cause” when in reality you can’t even be sure the money reaches that organization in the first place. Nowadays Americans are either overlooking that fact that we are manipulated by businesses or we’re just too lazy to investigate whether the money reaches the cause it’s supposed to. Samantha King calls out a number of large businesses in her article when she states that they “have all turned to breast cancer philanthropy as a new and profitable strategy through which to market their products.” (King, 2) Most of us wouldn’t even look at this as a way for these companies to profit, myself included. Before taking this class I would have been like most Americans and probably applauded these companies for their work in helping raise breast cancer awareness. But where does the money really go? That’s a question we don’t ask enough, if even at all. It’s even harder to question the intent of these companies because one of the businesses King mentions in her article is the NFL, and it’s hard to criticize something when you’re such a big fan of it. I guess to answer the question however; I would probably just say yes sir/madam and do the job. The way I see it, if I’m really passionate about the stand I’m taking, is standing up to my boss really going to help anything? Probably not. If they fire me then they’re just going to replace me with somebody who does the job they’re looking for, and now I’m out of a job. And is the fund or organization I took the stand for in the first place any better off because of what I did? Again, probably not. So even though after taking this class I have found myself thinking more critically about how businesses profit from us when we think we’re donating to a good cause, I would still likely say yes sir/madam and do the job that was asked of me.

When you accept a job such as a sports manager you have to accept all of the things that go along with it. But to make your boss happy and to keep your faith in order are the two hardest things to accomplish. So, to answer this question I would say yes madam/yes sir. I would do what my boss wanted but do it so the foundation makes a lot of money in the process. Let’s say I was asked to figure out a way to make money and raise awareness for colon cancer. Research states that if you eat food high in fiber than you are less likely to get colon cancer. So, my idea is since millions of people go to the sports bars, we can say for every person that buys a salad than 1 dollar goes to the cause and of that dollar 25 cents goes to the company. I think that this is a good way for my company to make money as well as the cause.
First thing that should be said is why do companies use the sympathy of people to make money. Is money that great that we need to trick people? Many famous and rich companies have turned to philanthropy in order to make an extra buck. Just as it says in A Dream Cause “…Lee Jeans, and the National Football League have all turned to breast cancer philanthropy as a new and profitable strategy through which to market their products”. With many of these companies they don’t need to act like philanthropist because they make a high profit already and to add someone’s sympathy onto that is wrong and it disgust me in so many ways. We should be raising money for these organizations with no gain at all. But, I do understand the position that sport manager’s are in and that is why my major is Exercise Science.
Alise McDonald

In all honesty, before reading the Samantha King excerpt and discussing this issue in class, I would have probably said yes sir/madam. I never thought about what I was doing when I bought the Livestrong Bracelets or the pink ribbon merchandise. I genuinely thought I was helping out the cause. But now, I would try to figure out a different way to go about supporting that particular foundation. Whether that meant organizing a company volunteer outing or doing some sort of fundraiser where all the profits went to that foundation would depend on the particular cause. If you decide to go with volunteering or fund raising, you can market the fact that you really contributed. This would definitely help your image. Plus, when people see that, they would still be inclined to buy your product. King discusses throughout the reading that when companies go with the approach of selling products to support a cause, “these tools produce a constant flow of images suggesting that the key to solving America’s problems lies in the corporate philanthropy, personal generosity, and proper consumption” (King 2). It just contributes to the idea that we are helping by buying a particular corporations product. When, in fact, they are just taking advantage of people’s ignorance and making a profit off of it. It’s no secret that most Americans are lazy and would much rather just throw money at something instead of actually going out and really helping; so it’s no wonder that companies are using this technique. It not only helps them sell products, but it gives them an image that they care and are contributing. King speaks to this idea when she says, “While there are instances in which corporations make financial contributions without reference to their markets or overall strategic plans, most large corporations now employ a business-driven approach to contributions as they seek to attach “value”, “strategic vision” and “mission” to their charitable activities” (King 4). As I said before, prior to the reading and discussion, I, like most people, probably would have gone with what my boss wanted. But now, I would definitely make a whole-hearted effort to try and do something that would contribute much more to that cause.

This is a question that truly is difficult to answer right now at this very moment. The reason I say that is because I know exactly what I stand for and I would never question or compromise that for anyone, but at the same time I have to be realistic in the sense that no one truly knows what they would say or do when money is involved. Being someone that was raised in the poor/working class economic situation I have strong feelings about capitalism. I was raised in a environment where everyone I was around was always being influenced by someone in the media; especially sports figures and entertainers. D. Stanley Eitzen says that; "Sports appears to be a major way for African Americans to escape the ghetto. African Americans dominate the major professional sports numerically. While only 12 percent of the population, African Americans comprise about 80 percent of the players in professional basketball, about 67 percent of professional football players, and 18 percent of professional baseball players." Eitzen even goes on to say that; "African Americans dominate the list of the highest moneymakers in sport(salaries, commercial sponsorships)." So in that sense I know what if feels like to want to be like them and when you realize that you won't be like them then just doing things they would do seems to be the next best thing. So buying their shoes, jerseys or whatever else the media tells us is great becomes a major priority. But on the flip side one must ask ourselves why is that so? I mean those advertisements and promotions are displayed in record proportions in the lower-class communities because in those communities those families feel that these things have value. In the grand scheme of things we all know that's not true. They are only just shoes and inanimate objects that will need to be replaced once they get old and worn. So all of the money that is spent on them doesn't make them any better than any other shoe. So if I were to be placed in a position where I would be getting paid to promote these things, then it would be responsibility as someone that used to be in that demographic that I am targeting to promote them in a way that doesn't seem to exploit the idea that we are a capitalistic society. I would urge the manufacturers and the celebrity that being represented to lower the prices or put clauses in their contract that makes in mandatory to give a larger portion to charities. If that can't be arranged then it would be up to me to find another place of employment. As an African-American I feel it is my obligation if ever in a position of power and influence to try to use my resources in the "best" way possible. I have to try to get young people to understand especially those that are from lower income families and minorities to realize that you have an opportunity to do something great and that's to play in major league sports. Everyone has that chance and getting bragging rights in the community by being dressed in the most popular clothing is fine too. But they just need to realize why they want to dress that way and if the pros outweigh the cons then by all means, just don't do it because someone else tells you that you should.

I would say “yes sir” not only because I would like to keep my job and I’m a bit of a push over when someone has the authority over me but because I do have my reasons.
Manufacturing these products give people through out the world at every step of the process jobs. Jobs are important in every economy, no one can deny that. And I have no problem selling a product, even if it using a person (or people) and their image because it is their image, not mine on the product.
If it makes people happy buying a product and feeling that they have contributed in some small way to a cause, more power to their ego. Or if a kid wants a pair of Melo shoes and thinks he has a chance at playing basketball like Melo, that is not my problem with what people choose to with their money. I cannot personally stop someone from feeling happy or put in a more cynical way, self important because they do one thing and I may do another. But either way my saying “yes sir” brings both sides what they want to achieve, there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of well being.
What Samantha King’s link “between a cause and a company are thought to increase the likelihood that a corporation appears to be ‘cashing in’ on other people’s misfortune” (p. 9) is what many people, myself included, would call making a profit or simply, capitalism and it is the company's decision on whether to "cash in" or not.
~Cory Joiner