Cause selection is a strategic decision. Most brands treat it like a values exercise.

The most common question I hear from brands starting cause strategy work is some version of: which causes resonate with our audience right now?

That’s the wrong question.

The right question is: where does what we actually do uniquely connect to something the world needs?

Those aren’t always the same place. And when they're not, the campaign shows it.

Cause selection that starts with what's trending produces campaigns built around cultural moments with no operational substance behind them. The trend passes. The campaign ends. No durable relationship was built, no lasting behavior was changed in the audience, and the brand is back in the same room twelve months later asking what resonates now.

There are a few consistent mistakes worth naming:

Your boss’ passion project is the most expensive one.

When cause strategy is driven by what the executive team/your boss personally cares about, with no analysis of whether it connects to the brand's audience or category, the campaign is often the most funded and the least effective. The brand's customers don't share the same starting point. The employees don't have a reason to believe in it. And the cause partner is managing a relationship with a specific person, not an institution, which creates fragility the moment that person moves on.

The disaster reaction is a different mistake.

A major event happens. A cause becomes suddenly visible. A brand responds with a donation and a campaign. This isn’t wrong. Disaster response matters, and often times cannot wait. But it isn’t strategy. Campaigns built in reaction to a moment don't compound. They raise money once, generate coverage once, and then the audience returns to wherever it was before.

The credibility gap is the third.

A brand whose operations contribute to a problem, running campaigns expressing concern about that problem, creates a signal that audiences are increasingly able to read. Edelman's 2024 Trust Barometer found that 84% of consumers say they need to share values with a brand to buy it. That number cuts both ways - it's the case for authentic cause work, and it's the exposure when the cause work isn't backed by anything tangible.

What good cause selection actually looks like:

The connection has to be visible without explanation. Not logical on a slide. Obvious in real life.

The brand can contribute something beyond money. Platform, expertise, creative capacity, access. A cause partner who receives only a check is getting less than a partner who gets a check and a meaningful platform.

The cause partner has the operational capacity to run a real campaign. Receiving a donation and executing a multi-channel partnership are different capabilities. Choosing a partner who cannot do the second creates frustration on both sides that usually gets framed as the cause partner's problem.

And the selection process includes a realistic picture of year three. Not every partnership needs to last a decade. But if the conversation never asks what three years looks like, the partnership will end before either side learned anything useful.

The campaigns I'm most proud of didn't require a slide to explain the connection. Zombie games are built around community survival - so is blood donation, because you're supporting your community through your own sacrifice. A game introducing military planes among their existing assortment partnering with the USO, which supports service members and their families, doesn't need a rationale slide. The fit is visible before anyone blinks an eye.

I often tell people: if you have to explain the fit, it's like dissecting a frog. At the end of it you understand it. But then it's dead.

The best cause partnerships don't need to be explained. The fit is self-evident.

Image credit: Microsoft Flight Simulator. All company and product names are trademarks of their respective owners. Descriptions are based on publicly available information and my role in this project.