I adore going to the movies, but I have a love/hate relationship with previews.   Some sneak peaks whet my appetite, but horror previews make me cover my eyes and curse their creators.

At the same time I'm cowering, I'm amazed that many folks around me are hooting and hollering, chomping at the bit to see the latest gruesome flick.

Entertainment value is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.   And so are perceptions of cause marketing value.

Nothing brings this to the fore like Breast Cancer Awareness Month.   While some see hope for a cure in the millions raised by pink ribbon campaigns, others find them offensive or misguided.   (There are so many that are easy criticize.  For example,  take a look at Hooters.)

Our job at CMF is not to pass judgment on the best route to fighting breast cancer (e.g. searching for environmental links vs. medical cures).   Our job is to provide companies and nonprofits with guidance on creating ethical, effective campaigns that do well by doing good.

One way to do this, some in the industry suggest, would be to rate campaigns on their adherence to standards of transparency and perceptions of authenticity and impact.  

Analyzing campaigns for appropriate disclosure would be relatively easy (e.g., do they state exactly how much is being given, when it is being given, whether there are any floors or ceilings?)   Other types of evaluation are much more subjective.

This is strikingly clear in the rating system recently suggested by blogger Tim Ogden.  As a CM skeptic, he posits that a rating scale might span from dubious to tolerable.  As one who believes CM programs can have very positive outcomes, I'd clearly advocate for a scale that ranges from poor to outstanding.

Do you think there should be a CM rating system? What should it analyze?  Should CMF be involved?    Please let us know what you think by commenting in the CMF Linkedin group today.