Where

A piece in today's Journal asks why charities are are not better at reporting results. It recommends:

• Foundations provide detailed information on their Websites, including boardmember bios
• Charities should explain to donors how they measure effectiveness and not impede existing efforts at self-regulation
• More charities should embrace rigorous forms of evaluation and report their findings publicly

The big hurdle, it says, is a culture of secrecy. However, a recent study found that high-net-worth Americans would give more if charities could better demonstrate results.

The takeaway: results of philanthropic efforts should be tangible, measurable, and clearly communicated to the public. When this is done, everyone wins--the charity, the public, and the people benefited by the cause.

Cause-Related Marketing: Catching On Worldwide

Over the past 20 years, I have watched cause-related marketing explode in popularity in the United States as consumers become more socially conscious. But now there is strong evidence that the goodwill bug is spreading. The new Edelman Goodpurpose™ study of nine countries shows that 85% of consumers are willing to change brands or their consumption habits to make tomorrow's world a better place. 37% believe they are more involved in good causes than they were two years ago. (For Brazil, the number is 63%!)

Multinationals, take heed: cause-marketing is no longer just for developed markets. It's a tool for engaging consumers the world over. The numbers are there.

On your newsstands now

The October issue of The Atlantic is titled The Values Issue. The cover story is an interview with Bill Clinton on his social philanthropy ventures. "The idea is to identify markets that aren't supplying enough beneficial goods or services to meet the potential demand, and then to lead them to a new equilibrium"--a business approach to philanthropy. The article raises questions about whether the traditional approach to philanthropy--the grantmaking foundation--meets today's needs. It's worth a read.

Another piece in the issue explores the genetic basis for altruism.

Pick up a copy at your local newsstand.

A Cast of Thousands (of Dollars for Wounded Soldiers)

This is what I call turning lemons into lemonade: Stephen Colbert broke his wrist when he had a spill during a audience warm-up. Instead of wearing a flesh-colored cast and downplaying his injury on camera, Colbert made comic hay out of his predicament. He even got his audience--and Brian Williams--to flaunt "WristStrong" bracelets to raise "wrist injury awareness" in a "WristWatch" campaign. Lest you think this is a cynical joke at the expense of cause-related merchandise programs, all proceeds from the sales of WristStrong bracelets to the Yellow Ribbon Fund, which assists injured service members and their families while they recuperate at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center by offering free cab vouchers, hotel rooms, apartments, rental cars, job mentoring, internships, and tickets to sporting and cultural events. Now that Colbert's cast is off, it's on the eBay block; last I checked, the bid was upwards of $11,000. The cast is signed by Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg, Brian Williams, Katie Couric, and Colbert's idol, Bill O'Reilly. (Bidding ends on September 3rd.)

As far as I am aware, this is the first cause-related-marketing campaign that pokes fun of cause-related marketing. At the same time, it follows all the rules of CRM; Colbert picked a cause that fits the super-patriotic persona of his alter ego, while burnishing his brand and actually helping wounded soldiers and their families. The tongue is planted firmly in cheek, but the heart is in the right place. Only Colbert could get away with it. Now hurry up and bid on the wrist cast.

Brooke Astor Dead at 105

RIP to Brooke Astor, a great lady who did so much to enrich New York's museums, libraries, boys' and girls' clubs, homes for the elderly, churches, landmarks and other institutions and programs. Here's hoping that our new century brings more heiresses in the mold of Brooke Astor than Paris Hilton. Astor gave so much to New York, and our city is richer for it.

CNBC does a great wrap-up of Super Saturday Live last weekend, the Hamptons designer event broadcast on QVC to benefit the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. Kudos to all the wonderful people that put this event together!

Media Alert: I'm quoted in this CNN Money story comparing private equity philanthropy overseas and in the US: "Private equity: Scrooge no longer."

My quote: "Private equity firms are very concerned about making any statements. They are being very circumspect," said Stephen Adler, chief executive of Charity Brands Marketing, a New York firm that advises private equity firms and hedge funds on giving. "They're all about being under the radar."

CNN journalist Grace Wong makes an excellent point about US private equity philanthropists needing to take a page from their counterparts across the pond.

Hedge Funds Write the Rulebook in Philanthropy

Think that Bill Gates and the dot-commers are going to be the major drivers of philanthropy in the coming decades?

Consider this, then: In 2003, the biggest family foundations created by hedge fund managers was $360 million. In 2005, it jumped to $1.6 billion. About $1.3 trillion is currently invested in hedge funds. Hedge funds trade more each day than most companies make in a year, and the boom shows no signs of busting.

With this kind of wealth, hedge funds are writing the new rulebook in the philanthropy game, and, for better or for worse, charities that don't study the new rules will get left in the cold in the 21st century. What are the new rules?

1. Performance must be measurable. Whether the philanthropy is nonprofit or for-profit, hedge fund philanthropists like quantifiable results. Charities like the Global Fund, which uses a performance-based model and sets tangible targets, do well. Charities with a vague mission and no metrics lose.
2. Take risks and take on debt. On the financial side, the new kids on the board like to run a charity the way they run their hedge funds. Greater risks yield greater returns.
3. Spare no expense in fundraising. From Bill Clinton to Prince, no star is too big to make an appearance at a hedge fund charity fundraiser. This kind of lavish fundraising rankles some of the old guard in the nonprofit world, but the hedge fund executives are calling the shots.

Some of the prominent hedge fund philanthropic organizations that are shaking up the field: Robin Hood Foundation, Hedge Funds Care, A Leg to Stand On (ALTSO), High Water Women, 100 Women in Hedge Funds, and, in Europe, Absolute Return for Kids (ARK).

Venture Philanthropy and the War on Terror

Venture philanthropy has its champions and detractors. Detractors say capitalism and charity shouldn't mix. Proponents say it applies principles of accountability much needed in the nonprofit sector. Oh, and it may also be a potent weapon in the war on terror.

Stop the presses. Venture philanthropy fights terrorism? So implies moderate religious leader, venture philanthropist, and businessman the Aga Khan in a piece in Sunday's New York Times. The Aga Khan is chairman of Akfed (the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development), a strategic for-profit philanthropy. Akfed, which funds projects such as hydroelectric dam systems in poor, underdeveloped countries like Uganda, is "developing protection against extremism," in his words, by creating a way out of poverty. Poverty, according to Khan, "is the driver of tragic despair, and there is the possibility that any way out will be taken."

Kudos to the Aga Khan and others who follow in his footsteps. It is well-known that extremists have made inroads in the Muslim world through their philanthropy, building schools and community centers, so it is heartening to find out that moderate Muslims are seeing to it that religious extremists no longer have the market cornered.

As Oxford economist Paul Collier says, "He gets a multiplier effect from his investments that's really lacking in foreign aid."

If one of the effects is reducing terrorism, that's a mighty big return on his investment--one in which we are all shareholders.

Good Giving

A new analysis of trends in philanthropy by GivingUSA demonstrates a trend away from individual giving and towards private foundations. "A decade ago they represented 8.5% of philanthropic dollars (two decades ago, 7%). Today they represent 12.4%." This is a good thing because structured giving demands accountability and responsible stewardship. And that's a plus for the giver and the recipient.

"International affairs giving is about $11 billion, of which about 74% is for international development." About $5 billion of this goes to pay for vaccines in impoverished nations. This is heartwarming news, as worthy organizations such as The Global Fund need all the funding they can get to spread hope.

Ovarian Cancer Breakthrough

15,000 women die every year from ovarian cancer. Only 50% of women with the disease survive longer than five years, in large part because only a quarter of women with the disease are diagnosed in the early stages.

But that could change in 2007.

Experts have reported a potential breakthrough in ovarian cancer detection, with a checklist of symptoms that every woman on the planet must study like a bible.

Supporters of ovarian cancer research should be proud of themselves. They can celebrate at the 10th annual Super Saturday on July 28, the must-attend annual Hamptons event featuring a garage sale with donated clothing and accessories from over 200 top designers, hosted this year by Kelly Ripa. The event is organized by the tireless, amazing women at the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, a client of mine. If you can't make it to the Hamptons this year, watch it on QVC, which will be covering the event and offering fantastic designer deals to viewers, the proceeds of which will benefit cancer research like the kind that led to today's exciting breakthrough.

SOS - Nonprofit Health Care

The nonprofit hospital industry is in trouble. According to a report from onPhilanthropy, various pressures, including an increasing rise in uninsured patients and an aging population are putting a strain on the system. The rise in philanthropic contributions has not kept up with the needs of the nonprofit healthcare system. Can philanthropists meet these challenges as the cost of technology and caring for the uninsured rises? Time will tell, but one thing is sure: the answer will shape the raging healthcare insurance debate in Washington in the next couple of years.

The New Kids on the Board...Hedge Fund Philanthropists

A recent Wall Street Journal piece, titled "Hedge Funds Roil Charity Fundraising," describes how hedge fund managers on charity boards have shaken up the old guard with their encouragement of risk and debt, hosting of flashy galas, and emphasis on fundraising at what some see as at the expense of service. A charity's mission is always paramount, but the bottom line is that these unorthodox fundraising methods are drastically improving the bottom line for groups like Big Brothers Big Sisters. (Says Judith Vredenburgh, Big Brothers chief executive: "If we want to serve more kids, we've got to invest in fundraising, not only service." Under Vredenburgh's tenure, revenue has risen 61%.) A few weeks ago I spoke of how the hedge fund industry is missing a major mega-philanthropist. (Where's the Buffett?) It is pleasing that hedge fund managers have made their grand entrance into the charity world. It's a start. They may frighten people by using the same approach they use in their day jobs, but that approach has made them insanely rich. Short of unethical activities (and the hedge fund industry is notorious for such, so this is something to watch for), how could a charity complain?

Memorial Mess

I've written previously about the importance of supporting veterans' charities in the wake of the Walter Reed scandal. But caveat donor. This Palm Beach Post article, in which I'm quoted, is about The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation, which is charged with building a monument in Washington DC for the nation's 30 million veterans, is up to its eyeballs in debt and mired in an ugly family squabble. 88 cents on the dollar is spent on fundraising.
As I told the reporter, "The numbers tell the story, and that's not an acceptable number for a nonprofit."

Heart Health: A Cause for Alarm

"Medical research has revealed enough about the causes and prevention of heart attacks that they could be nearly eliminated." So why do nearly half a million people die from a heart attack each year? Today's New York Times explores this in a sobering article. Here are some reasons:

• The single biggest delay in treatment is from the onset of symptoms and calling 911. People don't want to be seen as alarmist or don't want to get the ambulance bill.
  
• Most people have a misconception of what a heart attack is from the classic Hollywood portrayal of "a man clutching his chest, grimacing in pain, and going down," when it's often just pressure, heaviness, and shortness of breath, or even discomfort elsewhere in the upper body, including arms, back, neck, and stomach.
  
• Up to 40% of heart attack patients are getting the wrong dose of blood-thinning prescription drugs, usually too high.
• Patients' primary doctors don't get enough information to know they have to fill a prescription.
• Patients stop taking their medication because taking a lot of pills lowers their self-image.

The article and its accompanying sidebars fail to fully explore the ramifications of calling an ambulance every time you feel discomfort in your upper body (say, your arm or your stomach). After all, sometimes a stomachache is just a stomachache. Is the piece saying that one should call an ambulance every time one feels upper body discomfort? There needs to be a sharper criterion for gauging heart attack symptoms, or that gap between heart attack onset and 911 will not narrow.

However, this is an important article. Awareness needs to continue to be raised about heart disease and prevention, or all the technological advances in the world will not lessen its casualty numbers.

Cancer Research at a Crossroads

Cancer seems to be on every cover this week, due to the unfortunate recurrences of the illness for two brave people in the political arena, Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow. If there is any good that will come out of this, it is that people are stepping back and evaluating where billions of dollars of cancer research has gotten us. Many salient questions are being asked. Here's just a sample from the Sunday Times:

"Why does [recurrence] still happen?"
"Has the profit motive gotten in the way of finding a cure for cancer or better treatment?"
"What if the best treatments are the cheapest?"
"Why don't we have more to show for this generous effort?"

One of the most interesting questions is asked by Susan Love, president and medical director of the Susan Love Research Foundation: "Why do we lack new approaches?" The answer is not pretty. She says that experienced clinicians are shut out of research because "it is difficult to obtain a grant to do research if you haven't spent your career in the laboratory." She also criticizes a peer review system that stifles innovation. According to Love, "wild hunches" that might lead to a breakthrough if pursued are ignored because no one wants to make a poor investment.

The budget of the National Cancer Institute has increased to $4.8 billion, and private donations have likewise increased. Bravo, but it's time to rethink our approach, not just to cancer research, but to cancer research funding. If risk-averse strategies are not getting us results, it's time for us to invest in innovative strategies. In the fight against cancer, results cannot come soon enough.

Tax Crackdown on the Latest Charitable Cheats

In the past the IRS has cracked down on donors of cars in bad condition to charity. Who are the latest charitable tax dodgers that the IRS is casting its lines for?

According to a tip from Marketwatch, the IRS is eyeing donor-advised funds as the next charitable-cheating scheme. When used correctly, donor-advised funds allow donors to control how a charity uses their money without incurring the expenses of a foundation. However, the IRS is concerned that some are using these funds for personal gain. For example, a person could give to a university, and then designate the funds to be used for financial aid for his or her child. The IRS intends to nip this in the bud.

Unfortunately, everyone loses from these money-laundering schemes. Genuine philanthropists might be frightened to use donor-advised funds as a legitimate and flexible tool for directing their donations, and then charity loses out. This is a shame.

Hedge Fund Philanthropy: Where's the Buffett?

The hedge fund industry has two faces. There is the bad face. On Friday, a former hedge-fund manager Imperium Advisors LLC agreed to pay almost $120,000 to settle charges that it violated securities rules. This is only the most recent scandal that has tarred the hedge fund industry.

As long as there are bad actors like these in the hedge fund industry, hedge fund philanthropy will fail to repair the industry's image. It doesn't help that although hedge fund money has built many mega-mansions, it has failed to build a foundation on the order of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There is no Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, or Warren Buffett in the hedge fund industry.

Then there is the good face. Some do-gooders are attempting to change the perception of hedge fund managers as a band of robber barons--as well as fill a social need. Rob Davis, a founder of Hedge Funds Care, a nine-year-old charity, tell the New York Times: "we may have failed to change the perception of hedge funds, but I think we've succeeded in helping children." The Robin Hood Foundation, a well known hedge fund charity, raised $48 million at its annual benefit dinner last year. These charities are respected and have a solid results-oriented approach to philanthropy. However, there seem to be fewer Rob Davises than Kirk Wrights in the hedge fund world. Kirk Wright is a hedge fund CEO who went on the lam last year after $100 million in investment funds disappeared. Until more hedge fund managers put their talents in the service of good rather than evil, "hedge fund" will remain synonomous with scandal, not altruism.

If the Dow Drops, Will Corporate Giving Drop? Look to the Mortgage Industry

The mortgage securities bubble is about to burst, and investors are worried. Charities should be worried, too. Will the industry maintain its commitment to fighting homelessness and poverty? We'll be watching like hawks, because the Dow is rebounding, but still shaky. If the industry drops its support of critical causes, that will be a bad augur for corporate philanthropy overall. Corporate giving in 2006 was $19.7 billion. Will corporate commitments to causes be sustained?

At first blush, Fannie Mae's decision to close its foundation appears to be a bad omen. The closing happens just as the government-sponsored enterprise, rocked by accounting scandals, announced it will cut operating expenses by 200% compared with 2006. Since 1979, the Foundation spent over $1 billion to fight homelessness, increase the supply of affordable homes nationwide and increase the quality of life in its hometown of Washington, DC. Will causes be left in the cold?

Fortunately, Fannie Mae is replacing its foundation with a new internal giving office. It closed the foundation to deflect criticism that Fannie Mae was using its tax exempt status to advance corporate interests and skirt campaign finance and lobbying laws. The new office plans to expand the foundation's "help the homeless" initiative beyond Washington to five major cities.

Let's hope so. If the mortgage securities industry balks on its social responsibility, that's not a good harbinger for Wall Street at large. Corporate giving is not a fair-weather commitment, and corporations must sustain their level of social responsibility--come rain or come shine.

Vets Need a Hand--Who Will Lend it?

Last week I spoke here and on CNBC about how Toyota could generate good will among the red-state patriots by supporting veterans' organizations. Well look what's in the news.

The treatment of veterans at Walter Reed and other outpatient facilities has brought shame on the military system, and deservedly so. While I don't for a minute think the pressure should let up on the Pentagon and current administration to take care of our nation's wounded, there is an opportunity for corporate America to lend a helping hand to returning vets who were lucky enough to survive Iraq and Afghanistan but unlucky enough to face a broken treatment system. Let's look at some of the problems these vets are facing: Facilities in disrepair. Home Depot could sponsor a volunteer initiative to fix up quarters for outpatients and their families and generate good will at the same time. Families of outpatients lack proper accommodations. Marriott could provide help in this area. Disabled vets who have difficulty transporting themselves to their doctor's appointments could get transportation assistance from Toyota and General Motors. The facilities need equipment and proper networks. IBM and Xerox can provide solutions. Similarly, mobile phone companies can provide communications solutions.

Of course, we're only touching on the iceberg of the problems these vets face. If I were CEO of a Fortune 50 right now, I would be contacting veterans' organizations such as AMVETS and asking them: How can we help you? What do the vets need that we can provide? If it takes starting a foundation, start a foundation. What company wouldn't benefit from a banner at that ribbon-cutting ceremony? Then follow through, and gain the gratitude of vets and the public at large.

Again, don't take the heat off the government to do it's job. But corporate giving at its best meets a need at the right place and the right time. If there ever was a right place, a right time, and a right cause, this is it. Who will be the first to step to the plate?

And now for something slightly different...

Media alert: This is not a cause-marketing post, but I'm in the cover story of the real estate section of tomorrow's New York Times. (My Trump Parc apartment is on the market. The article is about apartment buildings that don't allow open houses. Find out what side I'm on and why.)

TV & radio appearances re Toyota

Breaking news: I'll be on CNBC TV today at 2:00 pm offering my advice to Toyota on corporate giving. If you miss it, you can catch me on Money Matters tomorrow at 10:20 AM on the Financial News Radio Network discussing the same topic.

Update: The Money Matters spot has been rescheduled to 10:20 AM Wednesday March 7th (probably because of the stock market correction).

Toyota and Apple Pie

Toyota is the big business news story these days. Global projections indicate that it will soon to overtake General Motors as the world's largest car company.

No one's afraid of being number one--unless you're a Japanese carmaker and half of your profits come from the U.S. of A. "We constantly need to think about the potential backlash," Toyota CEO tells Business Week in next's week's top story. Fearing this patriotic backlash, Toyota has ramped up its social responsibility quotient: funding literacy programs, dispatching efficiency gurus to local hospitals, giving gifts to neuroscience, and sponsoring environmental awards. Still, the Nascar crowd has no truck with Toyota, Japanophobia rages, and Toyota is gaining no traction in the heartland. Only 15% of Toyota's total US sales are in the Midwest. Toyota has only 5% share of the Texas pickup market and 11% of the Midwest market, despite a 17% national share.

What kind of cause-marketing program should Toyota develop to woo the NASCAR dads? Reducing greenhouse gases will get you nowhere with this crowd, many of whom even think the global warming theory is full of hot air. Toyota's literacy program benefiting Hispanics in San Antonio is great, but it's probably not the Hispanic immigrants who are avoiding Japanese cars for patriotic reasons.

My advice to Toyota: Think Mom and apple pie. Go after the causes dear to these people's hearts. Veterans' and military families' organizations. Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Pentagon Memorial Fund.

Also, get the staff to volunteer in local schools so that they get visibility in local communities, and locals see that the good people of Toyota are the people next door.

Toyota should still maintain its environmental programs, of course, since its image has received a couple of nicks in that area. Support evidence-based research and energy programs in local schools. But most of all, stick to the Mom and Apple Pie formula. Toyota can't cure xenophobia, but it can outpatriot the patriots.

-Steve Adler

Organic Fare Pairing Fares Well

Fitness, nutrition, and health are three of the nation's chief preoccupations, and now the country's purveyors of granola and tofu, Whole Foods and Wild Oats, are becoming one.

Pardon me for kvelling about a client, but this demonstrates the reach of America on the Move (AOM) , a national initiative to help individuals and communities across the nation make positive changes to improve health and quality of life. AOM is expanding into every community and every household that is interested in healthy eating.

Shares of Whole Foods and Wild Oats had suffered last year when mainstream grocers boosted their organic fare, but today, stock in both companies soared. How do you like them organic apples?

I'm thrilled that the two health chains have teamed up to put more healthy food on our table so we can live more sustainable lifestyles.
-Steve Adler

Altria: doing good, or blowing smoke?

Altria has employed massive do-gooding to compensate for its bad-doing. The arts patron formerly known as Philip Morris has given $210 million to cultural groups over the last four decades. As part of its restructuring, Altria will be phasing out its support of the arts, according to a report in today's New York Times. The impact on the arts community will be huge. Next year, only half of the tobacco giant's 272 current arts grantees will be lucky enough to receive the embers of Altria's arts funding. The following year, the funding will be almost completely stubbed out.

This is outrageous. No company needs to demonstrate its corporate responsibility more than Altria, and it has done so as a major arts patron. They are now showing the skin on the other side by turning their back on cultural institutions.

Perhaps the former arts grantees should band together and put on a grand performance--at Altria's headquarters. Something to the tune of asking Altria if all the good they did was purely to influence the stock for its Kraft Foods spinoff.

Shame on Altria.
-Steve Adler

Causes Compa(red)

This Valentine's Day, two Reds are wooing the hearts of shoppers: Product Red to fight AIDS, and the American Heart Association's Go Red campaign. While this has the potential to confuse shoppers, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Both are cause-related marketing campaigns to fight disease. The positive exposure Product Red gets can only burnish AHA's brand, and vice versa. (Likewise with negative exposure, but that hasn't happened.) Direct competition is unlikely. In other words, if a shopper buys a Red T-shirt, it doesn't mean she won't buy a Red Dress Swarovski pin.
-Steve Adler

Measuring Magnanimity

As the demand for information about corporate do-gooding has skyrocketed, so too has the number of websites comparing companies' social consciousness. From the Dow Jones Sustainability Index to Do the Right Thing, everyone has a method for measuring social responsibility. Too much of a good thing measuring good things? According to the Harvard Business Review, "the existing cacophany of self-appointed scorekeepers does little more than add to the confusion...The result is a jumble of largely meaningless rankings, allowing almost any company to boast that it meets some measure of social responsibility - and most do." This doesn't mean social responsibility isn't worth measuring. David Cohn at newassignment.net summarizes Harvard Business Review's solution as this: to give the consumers, employees and everyday people the tools to rate a company’s social impact. This is exactly what the CBM Corporate Giving Index, described in my book, does.
-Steve Adler

Charity's Tax Rewards

Charity is its own reward--but don't forget the tax benefits. As you start your tax planning for 2007, there are a couple of changes in the law you should be aware of:

If you're over 70 1/2, a new law allows you to make a contribution of up to $100,000 directly from your IRA. This law is limited to 2006 and 2007. There's no deduction, but the money will not be counted as taxpayer's income. This is good for social security recipients, whose benefits are not taxed until they reach a certain income level.

Another new law requires written documentation for all monetary donations, including cash, starting in 2007. From Charity Navigator: "In case of an audit, you must have a canceled check, credit card statement or a written acknowledgement from the charity (showing the charity's name, the date of the donation and the amount given)."

This new law will probably negatively affect churches and other charities that use donation buckets or canisters, as you now need a receipt to back up your deduction claims.

Give an appreciated stock held for over a year (instead of the stock's proceeds) and get double tax savings. Find out other ways it pays to be charitable.

If you are an employee at one of these companies, your gift will have twice the impact, thanks to their matching gift programs. Just fill out the form on the company website, or request one from HR.

Lastly, check up on your charity to make sure your hard-earned money is being well spent.

-Steve Adler

Big Giving = Bigger Profit

When deciding whether to put their marketing budget dollars into advertising or cause-related marketing, senior marketing directors need to evaluate where they’ll get more bang for their buck. According to a new study by Baruch Lev at NYU’s Stern School of Business with three other professors, they’ll get a far better return investing in corporate giving programs. In fact, on average, companies are seeing a return of 200-300% on their investment in corporate giving.

My book on results-oriented cause Marketing, Cause for Concern enumerates ways that cause-relating marketing is good for a company’s health, from employee retention to niche marketing. The new study has the bottom line: for every tax deductible dollar a company gives to charity, it can expect a rise in profits of $2-$3. For every dollar a company spends on giving, it spends $50 on advertising, and doesn’t get nearly the same return on those dollars. Since the average dollar value of charitable giving came to only .1% of average sales revenue, that’s money well spent.
-Steve Adler