The problem I see with social marketing is how one delineates between merely evoking social change and sounding righteous.

Or, worse yet, appearing as if you don't really stand for what you advertise your mission is.

The example I think of for the latter are the tobacco companies that offer to help people (in their court mandated public service announcements locally) give up smoking -- it seems counter-intuitive. I have no idea of the statistics, but I doubt the ads are much more than what they are -- court mandated (due to a settlement arrangement). No one really believe that a tobacco company os going to help them to stop smoking.

Sometimes, I find it hard to believe 90% of the companies out there are really interested in social change; or are they more interested in the bottom line and new revenues...

Thanks Jack, for giving me food to digest -- I might not like the idea of being marketed to using my values, but to know how it is used... or even being aware of the practice, is good for the questioning mind I have.  

True, Mick, there is always that danger. For example, Enron had policies on climate change and corruption. And I have heard of several, smaller-scale enterprises which donate, say, to the SPCA—but it is mostly meaningless. I prefer those who look within first, and if they are to contribute to causes, they need to be directly related to what they are about. The real programmes, I would hope, are done transparently; and you are right that we do need to be alert to those who pay mere lip service to the causes they say they represent.