This is fourth year that The Aspen Institute has recognized "individuals who are working within companies to unite business growth with a sustainable society in the products and services they are developing." What's fascinating about this group is that many of the honorees appear to be overseeing cause marketing programs (of one form or another). Only one, however -- AOL, cites the role specifically.
Now you tell me....when you hear the word innovation, does AOL come to mind? I'm afraid not. AOL was, of course, one of the first vibrant communities online. But their inability to adapt to consumer behaviors and technology advances often positioned them at odds with their very constituents. As a series of shiny new platforms presented themselves, AOL became less and less relevant. Innovation hasn't been their strong suit for quite some time and despite their efforts in facilitating cause marketing through AOL Impact, it's hard to make the case now.
That said, my issue is with the AOL Impact program itself. Here's their reference in the article and how they describe the program:
"...is the Senior Director of Cause Marketing for AOL. She is responsible for the development and management of AOL's relationships with non-profit partners and the advertisers that support them. In this newly created position, ...key objectives are driving traffic and revenue growth at AOL, while increasing brand perception by connecting and informing their consumers on important causes...efforts have resulted in a centralized giving platform called AOL Impact, which provides custom high-reach marketing opportunities for non-profits and cause marketers across multiple arms of the company including AOL.com, AOL Mail, Patch and the Huffington Post."
By providing non-profit partners and "the advertisers that support them" with a giving platform an important criteria in cause marketing is lost --- the benefit to the consumer. Yes, AOL has "generously" (OK those are my quotes) reached out to a number of non-profits to support a presence on their platform(s), but the reason for doing so is focused on "driving traffic and revenue" for AOL. I would argue the real reason to do so is to provide a benefit to the public that extends the cause. There's nothing innovative about offering a non-profit a channel presence you then require they promote. A true innovation would focus more specifically on the benefit to the consumer and the measurable impact (or return) for the cause. A(nother) giving platform in an of itself is not enough.
The distinction is critical in this example. At this juncture, AOL still has work to do to earn this honor and it appears the Aspen Institute should be more discerning in their selection.
No comments:
Post a Comment