First Dawn, now Pepsi. Something interesting is happening with brands out to do good and brands like BP who are (especially now) labelled with doing harm. Never before has one brand come to rescue a situation created by another brand. Rebellious brands like Apple and Virgin have always snubbed their noses at the establishment and found new and better ways to champion customers. But this is different and it’s worth noting.

For those of you who have spent the last six months under a log, ‘Refresh’ is the new big social campaign from Pepsi whereby they diverted their leviathan Super Bowl ad budget to crowd-source CSR funding initiatives. Now, Pepsi is spending a month of their campaign and $1.3m of their ‘Refresh’ budget to fund projects that help the disaster in the Gulf.

So why is this campaign different? Instead of championing a customer issue, or even taking on a social issue to do with the beverage market, Pepsi have come to the rescue of a disaster caused by another company/brand. The Gulf disaster is different than other disasters as it is so closely associated with BP similar to the Exxon Valdez spill or Union Carbide’s Bhopal. Therefore, there is no avoiding the brand-association.

There are many ways to set a civil strategy for a brand. One way is to analyse the issues within your own industry. Dove’s insight was that the beauty industry does harm to women’s self-esteem. Citi focused on the financial industry’s harmful prioritisation on money above all else with their ‘Live Richly’ campaign.

The Pepsi campaign is the first that I have seen where a brand looks outside its own industry to help solve problems associated with another industry. This strategy not only helps draw attention to brand, it reduces any risk of hypocrisy that can result from an activist approach (see previous Dove post). Pepsi can nicely sidestep any such charge by staying out of the issues that surround their industry (like water usage, obesity and worker rights) and give responsibility to their customers by crowd-sourcing the projects that will make the campaign work.

Amnesty International adopts a similar risk reduction strategy with causes and countries: ensuring that local chapters are not harassed by requiring them to only campaign about issues in other countries. Pepsi skilfully demonstrates how brands can enter into more social and civil discussions by concentrating on issues outside their own industry.  Of course, this strategy cannot divert attention from the harm present in any native industry, but it appears to be a less risky approach for raising civil issues in this particular case.

Related:
+ Our previous article on Pepsi Refresh

I’m a storyteller at heart so believe in this approach. In short, I think it’s:

[1] Civil:  it is about companies taking direct action working with small groups of people to directly affect change in society.

[2] Novel: it moves on the role of companies beyond current CSR kind of activities.

[3] Connected: it connects the brand to civil efforts with the primary vehicle of the brand instead of relegating CSR to a related but secondary activity. By doing so, it creates new possibilities for communication and dialogue.

There are many risks to this kind of campaign and metaphors can be drawn into any foreign force coming into help a native population. If Levi’s can be empathetic enough, patient enough and committed enough then they need to be perceived as such through delicate communication of the efforts and the results over time.

Who can say what the benefits are since no other brand has tried this before? There are obvious and interesting ties to the American nationalistic image of the brand: building upon the fabric of the nation (no pun intended). If successful, it will cement Levi’s dedication to American principles and reinforce the authentic image of the brand in a way that is difficult to top.

The campaign works to rally hard working Americans in small towns and it connects urbanites with their American identity. It might even connect people in markets all over the world with the ‘can-do’ spirit that forms such a significant part of the American identity. The rewards of the campaign are as boundless as the risks but it can be agreed that Levi’s are making bold moves and if they are committed, we’ll see some truly interesting results.

It’s difficult for big/old brands to promote diversity – especially when they have been held up to criticism for not having society’s best interest at heart from time to time. The Grease campaign did tremendous damage to the brand along with a myriad of other challenges in local markets.

Not long ago, the McDonald’s brand was failing many doubted it could make the journey it did. Without getting into the detail of McDonald’s virtues and sins, I remain impressed with the scale of the change effort the leadership has put into coaxing this brand in the 21st century.

In the meantime, introducing diversity topics is an interesting way to build goodwill, restore some of the nice-guy image and deepen the meaning of the brand. It’s a good example of how to increase brand equity in a new area while repairing a brand in an old area.

The ad seems to dovetail nicely with this Swwedish employment ad put out recently. American observers say that the ‘gay’ ad will never get play in the US and this might be true. Maybe it does not matter whether diversity ads can be used across different countries since diversity issues vary from country to country. McDonald’s can easily find the right context to promote the overall theme of diversity in the land of freedom in order to continue to build on this platform.

+ 34 McDonalds innovations (just good clean fun)
+ Knowmore.org report on McDonalds

I thought this was worth a post only insofar-as it is a marker of a worst-case scenario response from one brand to another.

Elle continues the debate on over-sized models to challenge our stereotypes of beauty. The ‘beauty debate’ has been one of the top conversations of the decades among progressive brands and publications.

Seeing this sticker on a bombed-out Rover gave me pause to think just how brands can be used to come to the defence of an endangered tribe. Working class Britons everywhere are seeing their natural habitats eroded by the mounting tsunami of gastropubs, wine bars and estate agents crowding out the high street.

Adrian Maddox chronicles their steady demise in one of my favourite coffee table books called Classic Cafes (ironically out of print), but I only really appreciated this book and its featured cafes for their highly evocative aesthetic.

Going beyong product attributes is an effective but somewhat rare occurance for FMCG brands like Heinz/HP. While many brands reference music tribes like punk, rock and grunge, precious few move onto promoting the cultures asscoiated at their core. Considering the environment that the products are used in and then trying to help promote the sub-cultures that sustain them is new realm that can reap tremendous goodwill. But there are a few things to consider before leaping in:

1. Familiar. While only one group of people may consider themselves British cafe culture diehards, the association with British cafes drums up feeling of comfort and familiarity in nearly all Brits.
2. Specific. While the punk movement has inspired multiple generations in design and communications, punk rockers themselves are less easy to endorse given their extreme counter-culture views. Most people and most brands find this degree of rebellion too anti-social (see previous post on Harley Davidson for the exception to the rule).
3. Endearing. While Morris dancing may be the most ridiculed past time in Great Britain, enough people harbour a warm feelings toward it to make it an ideal target for endorsement for the right brand.

Of course, the more  idiosyncratic the sub culture, the more we need to carefully consider the support and the means to reach them. Adopting a tongue-and-cheek tone with the communication always helps diminish risk. Little gems like this bumper sticker might be a great, fun way to promote a sub-culture and deepen the meaning with your brand.

Related posts on targeting nationalism:

+ Levis, Americana and nationalism
+ The British national identity and the Hovis loaf

From Christian Whiticar

Found this nice little video on negative advertising summarising some of the good the bad and the ugly along with historical examples. I have commented on this in the past when the WWF launched their 911 ads.

Read: WWF and the difficulty of shock advertising

With that said, here is the latest batch of controversy from the brand – a veritable bitch-slap to the rest of the fashion industry (perhaps wider?).  The American Apparel brand has long stood for gay rights and legalising illegal immigrants in the LA (where the clothing is made). This campaign appears to be a broader attack on companies that act with unethical practices toward employees, the environment and possibly anything that does not balance society and capitalism as well as AA does.

The ad seems to be a rehash of an campaign that appeared in 2002 in Vice Magazine (see terrible reproduction below). Just when pressure between ethics and commerce might be under the most strain, American Apparel reminds us that ethics still count and people need to be concerned about how companies offer their products to the market.

Strong language and shock tactics aside, this ad is a powerful challenge. Brands in their competitive set – GAP and Levi’s in particular – are struggling for ways to stay relevant to their audiences while offering little differentiation in product line. While all these brands come up with the odd product innovation, the price premium is carried through the brand and the message they promote. American Apparel has found a believable way to stay relevant and the brand continues to grow in leaps and bounds.

Levis has focused more on redefining the American identity with some success while GAP continues to have difficulty trying to keep Americana relevant for young customers.

Do young people care about Americana or do they want to express a modern, bold and activist point of view that is as distinctly American as James Dean? Instead of focusing on America as a concept of national identity, American Apparel communications focus on challenging America to shine and live up to the notions of freedom, tolerance and excellence that its founders framed in the constitution.

As a result, American Apparel is perceived to be at the forefront of what is best about America versus trying to contemporise a historical picture of the United States. By pushing a social and civil agenda, they are able to connect with what is important to young customers.

Related:

+ Levis, Americana and nationalism
+ American Apparel and the doctrine of shock

This is the first time I have ever seen one company benefit from a disaster that another company (or industry) created. It’s an interesting way to avoid taking a activist position while effectively positioning a brand for a cause.

As the environmental space gets increasingly crowded, it becomes ever more difficult to rationally position a brand as a green hero. Can brands like Dawn be seen as a hero of sorts because their product takes an active role in mitigating oil spills or will this ad be seen as green-washing? 65,000 people have viewed the ad on YouTube so far and 98% of people who voted like the ad, so the stats look good so far.

The ad was produced well before BP’s accident in the Gulf. It will be interesting to see whether Dawn will make a bigger push for the wildlife fund or promote a specific rescue package in the coming weeks.

Related:

+ Dove and the difficulty of an activist approach
+ Dawn wildlife microsite

Adam Valvasori (Body Shop) and Tim Costello (World Vision) discuss how to keep positive while changing the world. Essentially, they believe balancing activism and progress means never being happy with the status quo while appreciating your small victories.

Appreciating that you make progress keeps you inspired. Never being happy with injustice provides direction. Worthy thoughts to live by.