<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Spectrum of Givers: Consumers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brigidslipka.com/2010/06/spectrum-of-givers-consumers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brigidslipka.com/2010/06/spectrum-of-givers-consumers/</link>
	<description>...writings on giving &#38; living</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2011 06:54:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brigid</title>
		<link>http://www.brigidslipka.com/2010/06/spectrum-of-givers-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>Brigid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:29:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.actuallygiving.com/?p=1074#comment-256</guid>
		<description>Hey Holt!  First, I love the idea that not accepting a tax-deduction makes a gift MORE Gifty.  This is nice.  (Although I stick with my overall point that cause marketing isn&#039;t giving.  You may not have walked away from the register with a tax-deduction, but you DID walk away with an ipod, e.g.)

I responded more fully on Joe&#039;s blog but I&#039;ll sum up quickly here: a transaction that generates goodwill is a gift.  A transaction that generates wealth is capitalism.  Both can be revenue streams for a nonprofit&#039;s bottom line.  But only the first one is a gift.

I&#039;m appreciating learning all the ins and outs of CM, so thanks for swinging by.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Holt!  First, I love the idea that not accepting a tax-deduction makes a gift MORE Gifty.  This is nice.  (Although I stick with my overall point that cause marketing isn&#8217;t giving.  You may not have walked away from the register with a tax-deduction, but you DID walk away with an ipod, e.g.)</p>
<p>I responded more fully on Joe&#8217;s blog but I&#8217;ll sum up quickly here: a transaction that generates goodwill is a gift.  A transaction that generates wealth is capitalism.  Both can be revenue streams for a nonprofit&#8217;s bottom line.  But only the first one is a gift.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m appreciating learning all the ins and outs of CM, so thanks for swinging by.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holt Murray</title>
		<link>http://www.brigidslipka.com/2010/06/spectrum-of-givers-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-254</link>
		<dc:creator>Holt Murray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.actuallygiving.com/?p=1074#comment-254</guid>
		<description>First, full disclosure: I work with Joe Waters&#039;, from whose blog (debating this point) I found your post.  That said, you&#039;ll find numerous comments on his blog-posts in which I 100% differ in opinion with Joe.  So, anyway...

I&#039;m always glad to see Cause Marketing discussed as a topic, because I think the more people that learn about the values (and downsides; heck, everything has a downside) of CM, the better.  However, on its face, your definition and examples of cause marketing are narrow and incomplete: &#039;...a portion of the sale’s proceeds will be contributed to charity&#039;, is merely a slice in the Cause Marketing pie.  

Whether you believe that is the end all/be all of Cause Marketing, or it was an incorrect truism (all % of sales are Cause Marketing, but not all Cause Marketing is % of sales), you take away from your own argument by that genarlization. Either way, I still don&#039;t agree w/ you, so, again, anyway...

In this case you&#039;re right.  People can&#039;t choose the charity, BUT they can choose to give.  Studies have shown that given the choice between two similar products with similar prices, they choose the one that gives more often than not.  They&#039;re choosing the one that gives to a charity &amp; without making that choice the charity gets less.  Gift.

It looks like the foundational sticking point to calling it a gift is that it benefits a for-profit.  Which is highly understandable, as we&#039;ve seen some for-profits that shirk responsibilities at the expense of others *cough-BP-cough*.  Cause Marketing will never replace straight donations and gift-giving, but when a gift is delivered to a non-prof&#039;s door, even if it helped a for-profit, I&#039;m not going to reflexively look that gift-horse in the mouth.

There&#039;s no tax-deduction for buying.  This actually makes the case that this is a true gift, as people are doing it to do good, not to get back or a tax deduction; I&#039;m not too worried that the gov&#039;t doesn&#039;t consider it a gift -- I don&#039;t get a deduction when I give my friend a gift for his birthday, but I&#039;m gonna still call it a gift.
Gift.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, full disclosure: I work with Joe Waters&#8217;, from whose blog (debating this point) I found your post.  That said, you&#8217;ll find numerous comments on his blog-posts in which I 100% differ in opinion with Joe.  So, anyway&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m always glad to see Cause Marketing discussed as a topic, because I think the more people that learn about the values (and downsides; heck, everything has a downside) of CM, the better.  However, on its face, your definition and examples of cause marketing are narrow and incomplete: &#8216;&#8230;a portion of the sale’s proceeds will be contributed to charity&#8217;, is merely a slice in the Cause Marketing pie.  </p>
<p>Whether you believe that is the end all/be all of Cause Marketing, or it was an incorrect truism (all % of sales are Cause Marketing, but not all Cause Marketing is % of sales), you take away from your own argument by that genarlization. Either way, I still don&#8217;t agree w/ you, so, again, anyway&#8230;</p>
<p>In this case you&#8217;re right.  People can&#8217;t choose the charity, BUT they can choose to give.  Studies have shown that given the choice between two similar products with similar prices, they choose the one that gives more often than not.  They&#8217;re choosing the one that gives to a charity &amp; without making that choice the charity gets less.  Gift.</p>
<p>It looks like the foundational sticking point to calling it a gift is that it benefits a for-profit.  Which is highly understandable, as we&#8217;ve seen some for-profits that shirk responsibilities at the expense of others *cough-BP-cough*.  Cause Marketing will never replace straight donations and gift-giving, but when a gift is delivered to a non-prof&#8217;s door, even if it helped a for-profit, I&#8217;m not going to reflexively look that gift-horse in the mouth.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no tax-deduction for buying.  This actually makes the case that this is a true gift, as people are doing it to do good, not to get back or a tax deduction; I&#8217;m not too worried that the gov&#8217;t doesn&#8217;t consider it a gift &#8212; I don&#8217;t get a deduction when I give my friend a gift for his birthday, but I&#8217;m gonna still call it a gift.<br />
Gift.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why Aren't Cause Marketing Gifts Real Gifts?</title>
		<link>http://www.brigidslipka.com/2010/06/spectrum-of-givers-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-253</link>
		<dc:creator>Why Aren't Cause Marketing Gifts Real Gifts?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.actuallygiving.com/?p=1074#comment-253</guid>
		<description>[...] at Actually Giving doesn&#8217;t think cause marketing gifts are real gifts. &#8221;Despite what consumers (and the product marketers) would like to believe, these [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] at Actually Giving doesn&#8217;t think cause marketing gifts are real gifts. &#8221;Despite what consumers (and the product marketers) would like to believe, these [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Spectrum of Givers: Consumers – Actually Giving -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.brigidslipka.com/2010/06/spectrum-of-givers-consumers/comment-page-1/#comment-251</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Spectrum of Givers: Consumers – Actually Giving -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.actuallygiving.com/?p=1074#comment-251</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Heidi Massey, Christine Egger. Christine Egger said: @peterdeitz fyi the ripples of Social Actions pebbles continue... reference to embedded giving blog post series here :) http://bit.ly/apYHQm [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Heidi Massey, Christine Egger. Christine Egger said: @peterdeitz fyi the ripples of Social Actions pebbles continue&#8230; reference to embedded giving blog post series here <img src='http://www.brigidslipka.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  <a href="http://bit.ly/apYHQm" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/apYHQm</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

