Jon Fricker

I don’t often see eye to eye with Ed Miliband, but I do think he touched on something important when praising companies that contribute to society – about the importance of companies giving back to society and not just serving the needs of a few individuals through excessive rewards.

Mr Miliband’s strategy of Government intervention to ensure ‘companies behave’ is however questionable.

Perhaps he should read brand consultant, Simon Mainwaring’s excellent book ‘We First’ which recognises the potential for social media to add value to those companies and brands that strive to generate ‘profit for purpose’, contributing to the wellbeing of society through economic, moral, ethical, environmental and social initiatives. (Mr Mainwaring also points out, of course, the risk that social media is just as likely to name and shame those organisations which don’t comply, potentially leading to suppressed sales and declining profits and shareholder value.)

Public opinion has always had the ability to change behaviour; social media has just made it easier and faster to amplify that opinion, without the need for the State to intervene.

Mr Mainwaring’s book is full of interesting initiatives that prove that ‘being good is good’ for consumers, companies and brands – people do care, and not just about price. Indeed it’s interesting that only this week have we seen Mars finally follow Nestle and Cadbury in adopting Fairtrade sourcing.

‘We First’ also acknowledges that the resources of the planet would be insufficient to support the needs of the human race if all people were to consume at the same rate as the developed nations. It notes that:

• The 1 billion citizens of North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia consume resources and produce waste at level 32 times higher than the populations of the developing world.
• If the 1.3 billion people of China decide that they too aspired to the same Western standard of living, it would triple the world’s consumption of resources and production of waste.
• If the entire world consumed at the pace of developed nations, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people living on Earth – not 7 billion, the current total.

In this context, it’s interesting to see the decline in organic food sales in the UK.

Excuses of ‘premium prices’ for organic produce are understandable, particularly where money is tight, but price can sound like a default excuse, especially when the reality of organic pricing is understood.

The Soil Association’s latest strategy paper ‘The Road to 2020 – Towards healthy, humane and sustainable food, farming and land use’, acknowledges the challenge surrounding food production when it states:

‘Over the last 65 years we have endeavoured to bring the organic principles of care, ecology, fairness and health, into a world seemingly determined to ignore these values and put its faith instead in over-consumption and unqualified growth. In this unequal struggle between a small, under-resourced charity and the might of global businesses driven by the need for shareholder returns, the losers include most other species, our health and humanity. We must face the facts. There is only one planet with finite resources to provide for the needs of our growing world population. We must find ways of meeting our needs while not compromising the prospects of future generations.’

Hopefully we’re at a point in time where the power of public opinion, amplified through social media, will accelerate a change in attitudes and behaviour encouraging consumers to actively seek out companies that behave in the interest of society as a whole.

If not perhaps we’ll see more of the unrest anticipated by Mr Mainwaring’s book, published before the riots of the summer of 2011:

‘Capitalism’s demand for constant development and expansion fails to account for the social damage this rapid change can cause. These include urban blight, dysfunctional families, stress, psychological turmoil, mental and physical illnesses, gangs and crime.

Such issues are a critical factor in the long-term sustainability of capitalism. Companies need healthy, educated staff; safe environments for their offices and factories; attractive cities in which their workers want to live; and a high quality of life to keep employees and their families happy and well-adjusted. Without social well-being capitalism falters or has to move elsewhere.’

Businesses and brands, of course, play a pivotal role in stimulating growth and generating wealth.

The question is what sort of businesses and brands consumers want – those that continue to encourage conspicuous consumption delivering rewards for the few, whatever the cost to society? Or those that set out to provide a means for contributory consumption, generating profits which support social-wellbeing at large?

At a time where most sectors are in over-supply, and there continues to be little real product or service differentiation, perhaps the leader of the opposition and the brand consultant have identified a means by which businesses, brands and society can all prosper through ‘being good’.

According to the Charity Commission website there are 162,008 charities in England and Wales.

Just think about that from a marketing perspective and the enormity of the challenge to get noticed and to raise funds in a competitive set which is crowded with so many organisations, all worthy of support, many with similar goals.

However worthy their aims, the charity sector is unfair – some charities have significant budgets to gain the preference of consumers and businesses, but most have next to nothing but a smile and a plea for support.

This uneven playing field has direct consequences on the future of a charity; there is a direct correlation between a charity’s share of voice and the share of revenue they generate – simply the more they get themselves noticed, the more funds they raise.

Charities with significant funds make emotionally engaging advertisements, they commit significant investment in direct mail campaigns, they run events for the athletically minded and the more casual individual.

Some however use identity as a cornerstone for differentiation – just think of the WWF Panda…and the Breakthrough Breast Cancer pink ribbon.

And so I was stunned to read about a report by London Business School, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and international business school INSEAD that claims “that gender cues such as pink ribbons… are counterproductive and “activate a defensive reaction” in women that interferes with the objectives of breast cancer awareness campaigns.”

Quite apart from questioning why four eminent institutions believe it is a good use of their resources to tackle this specific subject, I can’t help feeling that they are simply misguided and they don’t understand the role of identity to build awareness, to engender a spirit of togetherness and belonging and to encourage participation (not just giving, but spreading the word about the importance of regular check-ups).

Thankfully, Breakthrough Breast Cancer recognises the value and power of their pink ribbon.

The head of brand and communication at the charity is quoted as saying that “while she cannot comment directly on the report, incorporating the colour pink into its branding helps the charity fund its work because of the strong associations with the cause.”

“The colour pink is now universally associated with breast cancer and breast cancer charities. The association [with the colour pink] can be powerful in encouraging people to donate, check their breasts and get involved in the fantastic work that many breast cancer charities, such as Breakthrough Breast Cancer, are doing.”

Given the impact the breast cancer charities have, I hope people will continue to wear pink ribbons with enormous pride and condemn the academic ‘science’ to the rubbish bin.