Do good brands v Brands that do good

In times of economic doom and gloom it is an easy call to lighten the mood by linking your brand to a good cause. Cause related branding such as buy red is on the increase. While there is no doubt that they do some good by raising awareness for a cause providing cash donations. I can't help but think that ultimately this is a selfish act. For example, for every sale of the red ipod, Apple donates just $10. The good association and boost in sales is worth a bit more surely. Also how deeply to consumers engage with these causes? There is a danger that they are merely fashion statements, another band to wear around your wrist. Easing social conscience but not affecting radical changes in opinion or action. In short they stand for a shallow way to do good.

On the other hand we have brands that do good. Brands that are inspired by a desire to generate profit to help people and the environment. Of course there are charitable brands, and they have the most sincere of approaches and powerful brands. It makes me wonder why anyone would buy an alternative to products such as suncream produced by the cancer society or pet food from the RSPCA (something I'd like to design).

There is another type of brand that does good. Brands like Patagonia and Frank water use business as a means to wholy support a cause. As a result they have a single minded powerful brand which communicates to consumers in a heart felt engaging way. Frank water exists because they "help fund clean water projects" water for water, as simple as that. Wouldn't it be great if all brands were as focussed and inspiring, and consumer choices as proactive.