The art of Forestry

There are lots of difficult questions in the idea of 'sustainable business' that from some angles seem contradictory.   This would cause some people to find it such a hard sum to balance that any kind of action is too challenging. There is some truth in their fears. There are really hard conceptual issues that could take up all of your time if you had to engage with them every day. This creates a huge responsibility on the proponents of the thinking to grapple with them until not only they can fully understand them, but they can also explain them clearly to others.

The route of the problem in my mind that creates all of the smaller inconsistencies and tensions that sprout up here and there is as follows:

-A smaller economy is the quickest route to reducing the total impact of human activity.

-Companies are defined by growth. This is core to their existence and the pursuit of this represents the only way they can survive in the face of competition

-Therefore sustainability interests and business interests are set in critical opposition to each other from the off.

The best resolution of this that I have ever read was on John Grants blog and is based around a useful metaphor - the idea of forestry. It states that we should think of the economy as a whole as a huge forest that has been growing in all directions for a while now. Trends towards reducing excessive consumption through government intervention, consumer choice or scarcity of resources can and should make the forest shrink in its totality. It would also change the rules of how the many forms of life inside win and lose. What would not change would be the fierce competition for the scarce life sustaining resources available inside. Each species and individual would have to adapt to this change in conditions in order to succeed. This will definitely mean that some of the biggest oldest oak trees (on present form lets say the American car industry) might fall. But this in turn would free up resources for other more suitable forms of life in their place. Other well established life might be able to change and mutate quickly enough to stay strong with a lesser or even highly coverage. However the most noticeable thing would be some bamboo shoots or other nimble fast growing life, totally suited to the new environment, growing up before our very eyes.  

In other words even in an economy that is shrinking overall, the growth drive of companies does not and can not subside. What’s more important is the transitions that will take place between better suited, more able, more sustainable forms of business, and older less flexible institutions.  

But despite this those in both scenarios need help. The newcomers need resources and guidance to become established. While the incumbents need help to modernise and learn new methods. If ultimately the latter are sat on an unsustainable business model and are not prepared to address this despite any smaller steps they take around the edges then they may not make the distance. But all deserve the chance.

So if it seems complicated sometimes the task can be reduced to something pretty simple… two tasks in fact. The first is making big or established companies become more sustainable. The second is making newer or smaller more sustainable companies big. The race for the future happens in-between.

Reciprocal Altruism... A new golden rule for marketing

Sounds a bit lofty but could be the answer to something that I have been trying to resolve for a while now. Its an idea that is used to explain the notion that humans are innately moral in some way. In simple terms the phrase ‘do unto others as you would want done unto you,’ which is the original golden rule gets the idea across. If I do something good for you then there is more chance that you will do me the same or some other favour in return. In a meeting of religious faiths which brought together representatives from all of the key religions this was the one principle that everyone was able to agree on as the common ground.  

Brain research has also shown that our process for judging our own behaviour involves a step which blurs the line between the person having the thought and the person who might have to deal with the consequences of their actions - in other words before acting we put ourselves in the position of other people to judge how we would feel if the situation was switched e.g. taking something without asking or making a decision that affects others without consulting them. All of this says that there is some kind of original physiological and cultural predisposition to show empathy and respond to empathy from other people.  

Anyhow the problem I was toying around with was the belief that a lot of people have about sustainability as a marketing tool. There is no question that active consumer interest in products and brands who tick more of the ‘ethical’ boxes is on the rise. But despite this there is a large percentage who are not actively choosing brands on these grounds; they are aware and sympathetic about the issues but they are not doing anything about it. Instead of seeing this as an opportunity to make ‘green’ easy for the current spectators many people would argue that this proves that there is no great demand and we therefore do not need to pursue it.  

This is where the idea of ‘reciprocal altruism’ comes in. For if you know that something is in someone’s or everyone’s interests then would you only do it if you knew that they were  actively calling out for it? Going beyond people’s expectations is often what is required to trigger a positive response from someone that they were not expecting to give. I have been a big proponent of consumer centric planning which is basically the idea that marketing should seek to give people things that they actually want. But if you restrict yourself to this then you might miss out on being more than they hoped. Now I would put forward a new idea based on a strategy of reciprocal altruism... lets call it ‘marketing kindness.’ An idea to explain acting for peoples interests as if they were your own rather than giving people whatever they will swallow fastest or easiest. Not because it feels nice to do it but because people are predisposed to respond positively to this kind of action. It builds a sense of trust and community and is likely to be reciprocated in some way - all things that companies are looking for.

For example Dove would not have been able to prove that the goal of building women’s self esteem was an expectation that women placed on brands in the category by simply asking people outright. In research I expect it might have come out as a nice to have rather than a big idea. But over the years it has worked for them incredibly well and has translated into sales success.  

Likewise Cadburys are about to go fair trade on every single product that they make. I am almost certain that in consumer research people would not say that fair trade was a pivotal factor in their purchase of chocolate. Lets see how it goes but I predict that there will be a positive ‘reciprocated response’ that goes beyond what they would have been able to determine in advance. 
 
Looking at it like this sustainability is not about ‘doing your bit’ its a strategy of taking a leap of faith to inspire people to believe in what you are doing rather than relying on simply taking the order of the day as gospel.  

Brand Leo...

“Brand” is one of those words that loses its meaning sometimes. It seems like it constantly needs revisiting for a definition of what it actually is. Maybe it’s to do with it being conceptual idea related to popular culture that is always on the move like ‘style’ which has a slightly mobile meaning. Or that it has a value attached to it.  Companies have to protect the idea that their brands have a quantifiable value, meaning that it’s an idea that needs upkeep like the word capitalism itself. I was reading ‘Creative capitalism’ which was a debate style book where Bill Gates’ concept of the same name was being interrogated. Lots of economists were arguing passionately about the need to maintain the purity of the profit motive of companies and that it was wrong to muddy the waters by confusing this with altruism. Maybe the advertising industry is to the word brand, what establishment economists are to the word capitalism i.e they have a vested interest in cultivating its meaning. What’s funny is that sustainability thinking offers clarity to a lot of the issues that branding is trying to work out since it realised that a lot of the old ideas need updating. In other words sustainability has helped me understand what brands really are. And so here you have it, no fanfare required…

“A brand is what people think about the things that you do.”

Pretty basic really. When people talk about your personal brand – they mean nothing more than this… what people think about the way that you conduct yourself and what they interpret from this about who you are and ultimately if they like you. Calling it a ‘BRAND’ does not change this even though it gets used in a way to suggest that it should. In fact if this notion that on one level everything is a brand did mean something it would mean something negative i.e. Looking after your brand would probably mean managing people’s perception of you regardless of how you really are. This is basically the assumption that has been made by advertising and marketing since they existed as independent departments and businesses. The idea that the perception of a brand can be created as whatever you want it to be regardless of what else is going on in the broader company. This is not saying that marketing and advertising is not necessary – the company needs a voice and it needs to get heard. It is the idea that the voice is disconnected from everything else and can basically be the mother of its own invention that is shaky. If that was the case then you could not really explain away why it makes sense to build your brand in simple common sense speak. It would probably be something like…

‘Brands are something that companies create to give the appearance that the products that it sells are more interesting or attractive than they actually are. ‘

Logic would say that if you chose this definition then you would also end up thinking that actually this was not sustainable (in the enduring sense) for very long and would probably end up opting for a strategy of actually trying to become more compelling as a company in the way you go about doing things and hope that this would rub off.  This is basically what sustainability thinking wants you to conclude. If a brand is what people think about what you do then you focus on that.  

Which in a long winded way brings me to the point of the post which is an example of this at work. ‘Brand Leo’ (not Leonardo Di Caprio these days apparently,) is nothing more complicated than what people think about the things that he has done. This means massive movies that will put off some cultural elites but also includes some with real merit. A string of super model girlfriends which commands respect from the ex-teenager inside men and from what I can tell does not seem off-putting to women. Then there’s how he comes over in real life situations such as interviews – do you come away thinking funny, big ego, boring, takes himself too seriously, insincere, smart?  Well from the couple of times I have seen him he seems to come over pretty well - articulate, passionate but also strikes up a rapport with the interviewer, seems to be ‘being himself.’ Of course all of this could fall to pieces if a Christian Bale like outburst  (remix,) at one of the on set minions emerged but so far it seems to be genuine. So a pass on most measures or 'a strong brand' some might say.

There is however another part to his ‘brand’ which is his vocal support and the time that he has dedicated to supporting awareness of climate change.  If this was just talk or he did not really seem to understand the issues then this would look like spin or tokenism but the commitment needed to get a film project off the ground suggests that you can judge on actions alone. And so what do people think of it? It makes us understand that he is smart and cares about larger issues i.e. a capacity for empathy. And rightly this makes his ‘brand,’ if you want to call it that, stronger. It gives additional strings to his bow outside of teenage girls by having something to say to more enlightened audiences. It also maybe even makes him more capable of being taken seriously which is a big challenge for the leading man with artistic ambitions. And of course the teenage girls like him even more for it. Maybe they do not understand all of the issues but they definitely approve. Would they choose a Leo film over a Brad Pitt film based on sustainability credentials alone – probably not, and if you asked them in a survey it would not register. However the extra notice that they took when they watched his environmental film did make them feel good and some of it might just have sunk in.  

So currently its working well for Leo but the important point is that he could not have done it in the sense of a ‘branding’ exercise if that means through perception creation and manipulation… he had to mean it. So in actual fact its as simple as ‘doing things that are worthy of credit.’ Don’t let branding detract from a simple truth. People, celebrities, corporations, its all the same.

Some of the biggest global marketers see the need for brand substance...

This from the Unilever CMO...

"brands are now becoming conversation factors where academics, celebrities, experts and key opinion formers discuss functional, emotional and, more interestingly, social concerns," and "of course, the conversation is no longer one way or 30 seconds. ... You may want to talk about sport and just doing it, and the consumer raises the uncomfortable question of sweatshops."

Not just FUNCTIONAL or even EMOTIONAL but also SOCIAL concerns are important.  Maybe there was some sense in the post below...

Read the full article here...

Evolving beyond advertising...

A few years ago I went to a conference where one of the BBH founders spoke. I was not sure then whether it was B or B (i don’t think it was H.) While we are on the subject I expect that the new breed of agency that guide the enlightened brand of the future will surely be more imaginative in the names that they choose beyond a list of initials.Anyhow one of the bits advice he shared to the fledgling advertising professionals in the room that stuck in my mind was the idea that you should seek to ‘add to the intellectual capital of your company.’ The example given was a story about how some years before he had constantly re-pitched different ideas for the next level of understanding to define a product or brands ‘USP.’ It was explained that the ‘Unique Selling Point’ was old news - the stuff of the 50’s 60’s and 70’s. Already advertising was championing the value of finding the ESP of same product or brand... the emotional selling point that would communicate how it makes you feel rather than what it does. B or B spent time in his formative career thinking about what the new version of this would be to act as a short hand for the next step forward.

This stuck in my mind and every now and again I’ve wondered what my answer to this would be but have never really come to a satisfactory answer. Now I think I have it. The SESP. This would stand for the social or environmental selling point. People know what most products do and when they don’t they don’t really trust brand communications to tell them in light of access to so much impartial information. They are also less likely to buy into the emotions that are superficially attached to brands through marketing. But the social or environmental performance of a company and the products that it creates are meaningful in the modern context because they represent real differentiating value. The kind of thing that would be a big factor in like for like decisions for a large proportion of people. This would be strongest when the performance and perceived quality of the product is equated with its sustainable creation and company conduct.  This could mean a fruit drink that is produced using fair trade, organic, local fruits and being all the better in taste and heathiness because of this. Products that can’t do this or where there is quality pay off will be far less likely to succeed... especially for mass audiences.  

Also the idea is a broader concept. It would need to derived from a holistic perspective of the product and the company rather than a USP or an ESP which can to some extent be externally created by the ad man.  The final point is that the SESP might not necessarily be something that is itself directly a social or environmental fact or benifit.  It should be bigger concept or thought that is derived from these in order to make it robust but that goes further. For example it did not make sense for Prius to be sold on lower emissions.  I would have made its SESP something to do with modernity and futurism in a more holistic way where environmental credentials are the substance which supports it. Innocent use what essentially adds up to niceness which is underpinned by good ingredients, good corporate behaviour, good treatment of employees.   SESP’s could be a useful tool on the way to brand Brand Substance.  

PS I liked this image much more than the boring old evolution of man drawings. 

Companies are ecosystems so think like a gardener

Am making my way through this at the moment.  Its basically about the idea that in the new interconnected and interdependent structures of life our own ordered understanding of the world does not work. In pretty much every cultural discipline there will be a set of structured rules in use that basically can be reduced down to the following belief… that if A happens then B will be the outcome. It’s a way to bring order and simplicity to disordered and complex things. It’s also the reason why the experts get to call themselves experts – we can ask their advice because they know what’s going to happen, they have an equation to solve problems. This book says that these rules no-longer apply. That in the new world you need to find a way to plan for the unthinkable. One of the recurring metaphors is a pile of sand which is constantly growing due to new grains of sand falling from above onto the pile. When will the pile stand firmly in place and when will a landslide reshape this little mountain? Scientists once thought this is the kind of thing that they will be able to use logic to predict. Now they know that they never will – all they can bank on is its randomness i.e the relationship between every single grain of sand to all the reast, relative to every other variable creates complexity that we will never be able to iron out. This book increasingly sees politics, the environment, business, as well as science, in this light. 

One of the things that I like about it is the idea is that it is a way of un derstanding the world that you can apply to a vast array of different situations. My last blog blogged on about the idea that there are blurred lines between all types of culture such as arts and sciences or business and personal etc… etc… and that truly big ideas should stand up against the context of each of them (even if they get tested and reshaped a little along the way.)  

I have been thinking about this in the context of sustainability and see it as pretty useful. One of the most useful ideas it uses is the notion that we need to change our mindset to think in terms of systems rather than objects. For example we tend to think about a country or a company or organisation as a thing that can think and act collectively. In actual fact they are more like complex systems or balanced ecosystems in a constant state of flux.  

This idea is especially interesting when thinking about companies and how they need to see themselves in the modern world. It used to be that you could manage in a vacuum. You could communicate single mindedly and you could control your external perception. Now it makes much more sense to think of the company as an ecosystem… the things that happen inside are connected to the things that happen outside and the whole framework for decision making needs to be set in context.    Not only understanding the forces within the internal company structure but  viewing this in the full farthest reaching context in which it sits. Your brand, your environmental impact, your employees, your material use, your consumers, the media, the people who live close to your factory… they are all part of your corporate ecosystem. It can’t be run or managed it can only be cultivated or as I think the book said somewhere… think like a gardener!

Social media rules applied to sustainability

6 rules of social media that need to be applied to corporate sustainability initiatives... courtesy of faris. The full presentation is over on TIGS

Mind maps for sustainability

The Internet is pretty complicated - 'the one thing that humans have created that they themselves don't understand ' is the quote that springs to mind.  In order to make sense of it we have created a vast array of maps and visualisation tools.  The one above shows brands how to navigate the different connection points and communications opportunities that it provides.  Sustainability needs more of these.  Currently it is very disorganised in peoples mind.  Lots of the conversations I have with people take a quite a time for us to orientate ourselves around the same landmarks.  Are we talking about new product innovation, turning the lights off or brand communications.  Or more important are we talking about reducing costs or adding to them, or settling for lower profits or searching for more.  I think we need some more organising principles.