My friend Tim Kitchin makes an interesting observation today. Tim thinks a lot about how organisations create mutual advantage for stakeholders. He asks if Corporate Social Responsibility activity is a way of avoiding carrying out the core business responsibly.
Some interesting nuggets starting to emerge from BP recently, crystallising a move away from CSR, and maybe even CR, and treating responsibility as business as usual.
"We aim to create mutual advantage through ALL our relationships..."
BP Global/About BP/BP policies: "BP Policies"
Seeking to determine the balance of win:win relationships means understanding the nature of responsibility.
I've long held a smouldering belief that huge amounts of CSR (or CSI) activity is bunk or "greenwash". It's too easy for businesses to invest a sliver of their profits in worthy causes but not take responsibility for the detailed impact of their day-to-day operations.
In fact, let me see what happens if I try to kick the door open even wider. Maybe most sponsorship is bunk. For instance, I see that Guiness is the "Official Beer" of the Lions (Rugby) Tour of New Zealand. Budweiser slaps its name all over the Superbowl. Why?
Is it so great that sport gets funded this way? Especially as the vast majority of the money floods to the big ticket sports and sportsmen? What's wrong with Guinness and Budweiser that they're owners are not willing to stand or fall on the quality of their beer and let me decide for myself which sports to support?
Is it because of branding people, who can never be content with selling us goods for what they are, but pursue ever increasing profit by ever-inflating efforts to stretch the meaning we attach to mere stuff by posing with the stars?
An investment bank marketing director once proudly told me that they would be sponsoring the Tate Modern (London Modern Art gallery). Becuase he felt that this sort of creativity meshed well with his "brand image". I said it would be better to put their money into being creative instead of posing with (or as) people who were.
Are we really so willing to support corporates in these sorts of vanity exercises?
For years, branding gurus of all shades have lured businesses into striking these kinds of poses. I fear this is simply a distraction from doing what they're supposed to do, and doing it well.
Imagine you're trying to buy a new car. You want to have a conversation with the salesman about safety statistics or whatever. And he keeps changing the subject to last night's football. You'd start to feel pretty wary.
That's the impact of most corporate sponsorship and CSR on me. It makes me wonder: what are you trying to cover up? After all, it's not as if many organisations have reached the point where their customers are really satisfied with the service they get on the basics. So how come there's time and energy left over for this kind of thing?
Do you know what I think this is really about, in my darker more cynical moments? Strip away a few bogus spreadsheets, dubious powerpoints with buzzwords and ROI in them, and some half-baked bits of market research... and I believe you may find one thing: a bored marketing director, lacking in self-esteem and longing to have a beer with Tiger Woods or some other star. Dying to keep up with his mates at the golf club with stories of the glamorous events and people he's been seen at and with.
Ok, it's not quite this simple. I'm not sure I want to rule out philanthropy for companies... but I am deeply suspicious that marketing gurus have hijacked it and mutated it into another way to not be straight with us.
I've noticed the faintness of the praise with which some bloggers have linked to this particular blog. I don't blame them. I think a lot of stuff done in the name of branding sucks. Unbelievers are very welcome to the services at this church.
Jennifer Rice
Andy Lark
Johnnie Moore
John Winsor
1. jbr on February 11, 2005 02:58 PM writes...
GDI! i just typed 5 paragraphs into this comment box and accidently closed it...
crap! will be succint this time.
my company sponsors a major sports event in this city - jennifer is familiar with it - it is sponsored for a much lighter shade than other sponsorships.
it is sponsored because....the event gives back to the community as thousands of people come in this weekend and the money spent by visitors will help fund social programs within the city...the event allows our employess to provide community service as it takes a lot of people to run the event....the event helps attract people(talent) to the city and helps local companies bring that talent into their company....the event promotes a healthy life style that is required to be in the event...finally, the event does help drive the blogosphere as via Technorati/Pubsub, i see countless blogs/conversations from people that are getting ready for the event...
so, to help you believe there are good sponsorships, i hope the above examples lighten your mood about them...not all "branding" is a dark shade...cheers!
Permalink to Comment2. Wendy on February 11, 2005 03:06 PM writes...
Funny..I've been thinking similar thoughts, but as an NLP guy, let's look at it from the other side too. Think about this: The Sin of Commission...Branding. Why are cash contributions going up? Why are NBA game turning into carnivals? Why are families eating out more? It is my hypothesis that we no longer know how nor do we want to emotionally connect with each other any more. Why spend time volunteering when you can write a check? Why spend time talking when you can watch people perform the entire time you are at the arena, even between timeouts? Why spend time at the family dinner table connecting when you can go out and be distracted by external stimuli? Why? Why not? It's easier than telling the truth about how you feel. It's easier than trying to connect your actions and your feelings, and by the way, perhaps you don't even know how to do that. The sin of omission, if you don't say it, it doesn't exist.
But, everybody has a story, everybody has something to say, everybody wants to feel important. And, everybody wants to connect, everybody wants to belong and everybody want to create a family.
So, we have allowed brands to step in to do our talking, to perform our tasks, to place our orders; only brands are "doers" not "feelers" and as humans we want to connect, we want to emotionally connect. And, to emotionally connect you need the truth. The truth about branding in its current state is that is assumes something is wrong with you and you need "it" to solve your problems. Wrong. The truth is the role of branding is to emotionally connect with me and to enable me to neuro-manage my life so that I have time and brain-space to spend on myself and my family. The role of marketing is to enhance the lives of our consumers.
Permalink to Comment3. jennifer rice on February 11, 2005 03:42 PM writes...
Wendy, you're right; we all want to connect. And that means connecting with the people behind the company as well as with each other. It's time for companies to stop taking the easy way out by writing sponsorship checks and start sitting down and engaging with their customers. They'll spend a bit more time, but get much more as a result.
JBR, great example. There are 'good' sponsorships in which employees are actively involved in the community and at the sponsored event. It's ideal when a company can show a human face and make connections.
I read somewhere about... was it Charmin?... that is now showing up at major events in a decked-out rig to provide a "premium" toilet experience to the relief of tens of thousands of people. A glorified port-a-potty. Wish I had the link to share with you. This is getting closer to personal connection versus impersonal sponsorship.
Permalink to Comment4. Bruce DeBoer on February 11, 2005 03:53 PM writes...
Johnnie! [may I call you Johnnie?] Settle down. I can’t believe your missing this [I'll bet your not and just playing with us]
Corporations sponsor for a variety of reasons [bunk may be one].
Budweiser and the Super Bowl is a no brainer – think of the target market. Hmmmm, football - beer drinkers – Budweiser – seeing the logo all over the damn place; not much of a stretch is it?
Corporate Philanthropy has a well established history. Look at it one way and it can seem despicable, but look at it the other way and there is a lot of good being done with all loot. It’s a trade-off that can be very "stringy" if you catch my drift. The alternative: Corporate Social Irresponsibility really sucks though. Any thing we can do to get the big guys to sit up and fly right is a good thing in my mind – we all know they should do more.
My pet peeve these days is SPIN. Political spin, for example, is out of control: advertising/PR v.s. The Public Good. Perhaps this is what is bugging you about CSR (I hate acronyms BTW). Corporations seem to do a small good and promote it as a mega-gift to humanity. It’s icky. I’ve been deceived so I’m having a very hard time believing anything I don’t experience myself.
This is a little off subject but may I add that the web is GREAT at enforcing accountability?
Permalink to Comment5. Johnnie Moore on February 11, 2005 05:53 PM writes...
Hi Bruce, sure you can call me Johnnie. I answer to a lot worse names than that too.
Sure, I am thinking out loud and I realise Bud are selling more beer. Partly I'm just voicing my own boredom with marketing that strikes poses (as I believe they are doing with, for instance, their "patriotic" returning soldiers pitch) to shift product. I'd say that this was a kind of spin myself.
Call me old fashioned but the fact something is successful at making money doesn't automatically make me like it.
No, I don't want to consign corporate philanthropy to the dustbin. I would like to see it questioned more carefully. A friend of mine said how much more impressed she was by the artistic donations of those who choose to remain anonymous, and I resonate with that.
And yes, like you, I'm optimistic that the web is proving a good way of enforcing accountability.
Permalink to Comment6. Wendy on February 11, 2005 08:39 PM writes...
If senior managers thought of themselves as "a" consumer and their associates as "the" consumers and you had congruency in the Company Identity from cubicle to cabinet, tactical pieces may remain, those are just psychological representations of emotional needs; but, what WOULD change is the holistic approach to marketing. The best marketing starts inside the company, I agree.
Permalink to Comment7. Andy Lark on February 11, 2005 09:36 PM writes...
The reason it's not a good idea for Guiness to sponsor the Lions tour is that the Lions are going to loose miserably to a vastly superior All Blacks team. So, they'll be associated with a pathetic on-field performance and coach who is defecting to soccer... Soccer! Although one could argue that directing fans that have travelled 30-plus hours to beer in order to alleviate some of their pain is a socially responsible thing to do. I can imagine the fans saying "We were crap, but at least there was Guiness...."
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Permalink to Comment8. jennifer rice on February 12, 2005 12:32 PM writes...
(laughing) Good one, Andy...
Permalink to Comment9. Tom Asacker on February 12, 2005 01:17 PM writes...
Let's face it. As long as human beings work for money, the activities we get "turned off" by will continue to exist in the world of business and the world of work. Wendy hit the nail squarely on the head. We want to be stimulated . . . from the outside! And the trend is growing, despite what we personally may feel/want.
And it's not just corporations playing the game. It's everywhere. Here's a suggestion: let's take a long, hard look at the world of blogging. Let's dig deeply into the money being made by bloggers and see if we agree with the sponsors they solicit. If not, let's slam them just as hard as we do a Budweiser. Why not? Are we now "holier than thou?"
That's my rant for the week. Sorry. I get frustrated because I sometimes feel that we are preaching to ourselves.
Permalink to Comment10. Steve on February 12, 2005 05:15 PM writes...
I agree that a lot of sponsorships are driven by the ego needs of the executives involved and a waste of money. I still think well thought out sponsorships help with awareness and branding, and are useful in many cases.
I strongly believe true CSR programs (which I consider different from simple sponsorships) are important to corporations. A wide variety of research is showing that social issues like good corporate citizenship, fair trade, the environment, and sustainable growth are growing in importance for people worldwide. This makes these programs - and genuine attempts to be a good corporate citizen - important on two levels:
1. Attracting and Retaining Talented Employees -Corporations are made up of people and people on average want to be part of organizations that are good citizens. Corporate citizenship is often cited by employees as a key reason to join a company, with younger employees (workers under 30) citing this much more often than older workers. Bad corporate citizens are going to have an increasingly difficult time hiring, motivating, and retaining talented workers.
2. Attracting and Retaining Customers - Consumers are also showing more interest in supporting corporations they view as "good corporate citizens" and punishing companies that they view as abusive. Helping to drive this is the growing power NGO's (non-governmental organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Greenpeace, Oxfam, etc.) have with many consumers. These NGO's have become aggressive corporate watchdogs and their criticism of corporate behavior often has a negative impact on product sales. Being perceived as a good corporate citizen minimizes attacks by NGO's and better positions a corporation in the eyes of a growing number of consumers.
To be successful I think CSR programs have to be more than charity programs. Corporations aren't charities and the bottom line will always drive decision making. Doing well by doing good - in other words making money or at least cutting costs - has to be a key objective for most of these programs to be sustainable and successful. This could come a variety of ways. The Seattle Times recently had an article on electronic firms designing their products with recycling in mind (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002172843_greendesign07.html). While environmental concerns are definitely part of these design decisions, reducing costs is the key driver.
Another example from the consumer electronics area is eBay's Rethink program (http://pages.ebay.com/rethink). This program is designed to help the environment while increasing the number of auctions conducted on eBay. It also helps eBay partner companies deal with the increasing number of costly recycling laws and regulations.
P&G's Tide Coldwater Challenge (www.coldwaterchallenge.com)is an example from the consumer products area. P&G is working with an NGO (The Alliance to Save Energy)to promote cold water washing, which uses less energy than hot water washing. Almost 500,000 people have registered at the site so far and Tide is clearly going to benefit financially from this marketing program. Convincing people to switch from hot to cold water washing is one of Tide's biggest marketing challenges, and this program seems to have hit a chord with consumers.
[A quick disclosure - I am an affiliate of the Institute for the Future (www.iftf.org) and both eBay and P&G are Institute members (clients). IFTF had no involvement with The Coldwater Challenge and minimal involvement with eBay's Rethink program.]
Doing well by doing good can add to the bottom line in many ways, and help a company successfully compete.
Permalink to Comment11. Johnnie Moore on February 14, 2005 09:34 AM writes...
Andy: A good example for anyone in marketing - different people make very diverse meanings out of messages that the branders assume are very consistent!
Tom: Yes, I sometimes share your frustration. On the other hand, singing to the choir and venting often have a positive role in context... for example in generating thoughtful comments like Steve's
Steve: Great comment, this is what I love about blogging... folks come in and enrich the debate like this.
Yes, after venting my spleen a little in my post I can cheerfully acknowledge that this is not an either:or debate. The following is not a counter to what you say, Steve, more of a continuing riff...
I think it's possible to do good and make money.
My caution is that we don't get to thinking that the one converts directly to the other. In justifying good works let's not rely too heavily on the direct benefit to the bottom line.
I think it's too easy to slide from acknowledging the vital role of profitability in a business to suggesting that maximising profits is the only justification for what a business does. I think overemphasis on profit as the bottom line misses a lot of the subtle richness of why humans gather together in groups and organisations of all kinds. I guess the reason for my scepticism about CSR by companies is my awareness of their constant efforts to assuage the demands of the analysts and fund managers who appear mostly fixated with the things they can measure, especially cash.
Permalink to Comment12. Steve on February 14, 2005 12:06 PM writes...
Johnnie: There are some interesting groups/experiments in the CSR area. The Omidyar Network (www.omidyar.net) is a "social VC" organization set up by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. They invest in both non-profit and for-profit organizations that empower the individual.
The Interra Project (www.interraproject.org) is attempting to create a new model of economic democracy and exchange partially based on values. The main folks there are the founders of Visa and Odwalla Juice.
Both groups are founded and run by hard core business people who are trying to figure out how to move organizations and people beyond focusing solely on financial profits.
My own view on all of this is organizations have to be profitable to survive and thrive, but profits are not enough.
Permalink to Comment13. Johnnie Moore on February 14, 2005 12:38 PM writes...
Steve: Thanks, both are fascinating links!
Permalink to Comment14. Tim Aldrich on February 15, 2005 04:47 AM writes...
Steve's points are absolutely right. I work in CSR in the UK with many leading multinational companies for a charity, Forum for the Future - the focus of our work is about addressing the core business and the functions that support it. Philanthropy is often a good start or the icing on the cake, but cannot be the main part of an effective CSR programme.
The real challenge is not so much doing good in sponsorship or in employees spare time, but seeking opportunities to minimise the negative impacts of the business (carbon emissions, poor working practices etc) and to maximise potential social, environmental and economic benefits (enabling better work/life balance, promoting greater biodiversity, regenerating economically disadvantaged neighborhoods etc) whilst seeking the financial benefits that can accompany them.
There is still a lot of CSR that is greenwash and well-meaning bunkum, but also a great deal of good too. For further responses to criticisms of CSR it is worth looking at the Economist letters page for 4 Feb (registration req'd), some excerpts are on my personal blog at: http://firstdraft.blogs.com/altfunction/2005/02/the_good_compan.html
Permalink to Comment