Observations on Corporate Benevolence

Enabling Change Agents

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:49:00 +0000

I recently started doing a bit of homework for a client on Google’s efforts at benevolence. In addition to the initiatives supported within google.org and the Google Foundation they have a wealth of other interesting partnerships. The common thread, regardless of the audience or sector of Google, seems to be a desire to use their tools and resources to enable the world’s change agents - young and old.

2006: Google Docs partners with the Global SchoolNet Foundation, inviting students to use Google Docs to dream up inventive new ways to fight global warming

2008: Google Docs partners with the National Writing Project to support Letters to the Next President, an online writing and publishing project for school-aged kids designed to let them express the issues they hope the next president will help solve.

2008: Similar to the American Express Members Project, Google launches Project 10 to the 100, soliciting "ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible."

2009: Google powers America’s volunteer (search) engine with Allforgood.com. It “aggregates volunteer opportunities around the US” and is now powering the search portion of President Obama’s Serve.gov.

Sign me up for that kind of company!

On the one hand, I’ll admit I love that Google does these things with limited fanfare, and (apparently) without a focused strategy or a plan. They seem to anticipate that these efforts will somehow, someday bear fruit for the brand and, in the meantime, they’re worthwhile. On the other hand, the lack of focus appears to limit the effectiveness of the initiatives. The result of the global warming project was a newspaper ad. The outcome of the writing project is….a website. Project 10 to the 100 still hasn't announced a winner. Where is the follow-through? Couldn’t the Letters project now live on, especially given the publicity letters to President Obama have received in recent months? Couldn't you enlist a team of specialists to help enlist a winning idea (and a team of interns to cull through them all?)

I have to wonder whether Google’s unique employee proposition – 20% of their engineers' time can be spent on personal pet projects – has promoted innovation at the expense of impact?

Make Me Complicit in Caring

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:29:00 +0000

Events at work this week got me thinking a bit more about the relationship between philanthropy and consumerism. Someone re-sent me the Story of Stuff. (Oldie, but a goodie.) Meanwhile, I've read quite a bit about (PRODUCT) RED, Bono’s well-known and novel business model designed to attract greater corporate financial commitment toward fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa. His principle – a win-win-win model wherein consumers contribute to the cause by making a purchase, participating corporations give up a bit of revenue in return for a positive brand halo…and more revenue, and the Global Fund gets money – is both insightful and effective. It shows he gets a thing or two about consumers (on average, we’re largely motivated by self-interest) and corporations (also motivated by self-interest.)

This marriage of consumerism and altruism is the latest trend in harnessing corporate benevolence, but it leaves me wondering whether perhaps there isn’t yet another – better- way? One that doesn’t promote the accumulation of more stuff? Four ideas to mull over:

Perks for Good: The immediate no-brainer for me is with American Express. Trillions of unused Membership Rewards points! How about if we can donate them to the Global Fund? AmEx gets them off their books, the cardmember feels goods (and gets the tax deduction), and the Global Fund gets funds? Well, it turns out you can donate your points to the Fund, or any charity for that matter. It’s not easy, but it’s possible. But, I’ve been an AmEx cardholder for eight years and had them as a client, and never knew about it. Why don’t they promote a Points for Charity program?

Free: An article in today’s Slate railed against “pandering ad campaigns”. They used Starbucks’ new “I’m In” campaign, championing volunteering, as one example of a company turned shill by “selling virtue”. The principle is relatively simple – sign up to volunteer for five hours and they’ll give you a free cup of coffee. I agree with Jack Shafer of Slate – if Starbucks is truly committed to the cause of national service, why not give employees paid time-off to volunteer their five hours? They could also promote local community organizations by providing free refreshments at meetings, provide free coffee to companies that organize paid Volunteer Days (as my old employer did), work with Big Brothers, Big Sisters to make Starbucks popular meeting points for get-togethers or recruiting events…..so much more than a free cup of joe for signing a piece of paper?

Truly Useful: Where’s a GAP RED tote bag? You know, the one that I would bring to the farmer’s market or grocery store? The one that keeps me from using yet another plastic bag? Yeah. That one.

New Services: I’m in the market for a new laptop. I’m fairly eco-conscious and have real issues with what’ll happen to that laptop when I want a new one in a few years. What if I were able to buy an anti e-waste recycling policy, as an add-on to an extended warranty? Dell or IBM then donates money toward the creation of safer tech recycling facilities, or toward fighting illegal, toxic e-waste dumping in China? I know it’s taking the long-view, but no one seems to be providing services that help me minimize the eventual impact of that new bit of tech I’m bringing home…and make me complicit in caring.

In any case, I’m a firm believer that companies can and should motivate consumers (and employees) to do the right thing. I’m just not sure getting them to buy a t-shirt with a cool logo is the right answer.

Planned Obsolescence and Apple Pie

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:59:00 +0000

So, I like connections. I like themes. I like when an idea is sparked, reinforced and re-articulated. I like when I watch a segment on 60 Minutes about something, read a Forrester report that jogs a related thought, get sent an article in Popular Mechanics on a similar subject, bake a pie...and then see another article in Wired that sums up all these themes. This is just such a connective post.

Oops, there was some pie baking in there? Well, if you're an old-school American setting out to to make your mother's pie for Thanksgiving, the device you inevitably turn to is your trusty Kitchen-Aid mixer. Mine is (I believe) two generations old - not two product generations, but two people generations. Regardless, it still works, it weighs a million pounds, its the same antiseptic white that is probably their best seller, and I've never even had to replace so much as the whisk that came with it. And I'll be damned if I can think of any reason why I would want a new one.

By contrast, let's reflect on my cell phone(s). First, I have two - one for work, and one for personal use. I tend to get a new personal phone every two years, when I can get the free or discounted ones Verizon offers me to renew my plan. Now, my laptops: I have two - one for work and one for personal use. In my lifetime I've probably had...hmmm...maybe five laptops and five mobile phones that have been 'mine' over the years? And I'm only 30.

My point? Technology is giving a whole new meaning to the notion of planned - or perceived - obsolescence. The frequency with which our generation will dispose of modern-day labor saving devices is increasing with unparalleled rapidity.

The good news is that the likes of Sony, Dell and LG are starting to partner with recycling centers to support take-back programs for out-dated models. And according to a recent article in Wired, their corporate benevolence is indeed largely profit-driven. Interestingly, there are environmentalists out there who are more interested in the end result than the motivation. Casey Harrell [of Greenpeace] estimates that recycling old electronics could result in up to 4-to-1 cost savings. "I don't think these companies would be lobbying [greener tech] unless there was a financial incentive," Harrell said. "It's not altruistic, and ultimately we don't care. We want the [cleaner] results, so if they're able to make money off of this ... it's a win-win."

According the Popular Mechanics, the same is true of our general recycling efforts. It actually pays to recycle. (May I throw out a YAHOO!) When you do an assessment of the total life cycle of a product, it often uses far less energy to recycle an existing good than to create it from raw materials. A few examples (still thanks to PM):

Aluminum requires 96 percent less energy to make from recycled cans than it does to process from bauxite

Recycled glass uses about 21 percent less energy

Recycled plastic bottles use 76 percent less energy

Newsprint requires about 45 percent less

Of course, by contrast, my decades-old mixer still looks like a pretty great deal.

The Littlest Watchdog

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:24:00 +0000

I just noticed this recent article from the New York Times, highlighting a new generation of environmental watchdogs who are - quite literally - starting at home. This article reveals a growing trend among a new generation of kids so well versed in the environment, global warming, hybrid vehicles and the plight of cute penguins and polar bears that they're forcing their families to alter their collective behavior. "They pore over garbage bins in search of errant recyclables. They lobby for solar panels. And, in a generational about-face, they turn off the lights after their parents leave empty rooms. “Kids have really turned into the little conscience sitting in the back seat.”"

I recently started reading Thomas Friedman's new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded, wherein he reminds us that our nation has long forgotten the sacrifices, values and successes of the "Greatest Generation". Those victors of World War II were willing to make personal sacrifices toward a greater cause, 'exported' a moral vision that was aspirational for the rest of the world, and - post-war - laid the foundation for our modern economy. I often believe all things are cyclical - booms, busts, eras of great innovation and stagnation, even xenophobia seems to rear its head on a cyclical basis (at least in the US.)

While the NYT article focused on grade school aged children, prior research with all Millennials has revealed a higher level of idealism and desire to effect positive change in the world. While they may be the offspring of the Boomers, perhaps their grandparents are the real role models.

Noblesse Oblige, Piazzas...and Starbucks?

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:30:00 +0000

Noblesse Oblige was on my mind the other morning. I was listening to Nelson Mandela's birthday pronouncements on NPR. Mandela called on the South Africa elite to share their wealth with the impoverished within their own country. And it got me thinking about the American aristocracy, including our self-made billionaires, captains of industry, and famous families.

In the US, we've always been absent the royalty and landed gentry of Europe, among whom noblesse oblige went hand in hand with their birthright. But, what prompted early generations of American elite to feel a comparable sense of obligation to give? Why do Carnegie libraries dot small towns all across America? What led John D Rockefeller to say: "Think of giving not as a duty, but as a privilege"? Do self-made men - those who realized the American Dream - feel a greater duty to support those less fortunate? By that line of reasoning, one might expect Donald Trump - a modern day poster child for the self-made American billionaire - to be as much a philanthropist with a social mission as a real estate mogul. [Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence in his favor.]

It has to have been more than a Helper's High that made those others contribute so much to the development of their young nation. I'd argue it was a sense of shared destiny. A fundamental belief that only in the success of their nation and it's people could they themselves succeed. I think that shared destiny prompted a natural desire to invest in people and communities, where ROI is less easily quantified.

As I was reading a recent New York Times article on the hundreds of Starbucks that are closing across the country, I felt a pang of indirect nostalgia for the days when corporate moguls invested in the public domain. The article focused on one Starbucks in particular - in Newark, New Jersey- slated for closure because of lack of profibility. It's viewed by the community "as a gathering place whose very existence would have seemed impossible a decade before, a symbol of a knocked-down city’s attempts to get up." In the 8 years since it opened it's doors, it became an impromptu gathering place and community focal point. The mayor's office appealed to Starbucks to keep it open, to no avail.

Ah, but Starbucks is a corporation, right? Of COURSE they're focused on ROI, and those stores just weren't bringing in the kind of money they expect. Ok, fine, put profitability ahead of public interest. That's what we've come to expect of corporations. But wait. Hasn't Starbucks built their entire business model around being more than a coffee shop? Didn't they set out to develop rich community hubs, modern day piazzas that serve as gathering places for residents, students, and office workers? Ah, I suppose its ok to market yourself as a community asset, as long as you're making money too. No revenue, no gathering place.

Good thing public parks don't have revenue targets.

Advertisers for Good

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:54:00 +0000

Many ideas have been fluttering around in my head for my next post, but this was the one that made me finally get back to the ol' blog!

I was watching some of the award winners from this year's Cannes ad festival (the Academy Awards/Oscars/Grammies of the ad industry). A submission for UNICEF caught my eye. The objective was simple - provide a means of fundraising for the organization, raise awareness of World Water Day. The solution was equally simple - Tap Water. Dubbed the Tap Project, the initiative is rolling out to cities across the world, charging restaurant patrons $1 for a typically free glass of tap water. It's a powerful but simple solution.

Check out the video with the award submission. It's from an agency called DROGA5, who apparently approached UNICEF with the idea.

The incredible thing is the allure it must present to fashionable restaurants, and their patrons, who have been given an opportunity to participate in such a worthy cause. One might fault UNICEF for putting people on the spot, but in a world where water is often something we pay for it's not such a foreign notion that a particular glass of the stuff might cost a dollar for a day.

I love that it launched in New York, as New Yorkers like to imagine their public water supply is among the best in the world. It's a nice twist to have tapped into a singular point of pride. And it's fascinating that the core of the concept lived in doing what New Yorkers have done for so long - creating a brand out of tap water. It's credited with the producing the best bagels and pizza in the country, after all. Bloomberg's Finest, anyone?

NYC and Personal Agendas for the Public Good

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:11:00 +0000

New York. A great town that always gets me thinking. I was there these last few days for work, and had a bit of free time to spend wandering around the city. On this trip, my thoughts wandered to the public and private initiatives designed for the betterment of the city and its residents.

My flight on Saturday took me over Robert Moses beach - a well-known, free retreat for city residents seeking a break from the heat along a lovely stretch of sand. From the plane I could the vast parking lots, art deco bath houses and changing rooms, and train tracks that help deposit the throngs in the summer months. Robert Moses, the man, the legend, remains a controversial figure in New York City history, but can be credited with an extensive public parks network originally designed to serve the city's lower income neighborhoods. (Unfortunately, I missed a number of exhibits on the man and his legacies in NYC last year, reviewed in this New York Times article.)

I also strolled by the New York Public Library - a gorgeous beaux arts building that came to be as a result of the charitable donation of Samuel Tilden, a lawyer and former governor of the State of New York. Together with the resources of the Astor and Lenox libraries, already in existence (although not exactly 'free libraries'), the Public Library became the first of its kind in New York City.

Hmmm, ok, so this all makes for a good history lesson. But, what could a public park designed by a public servant, and a public library created by private wealth have in common with each other? And with corporate benevolence? Personal agendas for public good. In other words, both are really stories of a man with a plan. (I'm revealing my roots here - that's also the name of a GREAT movie about an old Vermont farmer running for office...but I digress...)

I'd love to see the day when social responsibility initiatives play such a primary role in corporate agendas. Perhaps, one day, CEOs will take over the reins of a company and define not just their fiscal and restructuring plans, but their goals for good as well.

Three Kinds of Good

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:38:00 +0000

Ok, so there are many more than three kinds of good. But, from a company's perspective, I think there really are just three ways to think about how they might do good in the world. This "three ways in" notion came up about a year ago, when I was doing some research for a hospitality client on new opportunities they may have to set themselves apart.

First, the obvious: Corporate initiatives. These tend to fall within the realm of a "social responsibility" agenda. This one is high on the priority list for public companies, as evidenced by Visa. Following fast on the heels of going public, Visa just announced its corporate responsibility program and three year partnership with Oxfam. (Interesting message to send: When we were private we didn't give a damn about people. But now that we're public, boy do we care! What big hearts we have!) Alternatively companies may decide to switch over to renewable energy, support car-share programs among employees, or ensure fair labor practices. In any case, it's the share price, the employees or those on the receiving end of the $$$ that tend to benefit.

Second, products. This is the most popular bandwagon, these days. GREEN! We'll go GREEN and everyone will love us! They'll flock to us! AND, our customers get to feel good about themselves. EnergyStar appliances, energy efficient light bulbs, hybrid cars, eco-friendly cleaning products, biodegradable packaging, locally-sourced goods, the list goes on. This is where greenwashing too often comes into play, as the environmental benefits of products that were never intended to be environmentally-friendly are spun and touted.

Lastly, and perhaps most difficult to pin down, you've got customer involvement. It's here that not enough innovation is emerging, but so much opportunity lies ahead. This is where you the brand help me the consumer DO something - change my behavior for the better or help me help someone else, translating my actions into some kind of benefit to others. It's cause marketing at its best. Customers become a part of positive change, and it doesn't require companies to make their products out to be something they're not. Because this area is so intangible - here are a couple examples:

i'm Initiative from Microsoft: Every time someone uses their instant messenger or email services, they'll donate a portion of their ad revenue to a social cause of your choice. They've raised almost $1.5 million, so far.

WholeFoods gave me the option to donate the 10 cents I earned by bringing my own grocery bag to one of two local charities. My 10 cents isn't much, but it's quite a lot when combined with those of the hoards who frequent WholeFoods.

I'd like to think that a brand has the foresight to imagine that they should be doing or capable of all three. But, the truth is, the first is driven by the C-suite, the second relates to where they want and can allocate their R&D budgets, and the final way in has a lot to do with whether they've got innovative branding and marketing heads at the table.

The real money shot will be when a corporation can define a single-minded mission that drives and unites all three.

A Corporation's Warm Glow

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:19:00 +0000

A few different things I've read recently have me wondering about the direct and indirect consequences of doing good. Just as people experience indirect benefits from benevolence, it turns out so too can corporations.

When it comes to the personal benefits of doing good, studies have actually shown that we almost universally display a positive emotional "high" after we've made a charitable contribution. As the New York Time shares in an article on "What Makes People Give", an economic theorist referred to this as the "warm glow" theory: "In the warm-glow view of philanthropy, people aren’t giving money merely to save the whales; they’re also giving money to feel the glow that comes with being the kind of person who’s helping to save the whales." (My mother likes to call it a Helper's High. Either way, you get the idea.) Daniel Goleman points out that the emotional halo works in reverse; If I do something bad that makes me feel like a lousy person, or get yelled at by someone, I carry the icky emotional residue of that encounter around with me.

So, there's an indirect, latent effect of charitable giving. For people, it's an emotional high.

It comes as no surprise that a corporation gets to bask in it's own "warm glow", of sorts. And this positive halo effect is visible in both financial and human factors. Take 'green' corporations as an example: In theory, they sell more product ($$$) and directly benefit the environment. But, one piece of research points out that it's the human factors - the indirect benefits - that are also incredibly powerful. This study conducted by the UK-based researchers Ipsos MORI showcases that people feel even more strongly about working for a "green" company than they do about buying green products. In fact, there's a significant discrepancy between the two.

(This comes from people saying “agree” to the questions “I would prefer to work for a company that has a good reputation for environmental responsibility” and “I would be more likely to purchase products of services from a company with a good reputation for environmental responsibility” Study: “Corporate Environmental Behavior and the Impact on Brand Values”, Tangberg and Ipsos MORI survey, October 2007; n = 16,823)

This begs the question - what other indirect benefits are there of being green? I could envision a study measuring whether people are willing to take a paycut to work for a 'greener' company. And what about looking at the reverse; Do we need a pay increase in order to work for a company that we find morally repugnant or environmentally damaging? And just how much will we sell out for?

Jan Chipchase, Nokia and Products for Good

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:32:00 +0000

Jan Chipchase's work was covered in depth about a week ago by the New York Times. Employed by Nokia as a field anthropologist, he studies how people use their mobile devices in daily life. The NYT notes that "by the end of 2006, 68 percent of the world’s mobile subscriptions were in developing countries", requiring frequent travel to keep Nokia abreast of new opportunities and fresh behavioral insights. His talk given at TED back in October highlights his work in a briefer format, and in his own words.

I love the idea that technology can be used to 'delegate' useful and significant tasks, like moving money and making purchases. It reminds me of work Microsoft is doing to enable farmers in India to get sugarcane prices at multiple local markets via their mobile phones. A single device can directly impact their profit margin, enabling them to anticipate where they can command the highest price. His teams have revealed the same financial upside to affordable mobile access worldwide. As the article notes: "his research team has spoken to rickshaw drivers, prostitutes, shopkeepers, day laborers and farmers, and all of them say more or less the same thing: their income gets a big boost when they have access to a cellphone."

A cynic might say that Jan's research is self-serving as it helps Nokia unearth new sales opportunities. (Or the momentarily cynical NYT reporter might question whether technology proliferation is perhaps negatively impacting the fabric and traditions of cultures.) But, if it helps the brand design a more intuitive, empathetic product that brings populations closer to new sources of revenue, information, family and friends, then I'm all for it.

Green Goodness at Apple; A Chink in the Armor?

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:38:00 +0000

So, I read this article that appeared in Wired related to Apple's "walled garden" and the company's development practices as a reflection of the "values" of Steve Jobs. For Apple enthusiasts and those who work in the tech field, it's commonly known that they're a remarkably secretive, inward-looking organization that closely guards their vertically integrated offerings. It makes for a very different kind of technology company. As Wired shares: "When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, he ignored everyone's advice and tied his company's proprietary software to its proprietary hardware. He has held to that strategy over the years, even as his Silicon Valley cohorts have embraced the values of openness and interoperability."

Part of the reason the walled garden has survived is Apple's ability to make forward-looking, aesthetically appealing products that anticipate the yet to be realized needs of their users. "No other company has proven as adept at giving customers what they want before they know they want it."

Ok, true enough when it come to products, but the article got me wondering - what good does Apple do in this world? If they're so prescient, what behavior and attitudinal shifts have they anticipated that go beyond just the way we interact with technology? Do they understand the increasing importance of social and environmental responsibility to consumers? In the interest of unearthing any signs of Apple's benevolence, I dug around a bit. I found this press-release-like announcement (undated) on the Apple site, referring to a Greener Apple. Steve Jobs shares with us: "It is generally not Apple’s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple’s desires and plans to become greener." He goes on to reveal their efforts to remove toxic chemicals from their products and recycle more. Other areas of the site also talk about the energy efficiency of their products.

AHA. It looks like a single stone has been pried lose from the walled garden. They're admitting that when it comes to their values their customers and shareholders are demanding more transparency. And Apple is trying to deliver it, absent any flash. But it also makes me think: That's it? That's all you got? Jobs refers to a desire to be an "environmental leader", but it feels as though they're only embracing the most basic of environmental practices. Um, what about the fact that my iPod doesn't have a replaceable battery? Nor does the new Air. Well at least I can rest easy knowing they're recyclable, given that when they die I have no choice but to throw them away.

Innovative environmentalists? Not so much. I'm underwhelmed, Steve.

Inspiration from the Other Side of the Pond

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:04:00 +0000

If you've spent time in London, you can't help but be familiar with Marks & Spencer . Their brilliant decision to put ready-made food stores in major transporation hubs has forever cemented the brand in my mind as an insightful innovator. But, having purchased their ready-made meals, I can tell you it made me feel like I was contributing more than a reasonable share of waste to the world with just one dinner. Now that I know about Plan A, my concerns are a bit allayed. And, I have a helluva lot of respect for them, too. In this article from the Times, their CEO, Sir Stuart Rose, shares a year-one update on their ambitious five-year, 100-point, eco plan.

In my book, Plan A gets points for both substance and branding. I like it for what it is and how its structured: it's ability to create the "virtuous circle" between suppliers, the brand, employees and consumers over a specified period of time. It's both lofty and tangible. It makes everyone accountable, and transforms good principles into action. And, the marketer in me likes the way they've "packaged" their ideas. They hang around the tagline "Plan A. Because there is no Plan B." Brief, to the point, and meaningful. They created a site that showcases more information and successes around their five pillars: Climate change, Waste, Sustainable raw materials, Fair partner and Health. I can't help but applaud them for getting beyond "green" to promote fair labor practices and healthier lifestyles for their customers and employees. And they launched it all a year ago. Having worked with a major supermarket chain in the US who kept a close eye on the innovations of M&S and Tesco, I'm sure Walmart drew inspiration from Plan A for their own sustainability efforts. (More on that later.)

Finally, Rose shares with us that he continues "to believe strongly that Plan A is not only the right thing to do, but commercially will help differentiate us in the eyes of our customers. Simply put, it’s a win-win." Take that, Milton.

Greenwashing - a Need for Boundaries?

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:08:00 +0000

Hardly a new idea, greenwashing refers to the exaggeration or misrepresentation of corporate environmental efforts, including erroneously touting the environmental 'friendliness' of products, sustainable manufacturing, and other misleading practices that aren't coming to mind.... A recent Nielsen study, mentioned by Adage, reveals the limited success corporations can expect from greenwashing efforts, due to all those handy muckrakers, concerned joes and environmental watchdogs out in the blogosphere who have a voice thanks to places like greenwashingindex.com. With so many eyes keeping watch, the truth will out! Eventually, all those green bloggers, will render all corporate deeds (and misdeeds) transparent to the consuming public.

Perhaps they're betting they'll ride out discovery with their brand equity intact, or never be discovered at all. Or, more likely, they simply don't feel they're doing anything wrong. For many, I think it's a matter of "positioning"- a loaded word for marketers who navigate the murky waters somewhere between a real desire and need to sell, and the need to be credible. Perhaps, marketers, advertisers and corporations just need more boundaries. With certain products, one might imagine a need for FDA or government intervention. The now widely known Energy Star labels come to mind, but those really only apply to appliances. Then again, how the hell do you place parameters around a word like "green" or "environmentally-friendly"? Similar to the food labeling controversies and loose definitions for phrases like "organic" were exposed by Michael Pollen in the The Omnivore's Dilemma. Perhaps we need more Energy Star-like labels? Icons that represent credible greenness? No answers here, just questions.

Cause Marketing; American Express at the Forbidden City

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:10:00 +0000

Last year, I found myself in Beijing on business. My colleagues and I used our free time to explore the Forbidden City, among other local highlights. It was there, inside the walls of that sacred place, that I happened upon the sign you see in the photo. It provides a brief explanation of the Hall of Union and Peace, and alerts visitors that the building (perhaps it's restoration?) was "Made Possible by the American Express Company." Overlooking the fact that their exact role is....unclear, it's a great example of American Express' global efforts to support cultural initiatives.

Wikipedia describes Cause Marketing as "a type of marketing involving the cooperative efforts of a "for profit" business and a non-profit organization for mutual benefit." The wiki author also ascribes credit to American Express, which first used the term to "describe efforts to support locally based charitable causes in a way that also promoted business."

Cause marketing has long been regarded as a great example of mutually beneficial corporate benevolence; The organization or people on the receiving end benefit, as does the corporation supporting them. In the case of the Forbidden City, we can assume the Chinese government or a restoration committee received funds to restore or preserve the building, and others like it throughout the palace compound. Clearly, they benefited. What did American Express gain? Given the millions of tourists and native Chinese who pass through those walls, one might assume the sponsorship created millions of global consumers who now have a positive association with the brand.

If they had chosen to ONLY support this one institution, we could perhaps fault American Express for supporting a communist regime, or question whether this was the most deserving beneficiary. But, in fact it was probably part of a much larger effort: The World Monuments Fund, of which American Express is a key sponsor. By pursuing a partnership with scale, they've done more than create a bit of goodwill among Forbidden City visitors; They've established themselves as a global, culturally enlightened and enlivened brand.

What it is

noreply@blogger.com (Katharine Lusk) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:50:00 +0000

In 1970, Milton Friedman published a piece in the New York Times Magazine entitled "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits". He argued vociferously that the exclusive role of the modern corporation was to make money. He believed that businessmen arguing in favor of internalizing and pursuing a social mission were "preaching pure and unadulterated socialism". He quotes himself, ending with this excerpt from his book: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." To prioritize social responsibility ahead of profits was to lose sight of the very reason corporations came to be.

But, I want to understand whether today the two - making money and doing good - are perhaps inextricably linked? And is that okay? Do we accept when the brands we love do good because they benefit from it, or do we hope they'll do good simply because its the "right" thing? When do they do the latter, and when the former? The modern consumer is increasingly anthropomorphizing brands - projecting onto them human characteristics and emotions. Has that contributed to a sense that companies - like people - should do what is "right" rather than acting only in their own self-interest? And what is the prevailing opinion around what makes for "right"? In Friedman's day, it included conceding to labor union demands. Today, it's ethical labor and environmental practices, cause marketing, pro bono work, community outreach, sustainable development, "accessibility" and a host of other terms already or yet to be coined that I haven't encountered yet.

This blog will log my circuitous musings on all of those topics. It's one woman's study of corporate benevolence.