Archive - March, 2010

Promoting Purpose Pays Off

March 31, 2010 in Branding, Cause Marketing, Corporate, Social Marketing with 0 Comments

Yesterday, BrandWeek reported on yet another survey that showed that consumers are continuing to warm up to the idea of supporting companies for their good corporate citizenship.

The survey measured consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility practices and ranked companies that are the most responsible. It found that despite the recession, 75% of consumers believe social responsibility is important, and 55% of consumers said they would choose a product that supports a particular cause against similar products that don’t.

“[Corporate social responsibility] can be the olive branch between struggling industries and consumers in cases where consumers are experiencing the highest expectations and the biggest let downs,” said Scott Osman, global director of Landor’s citizenship branding practice, adding that the industries with brands that have performed poorly, are the ones in which responsibility is valued most.

The survey results don’t surprise me, but I am shocked by Scott Osman’s clumsy “olive branch” analogy for corporate social responsibility practices.

CSR and cause marketing are not about companies offering after-the-fact peace treaties with the consumers they have been warring with for years.

That is a cynical and inauthentic use of cause marketing.

To be successful, a company must practice social responsibility because they want to inspire, enlist and engage audiences to join an important cause from the outset, not because they want to pacify and bait consumers into buying more products from a brand they’ve already been disappointed in.

Read the whole article here.
-Matthew DiGirolamo, Cause Catalysts
- COMMENT ON THIS

What Do Drugs, Guns & Kids Have in Common?

March 21, 2010 in Advertising, Cause Marketing, Corporate, Social Marketing, Social Messages with 1 Comment

Photo credit: Flickr @anksmcskanks

The Body Shop wants you to know that they are all “sold on a street corner near you.”

Last week, The NY Times Media Decoder Blog shined a spotlight on the Body Shop’s campaign against the exploitation of children through sex trafficking, and I was impressed by the retailer’s comprehensive approach to issue advocacy.

In addition to issue research and the aggressive advertising campaign, the Body Shop also sponsored a film screening and panel discussion on the child sex trade.

Seeing their stores as “amazing communications platforms,” the company has trained their salespeople to be able to educate customers about the issue and direct them to their Web site for more info.

A special line of products was also created to empower customers to raise funds for two organizations, the Somaly Mam Foundation and the ECPAT International, a global network of organization working to End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes.

The Soft Hands Kind Heart Hand Cream urges customers to “lend a hand, or two” to stop the trafficking and sexual exploitation of children and young people.

Sexual exploitation is a tough, unglamorous cause and the Body Shop should be applauded for taking the risk on it.

Social advocacy campaigns are not new territory for the retailer, though. They have been taking on domestic violence as part of their core values for a decade.

The Body Shop is a company that understands the potential positive social impact of its brand.
-Matthew DiGirolamo, Cause Catalysts
- COMMENT ON THIS

Spokescreatures v. Spokespeople

March 20, 2010 in Branding, Corporate with 0 Comments

In the wake of the Tiger Woods scandal, Forbes takes on the question — do spokescreatures like Tony the Tiger make better brand ambassadors than spokespersons like Tiger Woods?

No easy answers to that question, but I thought the point that Greg DiNoto, chief creative officer at Deutsch NY, made about spokescreatures being able to embody the “DNA of the brand” played out nicely in the article. Particularly, here:

The Gecko and the Duck both play off of their companies’ names, which gives people something to remember. The Gecko was born out of a common mispronunciation of Geico, and the Duck came from the sound you make if you say AFLAC several times loudly.

“They’re memory machines,” says DiNoto. “They’re Trojan Horses designed to sneak the brands into the consumers’ consciousness.” They’ve done a good job. Of the 1,500 people E-Poll surveyed, 54% said they are aware of the Geico Gecko, and 36% are aware of the AFLAC Duck.

Read the full article here.
-Matthew DiGirolamo, Cause Catalysts
- COMMENT ON THIS

An App for Commerce, Causes & Karma

March 10, 2010 in Corporate, Non Profit, Social Marketing, Social Media, Social Messages, Social Technology with 0 Comments

CauseWorld, a free mobile app (iPhone and Android) recently featured — well, everywhere — but notably on the NY Times Bits Blog, lets users earn “karmas” by shopping at participating stores and then allows them to cash in those good vibe points as charitable donations to select non-profit organizations like American Red Cross, Global Giving, Room to Read, Livestrong and the Jane Goodall Institute.

The app smartly enables users to share their CauseWorld activity to their social networks, which provides an incredible promotional boost to all involved — the stores, the corporate sponsors, and especially the non-profit organizations.

Don’t see your favorite cause on their initial list? Send them an email.

I haven’t been able to figure out the allure of Fourquare, even though it has been enthusiastically embraced by (seemingly) everyone I know.

But I could definitely get into CauseWorld. It’s a similar concept with a nice cause-y twist.

I would rather be the Ambassador of a cause than the Mayor of a Starbucks.
-Matthew DiGirolamo, Cause Catalysts
- COMMENT ON THIS

The Importance of Being Well Branded

March 8, 2010 in Social Messages with 1 Comment

I came across this picture on Greg Mankiw’s economics blog where he deemed this “Economics in One Picture“.

I can agree with that. But it also strikes me as a perfect visual proof of why good branding — the kind that forges a deep emotional connection with audiences — is so important.

So, what was Caroline’s mistake? It was this: she made her value proposition (the reward) only about the money.

This is actually a common mistake in marketing.

In business today, cost is practically a level playing field. Unless you have an enormous economies of scale advantage, it’s becoming harder to distinguish a product or service based on cost alone. Your competitor will just play the “Price Is Right” one dollar bidding war.

To make a difference, you have to differentiate. You have to tell a compelling story, surprise people, inspire feeling, stun them visually, create something memorable, engage their hearts and minds, and deliver a meaningful experience.

Real branding means establishing a love affair with your audiences.

Think about what people do when they lose a beloved family pet. They will post signs all over the neighborhood with the pet’s name accompanied by the most adorable picture they can find. It they’re smart, they’ll also include a few of the pet’s personality traits or physical details that only the family would know or notice.

These humanizing details help “brand” the pet as a cherished member of the family and ensure that people are able to feel the value of the relationship beyond that of the small reward they may be able to offer.

I’m sure Caroline valued her iPod more than the $50 would indicate. She probably even loved it. But she didn’t communicate the special personal connection that only she has with that device.

She didn’t give people an opportunity to account for its human value and someone took advantage of her mistake.
-Matthew DiGirolamo, Cause Catalysts
- COMMENT ON THIS