When is a consumer durable not a consumer durable? The answer, of course, is when it’s an indispensable status symbol that just happens to double-up as something useful. But what if that same status symbol happens to have been manufactured in a sweatshop by poorly paid workers? Should it change how we relate to it? The findings of a new research study* suggest that it should.
The study asked 2,000 people about their attitude to brand ethics and how it impacts their buying decisions.
Of those polled, 91% said the way a company behaves towards its customers and communities is influential when considering a purchase; 74% said they like to know about the behaviour of a company before buying; 60% said that awareness of a company’s ethics – environmental record, sourcing, employment policies, charitable donations, etc – affected their purchasing.
Although attitudes tend to exaggerate intended behaviour, these are high numbers. It seems we are becoming more inclined to judge ourselves by the company we keep, and that includes the brands to which we might attach our loyalties.
Where should we look for explanations?
We can first thank the arrival of the internet. In a world where everything is accessible in real time, there is nowhere to hide. If a brand makes false claims or behaves unethically, sooner or later it will find its way into the blogosphere, leaving damning and indelible digital fingerprints.
In addition, the economic turmoil of recent years has resulted in a breakdown of trust in authority and a greater reliance on personal communities. In an age of austerity, we understand that brands value our money, and this knowledge empowers us. As individuals we may lack muscle; collectively, however, we can control a brand’s economic fate. Most of us like to support a brand that does good because, by extension, we are also doing good.
But what does it mean for brands? Essentially, they must up their game – not only by doing good but also by providing information to show when and how they are good.
This means delivering a joined-up message, as Unilever found to its cost when it attracted criticism over its Dove ‘For Real Beauty’ campaign. The Dove campaign sought to highlight and counterpoint the exploitative portrayal of women in advertising; while a parallel campaign for Unilever’s Lynx deodorant appeared to be trading on the very image of women that Dove claimed to reject. As advertising pundit Russell Davies observed: ‘I know what Dove believes in, and I know what Lynx believes in. I just have no idea what Unilever believes in.’
So this begs the question: what is being ‘good’? Our research suggests it goes beyond conventional norms of corporate social responsibility (CSR) – ie self-regulation and compliance with ethical standards. ‘Goodness’ has tended to be associated rather narrowly with environmentalism (with complicated price trade-offs) but we believe that it is much broader and may not involve price trade-offs at all.
In the marketplace
We are experiencing a seachange, a new ethos of engagement, but one that has yet to become universally embedded in companies.
The highly successful Evening Standard (ES) Get London Reading initiative is one example of this cultural shift. ES chose a subject that is not only directly relevant to its brand but intrinsic to it. Unlike a cause-related marketing (CRM) or CSR programme where there’s merely a neat alignment, the topic of illiteracy is fundamental to ES.
Having grasped the nettle of the embarrassing incidence of London children who couldn’t read, the brand mobilised commercial partners as enablers of literacy, including A-list celebrities, Mumsnet and Argos. Most importantly, it recruited ES readers, encouraging them to volunteer as mentors and fundraisers, not only giving them an active role – as any proper CRM campaign should – but also an involvement that creates a virtuous circle with readers reading about themselves doing good in the pages of ES.
Involvement in a worthwhile cause can generate massive publicity, both for the cause itself and, by association, a brand. To achieve this we know that a brand’s marketing and CSR goals must be aligned with its communications in a credible way, and not just bolted on.
Communicating an ethical initiative effectively has always been as important as the initiative itself, but the new era of ‘good’ behaviour requires more than this. The brand needs to use the new social media tools to enable people to become collaborators in the cause. Brands that are seen to collaborate – with customers, staff and the world at large – make us feel good about connecting with them.
Successful brands also make it their business to maintain a flow of relevant and transparent content – in abundance. It means going beyond traditional advertising – communicating in forums, generating word of mouth, buzz marketing, social media, local marketing, gaming, entertainment, events and more – while continuously evaluating these channels to measure performance.
At the heart of the new corporate good is a move towards consumer-driven behavioural change. Brands that recognise this and structure their businesses around genuine principles will benefit. Being good gives a brand a competitive advantage; it gives consumers another reason to buy; it makes people believe passionately in their work and, most importantly, it’s great for society.
* Market research by Trajectory, conducted across the UK in June 2011, commissioned by 23red.
Jane Asscher is founder and chairman of integrated agency 23red.com
Most of us like to support a brand that does good because, by extension, we are also doing good