Despite being a bunch of  bike riding, tree-hugging granolas, all of the contributors for Civil Branding go out of our way to not write about environmental efforts and green branding.

We believe that being green is one of many activities that a company can undertake in order to help create a more civil trajectory for society. We avoid talking about green efforts simply because we want to promote the other 90% of worthy civil actions that brands can undertake to create a better society and differentiate ther brands. In fact, it can be argued that very little brand differentiation can be accomplished these days by going green.

Hence, my surprise at Stella Artois’ new campaign promoting green values. It’s a beautiful campaign, staying true to the French Riviera concept established by the TVCs. However, the strategy is not an obvious fit for the brand and seems like a real risk for the brand to take.

The Stella Artois brand has achieved incredible status, honing an art-loving, intellectual and deliciously dark humourous edge. Through careful management and bold moves it has turned its premium pricing into a positioning advantage. All the while, it remains the staple of all pubs and lager hounds.

Well done Stella.

Trouble is, how does green fi into this brand? Brands need to evolve and their meaning needs to become more complex – no question. But brands should also move in the established trajectory that they have taken so long to set.

When I see these ads, too many questions come to mind. Is 75% good? Is it better than the competition? Is it a remarkable benchmark? A simple search online makes me wonder. Entire countries like Switzerland and Finland recycle 90% of their glass. Being Canadian, I know that Ontario beer stores recycle almost 100% of their bottles and cans. Innocent use 100% recycled materials to create their bottles.

Stella should be proud of their environmental efforts and maybe these should be used as yet another reason to buy their beer. But when a brand begins to claim territory that is far off its trajectory, it begins to take on the risk of seeming unauthentic. Greenwashing is the major authenticity hazard of the decade but there are others. The recession has seen many premium brands try to include ‘value-for-money’ notions in their positioning (and fail). We also see brands like French EDF being accused of hypocrisy when waving the British flag.

There are many brands that easily claim green inside their brand. For example, Innocent promotes notions of purity, goodness and harmony through their brand and therefore has  a natural claim on all things green. Environmental messages permeate the brand just as naturally as they do with the Body Shop.

Stella are going into partnership with The Tree Council to plant hedges in the British countryside, so it seems that they are really putting their weight behind the effort. I am sure the campaign will live on in appropriate media like POS and packs.

As I say earlier, all brands need to evolve the meaning and become increasingly complex. However, the emphasis needs to be placed on EVOLVE. The campaign has been plastered on every surface in London and has had very high media exposure in the UK. This surge ignores the softly-softy approach that most brands adopt when trying to evolve the meaning of their brands. using this approach creates a lot of attention and risk should things not work out.

A recent paper by Harvard Business School talks about the notion of socially progressive brands and how their social value is sought after by multinational corporations. The concepts discussed support the Civil Branding hypothesis that companies who build socially progressive values and narratives into their brands will reap the benefits of increased positive regard and preference, and ultimately economic value. Whilst the paper deals specifically with the economic and social benefits of merging the ‘Virtuous Mouse’ and ‘Wealthy Elephant’ companies, e.g. The Body Shop and L’Oreal, we believe that companies can achieve the same benefits if they incorporate Civil Branding thinking into their brand strategy.

View the paper

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty began in 2004 and has created an unforeseen level of interest and sales by playing on our homogeneous and often superficial notions of beauty. Since launch, Dove has been active in advertising, with a website that promotes self esteem in young women, research into body image, the Dove ‘Self Esteem Fund‘ and the hugely effective viral movies like ‘Evolution‘.

The Dove Evolution video is rumoured to have received more eyeballs than a Super Bowl ad so it was only logical to follow up this massively successful viral with another. The sequel, named ‘Onslaught’, is a montage of clips depicting the ridiculous and harmful nature of beauty industry narratives that are broadcast to young women.

Greenpeace responded with a spoof video of their own depicting rain forest depletion resulting from the supply of Palm Oil for Dove products. Independent film maker Rye Clifton also responded with his video mash up of AXE spots that makes public the connection between the Dove and AXE brands under Unilever ownership.

Original Dove ‘Onslaught’ video

Greenpeace parody

AXE mash up from director Rye Clifton

Dissent and controversy are the main themes of an activist approach to political and social change. The original ‘Onslaught’ video certainly adopts an activist approach clearly aimed at separating Dove from ‘the rest’ of the (overtly image conscious) beauty industry.  The parody responses are clearly intended to depict Dove as hypocritical on two fronts.

Taking an activist approach seems to be a difficult position for brands to maintain. Benetton, the Italian clothing retailer, found themselves in the same difficult territory back in the late 1990s. Their approach to advertising began as poking fun at at hypocrisy using images of race, religion and sexuality. But the approach evolved into a more serious and directed form of criticism on several more issues like capital punishment, refugees and the AIDS epidemic.

The Campaign for Real Beauty has made a tremendous impact on the social issues raised and on the business at Unilever, so it is unlikely that these responses will make much of a difference toward the overall positioning. But it does raise some interesting questions like:

1. Are activist approaches a slippery slope?

2. Is an activist position a credible role for any brand?

3. Do we need to take an activist approach in order to raise important social issues?

There are examples of brands that have adopted an activist position successfully. However, the examples that come to mind like the Body Shop and the Co-op Bank have an ethical promise at the very heart of their company. Ultimately, Dove has a purely functional benefit (¼ moisturising cream) as its core proposition and is making a bold transition into a deeper sphere of meaning. I believe they are real leaders in the promotion of important ideas and I am sure management at Dove and Unilever will want to continue along this path in the future.