Last week saw the launch of two products from important brands within their particular niche. Both raised money for charity, both relied on a connected network of influencers as first adopters and both would be considered a success based on standard marketing benchmarks.
But Domino Project’s (led by Seth Godin) End Malaria campaign and Nike’s MAG (Marty’s shoes from Back To The Future II) took opposite approaches. The all-powerful Nike used pre-release parties stocked with giveaways (visors, nostalgic 80′s items and Back To The Future videos) to drum up interest. The Domino Project blogged about it.
Nike made hilarious commercials.
The Domino Project and author Michael Bungay Steiner made a heartfelt video.
Nike plans to auction off 150 pairs a day for ten days, with proceeds going to Michael J. Fox’s research foundation that’s looking for a Parkinson cure. The Domino Project made a big push on release day, with all $20 of each purchase given to Malaria No More to buy mosquito nets that will save lives.
End Malaria wasn’t marketing a product, they showcased raising money for charity. As part of the Domino Project Street Team, we were told at the beginning that our goal get people to donate to charity.
Sure, End Malaria is a coffee-table book filled with great essays, but it certainly wasn’t the focus of the push. Charitable giving was.
Nike did it differently. Instead of quietly asking their influencers give their opinion(s) about the MAGS, they launched a pricey, gift-laden campaign aimed at the mainstream media. They even got Sergey Brin to match donations up to $50 million, as part of their plan to auction off 150 pairs of Nike MAGS for ten days.
But we always knew that the Nike campaign was their shoes first, with charitable giving second.
Both campaigns raised funds for charities and both used giveaways to do so. Was one approach better than the other? More altruistic? Better for the charities involved?