A lot of people are expressing anger and dissapointment over the recent crisis at Toyota. It reminds me that a good apology can enhance reputations and relationships – that a good apology can be a defining moment for a company.

Unless you’re a Vulcan, bad mistakes effect everyone on a personal level inside a company. Good people are always ashamed of acting badly in the first place. But its important to get beyond this hindrance so we are not ashamed of making the apology. Remember:

1. Express regret but don’t stop there. Explain how the incident has effected us emotionally and why the damage done matters to us as people who are working at the company.
2. Say sorry about the right thing. Focus on the damage done by the incident, not on the incident itself.
3. Act quickly. Any delays make it look like we’re hiding things.
4. Act with complete openness. Apology can be a cathartic experience, so make it into one. Since we’ve all made mistakes, the audience will all know when you are truly sorry about what happened. So dig in, find all the reasons and share the ones that matter most.

Adpulp reported:

Jim Edwards at BNET reports that Saatchi & Saatchi worldwide chairman Bob Seelert thinks Toyota should stop advertising until it gets its house in order, but the company says it will ignore its agency’s advice and continue to advertise. “Such a public disconnect on strategy between a senior agency official and a global client is extremely unusual,” Edwards writes. Because the brand is known for reliable and durable cars , Seelert says customers will forgive Toyota, especially as it has been a leader in hybrid technology.

Further surfing:
+ Our post on HSBC boss apologising for banking crisis
+ Guardian: Accelerating toward crisis

When Chris Anderson challenges Sergey Brin on the Google’s ‘Don’t be Evil’ mantra, the founder of the search engine speaks about the importance of long-term thinking, whistle-blowing and acting as a community of ethical business people:

I do think that often companies end up being short-sighted with respect to their decisions, and perhaps they’re motivated by the next particular earnings and whatnot. In particular, actually, as we’ve gone though this investigation, it turns out that a number of companies were aware of certain attacks on their systems, and yet they didn’t come forward, and as a result other companies couldn’t be better prepared.

Now, I should give a lot of credit. Some companies have, and I would point you for example to Northrop Grumman, that had a significant intrusion where the details of the … terabytes of data about the F-35 fighter were stolen. That’s recently … That’s public, and that’s in congressional reports and was actually very useful to our investigation. If more companies were to come forward with respect to these sorts of security incidents and issues, I think we would all be safer.

In our last post on the China/Google subject, we highlighted how these challenging situations (understatement recognised) can define the company for decades to come. Brin puts some convincing arguments forward and makes it easy to believe that the interests of the Chinese people are being considered in his deliberations on this crisis.

When you have a code of conduct like Don’t be Evil for such a large company, it creates a big spotlight and has the potential for creating binary views on company actions. With such little ambiguity in the credo and people’s tendency for oversimplification of actions into good and evil, Google sets itself up for a great deal of public scrutiny.

Brin offers that the situation is complex and there are “many potential answers” for this difficult question. So far, so good. The ball is now in the court of the Chinese government and the line has been drawn in the sand.

+ Watch the interview on TED
+ Interesting: www.dontbeevil.com
+ Previous post on Google/China

Drink, laugh, game, flirt, holiday and dance your way to better health. The GE sponsored Howcast Health channel on YouTube is promoting a healthier lifestyle by playing up the fun things in life that can lead to a more healthy lifestyle.

Again on the subject of creating non-zero-sum games where only zero-sum-games are perceived, GE creates a win-win story where a paradox previously exists.

Creating a narrative around a paradox is the equivalent of putting a two-headed cow in a field. The primal part of our brain is trained to spot anomalies like red fruit in trees, tigers in the grass and other items out of the ordinary. It’s a survival instinct that has stayed with us and one we marketers employ in order to grab ever-floundering attention spans.

There are many kinds of paradoxes that we can employ, but turning win-lose stories into win-win stories provides a powerful nudge to customers: one that can be effective at creating a more civil society. If we can save the environment without compromising our lifestyle, stay healthy without the pain or have peace in our time without subsuming our values and beliefs, what a wonderful world it could be.

Related posts:

+ GE Howcast channel
+ NYT: GE Campaign puts human face on health care role

Caught this video promoting the Pepsi Refresh Project with Demi Moore and Kevin Bacon. Nothing like a little celebrity endorsement to boost the campaign. It’s nice to see these two battling it out for funding their charities, creating a little publicity in the effort.

+ See our previous post analysing the launch effort

Demos have put out this video to promote their study of power gaps. It is a very nice animation describing how power bases have developed and changed over time. We mention this same evolution of power from the church and the state. Our view at Brandinstinct is that the balance between ancient symbols of church and state are losing power to other modern symbols like brands though companies, sports clubs and other organisations.

+ Download Civil Branding white paper
+ Podcast on the Power Gap from Demos

The third ‘I’ of our Civil Branding 3 I’s (inclusive) deals with this topic and it’s the one we wrestle with the most when trying to measure how brands are ‘being inclusive’ and even in trying to define inclusivity in different contexts. This video opened my eyes a little and it’s worth sharing why.

A little background and summary of the talk:

• The golden rule says we should do unto others as we do unto them.
• This notion is universal so many believe it is evolutionary.
• The rule applies most inside a family and inside a tribe.
• We make exceptions to the rule for those outside the tribe.
• Tribes are getting bigger, but we still refuse to apply the rule to all.

So, it’s a good news-bad news scenario. We’re all programmed to treat each other with compassion, but we also allow ourselves to make exceptions to this rule (only we humans can be this complex).

Now for the interesting bit. Wright goes on to explain the correlation with zero-sum and non-zero-sum games.  He says that we tend to think of relationships inside our family and tribe as non-zero-sum games, where everyone has the potential to benefit.

On the other hand, we are more likely to treat relationships outside our tribe as zero-sum games where there is always one winner and one loser to the transaction. He characterises the conflict between Israel in Palestine in this way. Both parties feel that they will need to give something up and live in a worse situation than they do now in any peace deal. They cannot see all the possible ways that they can improve life for each other to create a non-zero-sum game through peace.

Wright concludes by saying we need to create more chances for compassion and empathy between groups/tribes. When we reduce distance between tribes and cultures we begin to question our exceptions to the golden rule and get ever closer to a more consistent application of this genetic propensity.

Economic interdependence is a common deployed tool for this purpose, but I believe there is an opportunity for brands to create this kind of benefit. Brands that promote notions of excellence do not need to promote ideas of exclusivity, for example IKEA and VW. Likewise, brands that align their brand values with British nationalism can speak about the inclusive nature of this wonderful country, for example Hovis and Sainsbury’s.

The more we include, the more non-zero-sum games we create and thereby create fertile ground for mutual progress. With that in mind, I leave you with a video that helps create a platform for peace…

In our whitepaper, we cite Nike and the problems with promoting a win-at-all-costs story. To be sure, this kind of over-achiever message can raise levels of anxiety in society and contribute to feelings of inadequacy that characterises much of the developed world’s alienated populations.

As CFAR explains:

Phil Knight, the founder and CEO of Nike, suffused his company with the idea of the intense, inwardly focused competitor. Ads rarely focused on the product itself, but on the person wearing the product. Heroes and hero worship abound on the Nike campus in Beaverton, Oregon.

Many consider Nike imagery aggressive, like the ads for football featuring Wayne Rooney (even the Daily Mail attacked it). Using sport as a metaphor for violence and war is something people are generally aware of, but English (and other) hooliganism shows what promoting this idea can lead to.

Continuing on the war and WOMD theme:

Nike being bad-ass

Yet, Nike also promotes many stories focused around equality and social rights for women, ethnic minorities and the aged.

When we compare Nike to it’s competitors, we find more benevolent narratives being promoted to the market. Adidas consistently tells a story about participation versus winning. If we look at brands like Nike tha

Wonderful project - Livestrong

Good versus evil (good wins)

Still doing it: Continually telling us to get off our lazy butts, which, let’s face it is probably an excellent thing to do:

Dove-like positioning:

Fighting racism:

So what does this dichotomy mean to us as marketers and as consumers? Nike has done a lot of work on several social responsibility fronts, including brave and interesting work on sustainability.

We can also say that Nike is a ‘true’ brand since it carries on the intensely competitive values of its founders. These competitive values explain its success and these same values explain the trouble that the company has experienced when it comes to answering critics over sweat shops and hyper-capitalistic behaviours.

An intense competitive culture resits openness and slows down the machinery needed to solve problems when they arise. Despite this competitive culture, Nike moves with the times with proactive CR policies, sustainability efforts and brand promotion that raises important issues.

Despite moving with the times, Nike carries on with its legacy succeeding and suffering with its public image. For me anyway, this cultural characteristic promoting a dog-eat-dog attitude explains the dichotomy.

Can Nike become more reflexive and built for the 21st century if it instills a less competitive culture inside? Will its business fail to become viable if it tinkers too much with its founding principles? The shift away from hyper-capitalism may require further shifts at Nike. Many interesting questions remain for how this highly successful company will shape its internal culture and how this will affect its public image over the next decade.

Further reading:

+ Social Responsibility: The Nike Story
+ The truth will set you free
+ From Inspiration to Innovation
+ Muji’s enough message

Coca-Cola’s new Share the Happiness viral film, based on their Open Happiness global strategy made us very happy. It is brilliantly conceived and executed, managing to convey a perfect mix of anticipation, surprise, delight, joy – happiness indeed.

The economics of happiness is being debated today at the World Economic Forum in Davos today. Measuring happiness as a measure of a nation’s success (Gross National Happiness – GNH – as distinct from GDP) is cropping up more and more in political rhetoric, and this seems progressive to us.

But the big question we are asking ourselves when the happiness topic comes up is: “But is it Civil Branding?”.

Valuing happiness for the effect it has on people’s productivity  sounds like it might make for a better society. Then the question is: “But is it really happiness?”. How do we promote real happiness? What about people who want to keep their happiness all to themselves?

The answer to whether or not this Share the Happiness film is civil branding lies in the word ’share’. It gives us a taste (excuse the Coke pun) of how much fun shared experiences can be, as opposed to solo experiences; it reminds us to share. It also supercedes the image-conscious, cliquey behaviour of students, bringing them all together through their simple, child-like joyful reactions.

Happiness is an universally desired end-state. Promoting happiness narratives gives us the widest possible target audience (virtually everyone). However, when we are promoting wide or even ‘terminal’ values, we need to keep the following three guides in mind:

1. Don’t mix up the means and the ends. We need to enrich the meaning of brands with views on how we achieve values like happiness, but not get side-tracked into swapping out means (sharing) and the ends (happiness) altogether. Coke does this nicely by describing a path to happiness being about sharing and makes it all believable.
2. Make it accessible. Widely sought after values must be promoted in an accessible fashion. When we promote a value (e.g. achievement) but make it less accessible (e.g. unattainable) we alienate not only customers, but large groups in society. Brands like Coke, McDonald’s, IKEA and the like make it a mission to democratise their values and make being happy for the many.
3. Promote the people. Customers aspire to values and brands need to demonstrate that they appreciate this perspective. It’s the difference between a bank speaking about itself versus speaking about its customers. We all know which is the right mode by now.

Google and the Chinese government are at loggerheads…again. The crisis has been precipitated by the Chinese government hacking into the Gmail accounts of human rights activists.

Google’s democratic brand values are strongly aligned to human rights, supported by its ‘don’t be evil’ code of conduct.

Google has a dilemma with China in delivering its mission to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” as China requires censorship which is at odds with this mission. So Google has compromised with a view to influencing a change in the Chinese government’s attitude.

The way Google is responding to the Chinese governmental action is congruent with their brand values. They are living the Google brand – and so this action builds the perception of Google as an authentic company. This kind of conflict is a real test for any brand and maybe is best reflected in some comments by Ralph Larsen, former chief of J&J:

The core values embodied in our credo might be a competitive advantage, but that is not why we have them. We have them because they define for us what we stand for, and we hold them even if they became a competitive disadvantage.

If anything, this response shows that Google is true to their principles and is willing to risk massive market share to stay in line with their principles.  John Kennedy, a Silcon Valley reporter states that Google is No. 2 in the market and making gains on the incumbent:

Google has made impressive gains in China since July last, when it was at 30pc compared to Baidu’s 68pc,” commented Aodhan Cullen, CEO, StatCounter. “Our analysis suggests that given Google’s recent strong performance, market share is certainly not the reason behind its threat to leave China at this time.

Google’s response to the Chinese government’s control over human rights campaigners isn’t actually activist in itself but true to the Google brand. The impact has yet to be seen, but this could well turn out to be an example of where a company has more sociopolitical influence than government, especially as Google ranks widely as the world’s most influential brand.

Their response is considered and leaves the door open for the Chinese government whilst flagging that they’re not going to allow their own values to be subverted.

Johann Hari has written a fiery article in The Independent damning leaders of America and China for not cutting emission targets in Copenhagen. Hari uses this article as a call-to-action for groups of people to organise and make an impact since political leaders have failed to do so:

The time for changing your light-bulbs and hoping for the best is over. It is time to take collective action. For some people, that will mean joining Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or the Campaign Against Climate Change and helping them pile on the pressure. But those who can go further – by taking non-violent direct action – should do so. Every coal train should be ringed with people refusing to let it pass. Every new runway should be blockaded. The cost of trashing the climate needs to be raised.

It works. Look at Britain. Three years ago, eight new coal power stations were being planned, and the third runway at Heathrow was all but inevitable. A few thousand heroic young people took direct action against them. Now all the new coal power stations have been cancelled, and the third runway is dead in the water. Here in the fifth largest economy in the world, they have stopped coal and airport expansion. Politicians felt the heat. That was done by a few thousand people. Imagine what tens or hundreds of thousands could do.

Civil Society is all about smaller groups getting together to take action and change the agenda. Likewise Civil Branding is about changing the agenda through company’s brands.

Ronald Regan famously said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. While small government is a republican/conservative idea, the idea that government cannot solve all problems is a more universal and timeless belief.

The Copenhagen Conference highlights the opportunity for brands to help citizens organise around climate issues where the government has not been able to meet the task.

Climate change is essentially a tragedy of the commons problem, where everybodys’ needs do not need to adversely affected, but due to opportunistic tendencies (read human nature), we end up causing the worst result for all concerned.

So the solution, at least in part, needs many actions and many different agreements. One could argue that the problem of climate change is simply too complex for government to take on. Many kinds of efforts are required, but they are the kind of efforts that will put one company at a disadvantage over another if all companies to not conform to a minimum level of practice.

Beyond changing your own company’s behaviour, we have the opportunity to help change the agenda and help organise groups of people to apply pressure in the right areas. Here are a few ideas:

• Putting effort into badging information on how sustainable a product is including a lot more detail on its manufacture and transport.
• Encouraging the formation of citizen groups and supporting their organisation through brands.
• Setting up self-regulatory bodies that develop practice guides in an industry that become an industry standard and then later enforced by national and international laws.
• Supporting lobby groups to change national and international policies in order to create a more level playing field and promoting these lobby groups with company brands.
• Aligning brands closely to important movements like Coke has done with the Copenhagen Conference.

Many of these kinds of activities already exist when coming up with basic regulations. So, there is often an infrastructure for just this kind of activity.