Add new comment

In many publications, [[cause marketing]] and affinity marketing are defined as the same thing. * [http:www.elementsdesign.com/pdf/news/Cause_Marketing_2.07.pdf The Case for Cause Marketing] (pdf) * [http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2006/winter/47212/how-socialcause-marketing-affects-consumer-perceptions/ How Social-Cause Marketing Affects Consumer Perceptions] I doubt many readers would recognize or value the fine difference between a "PR strategy" and a "subset of PR." They are both PR. Sure, exploiting emotions for financial or policy gain is not illegal, and that is probably one reason why it is so pervasive. But I disagree with your opinion that exploiting people's emotions is never shady or deceptive. It is highly manipulative and just plain creepy. It's the kind of thing we at CMD strive to expose. As for CMD's fundraising appeals, if you look you will see they are very straightforward. We encourage people to evaluate our work, and make a donation if they find it valuable. Our appeal currently on [[SourceWatch]] says, quite plainly, "If you've found this information on the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda helpful, please make a tax-deductible donation now." That's it. No emotional appeals, no trickery. The strategy of exploiting emotion for gain hasn't been quantified, but it is easy to see it's in use more than, say 15-20 years ago. Cause marketing is exploitative, especially when it is overdone. It's value is derived from manipulating people through their emotions. Smith & Wesson's pink breast cancer awareness gun, KFC's "buckets for the cure" sales effort and Rite Aid's Go Red for Women campaign (in which Rite Aid claims it cares about heart health in women while continuing to sell cigarettes) are just a few examples of unethical, ridiculous cause marketing. Anne Landman