Cause-branding: Next step or misstep?

The author provides an overview of the Arthritis Foundation's decision to launch Arthritis Founda- tion'" Pain Relievers, and places into perspective the appropriateness of cause-branding initiativesfor nonprofit organizations.

I 0 Cause- branding: Next step or misstep?

Don L. Riggin

FOR A NONPROFIT organization, achieving its mission is the only reason for its existence. And the Arthritis Foundation judges all of its program and fundraising efforts in the light of whether they bring us closer to achieving that mission.

Unfortunately, as we are all too aware, it's becoming harder and harder for nonprofits to achieve their missions. Why? Because the world is changing. For nonprofits, a program that once overflowed with people now interests very few. Fundraising strategies that once netted thousands of dollars now barely break even. Needs of con- stituencies change. Service demands increase or decrease. Funding sources evaporate. Regulations fluctuate.

In today's changing environment, the nonprofit that will achieve its mission will be one that recognizes the changing landscape and changes its own approaches to reflect the new reality. We must mod- ify staff or volunteer structure to maximize results. We must place fresh perspectives on our standard income sources. We must pursue

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PHILANTHROPIC FUNDRAISING, NO. 12, SUMMER 1996 OJOSSEY-BASS PUBLISHERS

134 ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES

new ideas to generate additional income. In short, today’s nonprofit is and will continue to be an evolving nonprofit-with the only con- stant being its mission.

The Arthritis Foundation recognized a growing need for a closer relationship with corporate America if we were to meet the grow- ing challenges we face now and will face to an even greater extent in the future. We began in 1988, when the Arthritis Foundation formed a new corporate relations department.

The function of this department is not simply to ask corporations for money. Rather, the department’s goal is to form and build long- term relationships with corporations that will advance the mission of the Arthritis Foundation. This, in large part, means cooperative efforts seeking mutually beneficial results. And as each relationship is established and individual project started, a guiding principle for the Arthritis Foundation is whether the project advances the mis- sion of the Arthritis Foundation in a legal and ethical manner.

One such relationship for the Arthritis Foundation is with John- son & Johnson (J&J). One of the first corporate programs we initiated was an Arthritis Foundation Commendation Program designed to recognize product packaging for ease of use by people with arthritis.

Along with a number of other companies receiving commenda- tions, J&J was awarded a commendation for a new easy-open bot- tle cap being placed on Tylenol. Tylenol subsequently entered into an agreement to use the Arthritis Foundation packaging commen- dation in its advertising for the product.

The interest in this initiative led to the Arthritis Foundation and J&J development of a nationwide design awards competition to encourage even more companies to develop arthritis-friendly products.

The TylenoVArthritis Foundation Design Awards have since rec- ognized corporations both small and large for their efforts to create new products with ease of use as a priority. We recently added a student competition to encourage future designers to consider the limitations of people with arthritis in their designs.

The most recent and perhaps most visible outgrowth of this

CAUSE-BRANDING 135

ongoing relationship with J&J was the possibility of providing an Arthritis Foundation brand of pain relievers to provide Arthritis Foundation information to a new segment of the population and gain added funds for arthritis research.

The important point to this hstory of relationship-building with J&J is that corporate America and the nonprofit sector must begin to develop ongoing relationships. We must realize that we have dif- fering goals, yet not necessarily mutually exclusive goals. As we develop relationships, we respect each other's needs and carve out a way we can bring together the power of both groups for mutual benefit.

The Arthritis Foundation and McNeil Consumer Products, a subsidiary of J&J, discussed the possible benefits of a product line called Arthritis Foundation"" Pain Relievers. As the concept was dis- cussed it became clear that such a cause-branding relationship could be accomplished for the benefit of all parties in a way that advanced the Arthritis Foundation's mission and maintained its stewardship of the public's t r u s t as a not-for-profit agency.

The concept was debated in an ever widening circle of staff and volunteers. Before each successively wider group of staff and vol- unteers was asked to comment, new questions were raised for which answers were worked out.

For example, my volunteer chair and I first discussed the issue; then the volunteer executive board and senior staff; then the board of trustees, which approved the concept 38 to 1; then committee chairs and other staff; and so on. Finally, in a special meeting of the Arthritis Foundation's national governing body of volunteers, the final debate ended in overwhelming approval to proceed with the project by a vote of 110 to 14.

Our decision process was detailed and focused. Our mission lit- mus test was invoked at each stage of negotiations. The mission of the Arthritis Foundation is to fund research to find the cures and preventions for arthritis and to improve the quality of life for peo- ple affected by arthritis. It's a mission growing larger with each year.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has announced new statistics that show arthritis as the epidemic of the future. As

136 ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES

the baby boomers age, the number of people affected will soar to nearly sixty million Americans. Meanwhile, there is a pervasive myth that nothing can be done to help arthritis. In fact, nearly six million Americans say they have arthritis but haven’t even seen a doctor because they believe not much can be done to help them.

The Arthritis Foundation’” Pain Relievers are a tool to help us address this growing problem. We see the Arthritis Foundation” Pain Relievers as more than just products. They provide research, resources, and relief.

Their sales provide a minimum $1 million per year directly to arthritis research grants, with additional amounts possible depend- ing on sales. The products also offer a gateway to Arthritis Foun- dation services that could improve the quality of life for people with arthritis.

The package contains a special toll-free number to call for free arthritis information. A special package insert provides educational information and an offer of free membership to the Arthritis Foun- dation.

The pain reliever products themselves offer temporary pain relief through a complete line of all forms of the available over-the- counter pain medications (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and aspirin), and they are intended to be priced below other brand names.

But even more important, a group of people a-eating themselves with over-the-counter pain medication, who may never have con- tacted the Arthritis Foundation, are learning for the first time that help and hope are available. They don’t have to “just live with it.” They’ll discover that medicine is just one part of a total treatment plan. They’ll know the Arthritis Foundation can help make a dif- ference. And they’ll help fund arthritis research at the same time. The purchasers may even see a doctor for the first time.

Does McNeil Consumer Products make a profit? It absorbs all the manufacturing, marketing, and liability costs from the product. The Arthritis Foundation also advances its mission. Most of all, many people are being reached who may never have known the true help available for people with arthritis. It is a win-win-win sit-

CAUSE-BRANDING 137

uation for the company, the Arthritis Foundation, and the people suffering from arthritis.

However, with all of the possible benefits that could be seen, the Arthritis Foundation was not blind to the potential pitfalls. We knew how an ill-conceived corporate relationship could be disas- trous and were determined not to allow this effort to undermine the integrity or mission of the Arthritis Foundation. We knew there would be close scrutiny of the relationship. And we wanted to be sure that we could stand proud and pass what became known as the “60 Minutes” test.

We entered the relationship carefully. Any potential problems needed to be addressed before going further in the process. Mul- tiple focus-group discussions were conducted to determine the reaction of various people.

A key item we looked a t was the integrity of the corporation involved. We looked at the goals of the corporation and how com- patible they were with our own. We looked a t the corporation’s understanding of our mission and their willingness to help us achieve our own objectives.

We developed specific advertising guidelines that would guar- antee the Arthritis Foundation’s comfort with how the products would be marketed or positioned to the public. And the final agree- ment had very specific distinctions between the roles of the corpo- ration and the Arthritis Foundation, as well as mechanisms for how the Arthritis Foundation could immediately leave the relationship.

After making the decision to move forward with the project, we began plans to respond to the inevitable questions from our vari- ous constituencies. Prior to the public announcement, a detailed resource binder was provided to every office nationwide. Regional training was conducted to provide staff and volunteers detailed information and to answer questions in follow-up to the resource binder.

Meetings were held and letters sent to key physician groups, other corporate supporters, and our current members and donors. We wanted to communicate fully and as early as possible with

138 ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES

everyone we could. We were, and still are, confident that the rela- tionship is mission focused and that any concerns someone might raise have already been addressed.

Now, nearly one year after the introduction of Arthritis Foun- dation” Pain Relievers, both the Arthritis Foundation and McNeil are pleased with the outcome. In almost every case of a complaint, the complaint was based on partial information about the project. Once it was fully explained, the concerns abated.

To date we have only about a hundred letters of concern about a nonprofit’s involvement in such a relationship-most of these from physicians. The only true media criticism came from Con- sumer Repom and its associated publications, which complained that the cost of the medication, although lower than brand names, was still higher than generics. Conslcmer Reports has a stated bias to advocate for generic drugs over brand-name ones.

Other nonprofits, who at first were keeping an arm’s length, are now commenting favorably about the relationship. And govern- ment and nonprofit watchdog groups have expressed no concern about the relationship. Certainly, open communication and educa- tion about the project is vital.

But what does this project mean in real numbers to the Arthri- tis Foundation? First, although Arthritis Foundation’” Pain Reliev- ers has been a high-profile effort, it is only one of many different strategies used by the Arthritis Foundation. In fact, McNeil Con- sumer Products is just one of more than twenty corporate sponsors with whom the Arthri t is Foundation has built relationships.

. Still, Arthritis Foundation” Pain Relievers are very important because they reach a new and targeted market for the Arthritis Foundation and address in a unique way a number of important issues related to our mission. To date, the Arthritis Foundation has received more than fourteen thousand phone calls for infor- mation from the toll-free number listed on the packages. We also have received more than thirty-two thousand new members from the package inserts. These are only those we can track through our national efforts. Our chapters have seen an increase in phone

CAUSE-BRANDING 139

calls and memberships that we may assume are local effects of the project.

Beyond the direct product benefits, advertising has increased awareness of the Arthritis Foundation among the general public and people with the disease. Other corporations also now view the Arthritis Foundation as a major nonprofit with whom to consider building their own relationships.

The initial reaction from our other pharmaceutical sponsors about this relationship was at first shock and then understanding. All remained supportive except one. And even that one company has now reversed its position and is about to sign on to another excit- ing nationwide project with the Arthritis Foundation. In fact, the value of a relationship with the Arthritis Foundation has increased because of the new level of recognition the organization has.

This heightened profile has had residual effects in the form of increases in our other fundraising efforts. For example, despite free memberships available through product purchases, our direct-mail membership program has actually produced increases this past year. There also have been no questions from current members about the availability of free memberships to others.

However, we now are about to reach a critical time period when we determine how many people who are taking advantage of the free memberships will renew as paying members for another year. We will begin that renewal process in a few months. This increase in associated fundraising and corporate sponsorship is, in turn, pay- ing for the increase in service users now newly aware of the orga- nization.

Is cause-branding the next step or misstep in the search for diversified income sources? Both outcomes are possible. However, I believe the key to successful cause-branding is to remain focused on mission. Fundraising is an essential component of being able to achieve an organization’s mission, but it isn’t the mission itself.

I offer six items for consideration with cause-branding relation- ships. First, make advancing the mission the litmus test for any rela- tionship. Second, have a true relationship with the corporate

140 ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES

partner: all parties should meet their objectives equally. The cor- poration must understand the nonprofit's mission and be willing to invest in the mission. The nonprofit organization must understand the needs of the corporation and be willing to see how its needs can be met without compromising the nonprofit's own standards.

Third, during the decision process, include everyone possible in order to see all sides of the issue. Start with the volunteer executive board and staff, and expand the circle gradually. This gives an opportunity for major problematic issues to be resolved before going forward to a new group of people with fresh insight that could flag new concerns. By eventually involving the entire organization in the decision, you are able to evaluate every possible detail and ramification of the agreement. It still may not remove every voice of concern, but it will provide a basic level of comfort and will guar- antee that the organization as a whole supports the effort.

Fourth, recognize that in any relationship there are risks. Make sure that there are as many safeguards as possible to minimize the risks-whether they are financial or reputational. For example, every aspect of marketing, advertising, or communication about Arthritis Foundation'" Pain Relievers is reviewed by the Arthritis Foundation before the public sees it, and is compared against spe- cific advertising guidelines created during negotiations. Also, the research funds generated are tracked on a separate line item, and 100 percent of it goes directly to grants funding research, not for any administrative or overhead expenses.

Fifth, although you must exercise due diligence and make sure the agreement is appropriate, move the process along quickly or the opportunity will disappear. Corporations must know that a nonprofit can work with them in a competitive environment. How well you move along the approval path together gives an indication of how well you can work together after the project has been implemented. For example, the entire Arthritis Foundation'" Pain Relievers project, from the very first idea in someone's mind to hav- ing a product on a shelf for purchase, took a total of only ten months. Believe me, that was a lot of work in a short time.

CAUSE-BRANDING 141

And sixth, once all questions are answered to your satisfaction, don’t be afraid to take the risk. There will be no rewards if you don’t take risks a t times. Commit to the project completely and without reservation.

Not-for-profit organizations have a high calling and a unique role in America. It is to us that so many look for answers and solu- tions. We are to many the only source of help and hope when the rest of the nation may otherwise not have the inclination to focus attention, time, and resources on a particular problem. We also are rightly held to a high level of conduct. The public expects us, as stewards of the public trust, to be above reproach.

It is a noble task that we undertake. But we and the public must recognize that we live in a changing world needing fresh approaches to meet increasing demands. If we take our mission seriously, it is no longer business as usual. To make a difference in people’s lives, we must act with passion and zeal.

We must not shy away from new efforts simply because they offer some risk or haven’t been done before. But we must not blindly rush into ill-conceived projects in the hopes of obtaining a windfall of new dollars.

Is cause-branding the next step or misstep? The answer is yes. Which one is up to each of us.

DON L. RIGGIN ispresident of the Arthritis Foundation national office in Atlanta, Georgia.