More companies are jumping on the cause marketing bandwagon as an alternative to tradition advertising, which is why many of the heavy hitters were conspicuously absent from this year’s Super Bowl ad fest.

Case in point: the Pepsi Fresh Project that ran through February. Rather than spending millions on a handful of 30-second TV commercials in and around the Big Game, Pepsi decided to reallocate that money to a worthy cause. They launched a major cross-media campaign asking the public to visit refresheverything.com and vote for a select charitable cause or community group worthy of receiving a grant ranging from $5,000 to $250,000. Options include a girls club to promote self-esteem, a diaper bank in Detroit and a group that is recycling T-shirts into shopping bags to raise money for rescued animals.

Not to be outdone, Coca Cola unveiled its own promotion to give $1 to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America — up to $250,000 — every time someone watched one of its Super Bowl ads, which were not shown on television but on Facebook.

But is a good cause good for the bottom line?

A Cone/Duke University Behavioral Cause Study has reported that cause-related marketing can positively affect consumer choice and brand preference, which can result in dramatic increases in product sales. In the case of Coke and Pepsi, both of which produce and promote sugar-laden soft drinks that have been linked to obesity and poor health, is that a good thing?