Cause Marketing; American Express at the Forbidden City

Last year, I found myself in Beijing on business. My colleagues and I used our free time to explore the Forbidden City, among other local highlights. It was there, inside the walls of that sacred place, that I happened upon the sign you see in the photo. It provides a brief explanation of the Hall of Union and Peace, and alerts visitors that the building (perhaps it's restoration?) was "Made Possible by the American Express Company." Overlooking the fact that their exact role is....unclear, it's a great example of American Express' global efforts to support cultural initiatives.

Wikipedia describes Cause Marketing as "a type of marketing involving the cooperative efforts of a "for profit" business and a non-profit organization for mutual benefit." The wiki author also ascribes credit to American Express, which first used the term to "describe efforts to support locally based charitable causes in a way that also promoted business."

Cause marketing has long been regarded as a great example of mutually beneficial corporate benevolence; The organization or people on the receiving end benefit, as does the corporation supporting them. In the case of the Forbidden City, we can assume the Chinese government or a restoration committee received funds to restore or preserve the building, and others like it throughout the palace compound. Clearly, they benefited. What did American Express gain? Given the millions of tourists and native Chinese who pass through those walls, one might assume the sponsorship created millions of global consumers who now have a positive association with the brand.

If they had chosen to ONLY support this one institution, we could perhaps fault American Express for supporting a communist regime, or question whether this was the most deserving beneficiary. But, in fact it was probably part of a much larger effort: The World Monuments Fund, of which American Express is a key sponsor. By pursuing a partnership with scale, they've done more than create a bit of goodwill among Forbidden City visitors; They've established themselves as a global, culturally enlightened and enlivened brand.

What it is

In 1970, Milton Friedman published a piece in the New York Times Magazine entitled "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits". He argued vociferously that the exclusive role of the modern corporation was to make money. He believed that businessmen arguing in favor of internalizing and pursuing a social mission were "preach­ing pure and unadulterated socialism". He quotes himself, ending with this excerpt from his book: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." To prioritize social responsibility ahead of profits was to lose sight of the very reason corporations came to be.

But, I want to understand whether today the two - making money and doing good - are perhaps inextricably linked? And is that okay? Do we accept when the brands we love do good because they benefit from it, or do we hope they'll do good simply because its the "right" thing? When do they do the latter, and when the former? The modern consumer is increasingly anthropomorphizing brands - projecting onto them human characteristics and emotions. Has that contributed to a sense that companies - like people - should do what is "right" rather than acting only in their own self-interest? And what is the prevailing opinion around what makes for "right"? In Friedman's day, it included conceding to labor union demands. Today, it's ethical labor and environmental practices, cause marketing, pro bono work, community outreach, sustainable development, "accessibility" and a host of other terms already or yet to be coined that I haven't encountered yet.

This blog will log my circuitous musings on all of those topics. It's one woman's study of corporate benevolence.