As I acknowledge above, using charity to get attention from people who otherwise wouldn’t even consider your product is advertising, like any other, and that is value added. So again, I’m not saying FreePledge is worthless. But it’s only useful to the extent that it’s *getting attention* rather than being used as a tool by consumers to get more donations going. To the extent that consumers say “I’ll shop through FreePledge because I am explicitly using giving as a criterion for what I buy,” they are going to end up being the donors.

In addition, nonprofits will get a much larger portion of the corporate budget compared to the relatively small portion they get from a cause marketing campaign.

I almost never think that what I’m saying is black-and-white correct. This is an exception, pretty much. There is some nuance, but no real subjectivity … it is a matter of understanding economics.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some retailers begin increasing the commission they’ll pay to FreePledge. Imagine if Staples was offering 15% to FreePledge (10% to charity) and Office Max was offering 5% to FreePledge (3.5% to charity). As a small business owner I can vouch for the idea that I would be compelled to at least try Staples if I was an Office Max customer.

Giving to charity can be a way to get attention, just like running a TV spot or a stunt. To the extent FreePledge provides this (i.e., brings in NEW consumers by grabbing their attention, not by plugging a charitable relationship as an actual reason to buy a certain product), it’s benefiting the charities.

But any consumer who fancies that they’re helping the world by using FreePledge should consider that by the time they’re being purposeful about it, they’re asking that they be paid for paying. That part is the hocus pocus. There is some of both in the model.

Your comment is right that there is a cost for retailers. However marketing and advertising cost money, a lot of money. The question is which is the more effective way to spend marketing dollars. Would it be 10% to all affiliates (affiliate marketing is big and not going away)? Or similar amount or more on inhouse marketing/advertising programs? Or 10% through a socially responsible channel like FreePledge.

We think there are benefits for retailers to go social. There is added stickiness because of nonprofit angle, as well as the image factor. There are examples of companies that do well in integrating their business and nonprofit outreach, Target, Avon etc come to mind.

Giving to charity costs money. It always costs someone money, so if you want to give, you may as well be the one to spend (and choose). In the end you will be anyway (i.e., if you demand that the people who transact with you give to charity, they’ll eventually just charge you for your demand). There doesn’t seem to me to be any way around this …

In Australia many grocery stores run a token system. Dollars spent equate to recieving tokens to be distributed into giving boxes of local charities.

Those token have a financial value that the grocery store then donates directly to the charity.
Sporting groups always appear to attract the majority of tokens. Child sexual abuse rates low on the giving scale….except when I shop!