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.
Here’s a great talk from Robert Wright on TED about the Golden Rule as it applies to making the world a better place.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
A refreshing move from Pepsi for the start of the new decade: asking people in the US what they’d like Pepsi to spend its philanthropy budget on, rather than the Pepsi corporate responsibility department allocating it as they see fit. This approach is being labelled ‘crowdsourcing CSR’ or ‘crowdsourcing philanthrophy’. Fast Company has referenced it in a piece called ‘Is Philanthropy the New Marketing?‘.
Pepsi says it wants this to be a participatory exercise (getting people to participate with the Pepsi brand more), and it seems like a great idea to achieve this. At the same time, it will increase awareness that Pepsi does contribute to society and so prime Pepsi’s civil branding status.
The campaign to promote the initiative will probably meet the 3Is Civil Branding criteria: Important – yes community projects are important; Inclusive – yes community projects bring people together; Influential – yes Pepsi is an influential brand. Read more on engaging people with issues they find important and the significance of this in social media campaigns in an earlier post The secret ingredient for successful social media campaigns.
The feedback that Pepsi gets from people about where they think money should be spent will be a useful indicator of what people in the US think are the most important issues in civil society, as well as telling Pepsi how they should spend their money of course.
When Wittgenstein proposed that ‘the message is the receiver’, he meant that no matter what the speaker says, the meaning can only ever be interpreted and understood in the listener.This idea implies that:
[a] The listener comes complete with their own context and preconceived notions and
[b] these preconceived notions work to create interference for the speaker’s message and result in a different message being understood if the speaker and listener’s contexts vary. Quite often, we need to rally a message back and forth in order to have the speaker’s meaning really understood. This is never more true when two different people or groups with different backgrounds, goals and experiences are trying to communicate.
We’re all familiar with the shift from broadcast to dialogue but what does it mean in action? Let’s take an example.
We need to pick on somebody, so while Procter and Gamble has done some interesting and positive civil branding actions with the Tampax (see previous post), let’s use their latest drama regarding airbrushing model Twiggy for their Olay brand so we can work with a practical example.
P&G said that there would “always be differences between uncomplimentary paparazzi shots and professional beauty photographs”. The company argued that an article in a national newspaper, which featured Twiggy “off-duty” in the Olay ad, may have prompted the complaints.
P&G added that it was “routine practice to use post-production techniques to correct for lighting and other minor photographic deficiencies before publishing the final shots as part of an advertising campaign”.
The company said that there had been some “minor retouching” around Twiggy’s eyes, which was inconsistent with its own policies; this had already prompted it to withdraw the original ad and replace with one in which there was no post-production work around the eyes.
There are certainly two different conversations going on between the speaker (P&G) and the listener (media, normal people). Groups are upset that Twiggy is being made to appear younger than she is when endorsing a product. In their statements, P&G explains their ideas on policy, their view of the situation and technical details of a shoot.
The listener wanted P&G to discuss the concern of making older women appear younger than they are in order to sell product. In not responding to directly to their concern, the listener feels ignored and will try to reengage P&G in other ways, likely expressing frustration.
It’s just like an argument with a friend where you are trying to get your story across but the other party is not up for listening.
This situation is a lost opportunity for P&G to talk about the companies views on authenticity, airbrushing and ageism. These views are important to many of P&G’s customers as Unilever has proved with Dove.
Here are five rules that we’ve developed over the years to help when responding to this kind of situation:
Focus on the response. Listen to the responder and take the conversation to their topic. Don’t try to change the topic or shut the conversation down prematurely.
Use their topic as a platform to speak about your ideas on their concerns. P&G could have used this situation to discuss their ideas on celebrity image in a modern society, how it is changing, issues of ageism or any other important topic to P&G.
Take the conversation to its conclusion. Each participant will want to direct the conversation down their own path. Make room for each other’s ideas and you will have more air time to talk about your own thoughts on the subject and have your ideas understood.
Be open and be true. You need to be open in order to keep the conversation going, but you also need to be true to your own ideas and values. If opinions really differ, then you need to agree to disagree, but in our experience, this is very rarely the case.
Take action. These kinds of conversations often raise new opportunities. Be quick to capitalise on them to secure your position and reinforce your words with deeds.
Of course, Olay/P&G is not alone. Marketers are trained in strategy that does not include two-way participation, so learning the ropes is difficult. When handling these situations, marketers often take on a defensive or debate-like position. While it takes effort and bravery, entering into the listener’s conversation opens up entirely new areas of opportunity for a brand and can turn out to be moments of real innovation.
There’s a new report out called A Bit Rich? and written by Eilis Lawlor, Helen Kersley and Susan Steed at the New Economic Foundation (NEF). It might help to nudge us towards a more socially and economically progressive new decade: the caring twenty-tens.
This report has got a lot of media attention, and understandably so with quotes like:
For every £1 in value created, £7 worth of value is destroyed by a highly paid City banker.
For every £1 of value created by an advertising executive, £11.50 is destroyed.
For every £1 paid to a childcare worker generates £7 worth of benefits for society.
A Bit Rich? explodes some of the myths about the value to society and the economy of certain jobs over others. For example, it tackles the idea that we need the City and the mega-earners because of the value they generate. It uses a methodology called Social Return on Investment (SRoI) to quantify the value of certain jobs.
Understandably, we homed in on the negative contribution advertising executives make to society that, according to the report, encourages over-consumption and status anxiety. President of the IPA and celebrated ad man Rory Sutherland refutes the claim, which is somewhat more plausible than Lloyd Blankfein’s defence that Goldman Sachs does ‘God’s work’.
It is important to recognise a lot more honesty and social consideration needs to go into the way we all promote brands. Many ads contribute a lot of enjoyment and stimulate thinking around important issues, but they are by far and away outnumbered by other less virtuous communications.
The report parodies the difference between professions by creating fictional job postings:
The last part “suspend his or her social and environmental conscience” reminded me of what a friend said when I told him about our Civil Branding movement: “oh, so it’s branding with a conscience then”. Thanks Dickie, spot on.
There is a way for brands and advertising executives to redress the negative effect they may have on society: building in socially-progressive messaging to brand communications. A recent post of ours talks about the contribution Orange RockCorps is making to society. We look forward to improved figures for advertising executives’ effect on society in the next decade.
Civil Branding is about harnessing the power of brands to create social influence,
change the wider social agenda and increase brand difference. We're on a mission
to encourage marketing professionals to consider their brands' impact on society
to help us progress and to help create ever more worthy brands.
