Corporate "Philanthropy" & Chains That Bind

"Make gifts of money and you will not be long without chains."

---Jean Jacques Rousseau

Recently, I wrote about Poverty Pimps, people/jackals who feed off the decaying lives of the down-trodden. Since that time, I've been thinking about careers and jobs that are "philanthropic" and funded by large corporations. Corporate Philanthropy-----on the surface, it seems like an oxymoron. It doesn't seem natural or even legit. For some reason, when we hear the words Corporate Philanthropy, we innately feel queasy and sleazy. We know in the back of our minds, and we feel in our guts that no matter how good the philanthropic stories are, behind it all is some sleazy plan to make more money.

Always follow your gut instinct. Here are some numbers from 2005.....its a list of corporate Who's Who and they give away some large chunks of money to some seemingly good causes. But, if giving to the needy is truly philanthropic, why do companies require their logos, and photo ops and gratuitous press releases every time they DO GOOD? That's a rhetorical question. We all know its because they have to get something out of their 'investment'--mainly new customers.

Here are some reasons why Corporate Philanthropy is merely a combination of Poverty Pimping and Marketing:

1) First and foremost, companies are in the business of making money, not giving it away

2) Companies are in the business of business and NOT in the business of 'helping people'

3) Most companies view their donations of time and money to society as an INVESTMENT. This company changed the name of their Philanthropy program to "Public Benefit Investment." An INVESTMENT for whom?

4) The investment mentioned in #3 is, of course, made for positive public relations (PPR). There really is no cost that is too high for PPR.

5) PPR is cheap compared to TV commercials, magazine ads or web pop ups. A 30-second add for last year's super bowl was somewhere between $25 and $70 Million, depending upon where in the game it was placed. Compare that to the paltry $1 Million Philanthropic Foundations that many mega-corporations operate. If giving was done for the sake of giving, shouldn't those numbers be reversed?

6) Giving and Doing Good promotes DIFFERENTIATION in the marketplace. Paper towels are paper towels when you see them on the shelf in the grocery store, but wouldn't you REMEMBER and RECOGNIZE the Brawny brand if you heard they were helping illiterate adults learn how to read?

7) Giving is a great way to SPIN YOUR COMPANY IMAGE in the right direction. For example, The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a watchdog group, released a report in September 2004, The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-Interested Philanthropy, detailing the recent increase in Wal-Mart and Walton philanthropy and noting its likely relationship to the company's image problems. Indeed, the increase has been staggering. The Walton Family Foundation (WFF) gave away $106.9 million in 2003--twice as much as in 2000.

Not all corporate giving programs are inept, illegitimate or sleazy. Many are very helpful and truly ask for nothing in return because they GIVE ANONYMOUSLY. Those are the outfits you want to work for. Stay away from the "What's In It For Me" philanthropic programs---the ones that pound their chests and toot their horns whenever they "give back."

A client of mine, Joey, worked for a multi-national that leveraged philanthropic opportunities to "break into new markets." They constructed literacy programs to break into inner-city markets. They developed vo-tech programs for high schools to break into rural markets. They gave cash donations to unwed mothers to break into the female demographic. It was all very strategic....highly skilled planning was involved. Not from their VP of Corporate Giving, they didn't have one, all the planning came from their Marketing and Advertising gurus.

In Joey's words: "...the advertising guys reallocated about $25 Million that would have been spent on magazine and TV ads, and they said they wanted to throw some money at some social problems in the demographics that were lagging in sales. So they chose low-wage minority groups and women. They wanted to get their logo in front of these groups that really didn't know us, and since most of them didn't read magazines or even own a TV, this was the best way to get them and their families and friends to know us."

After the 'philanthropic advertising' was completed (sometimes in months, sometimes in years), Joey's company would cut the support cold turkey and move on to the next target demographic. They could be that brazen by just pulling out, they were a large multi-national with more money than God. After all, the people they helped were thankful they got any help at all, right?

Joey couldn't stomach the 'philanthropy business' and he became a high school principal. Education is as philanthropic as it gets!