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.

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.

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!

Is there a brand bubble?

 

If you read No Logo there is a pin pointed moment that I can't recall when the value of building brands was formalised based on a case where the intangible value of the brand was successfully assessed and paid for in the sale of a major company - or something like that.  I think it was David Ogilvy that said that if advertising could add 1% to share value then that would more than out strip any incremental sales target.   If you think through the rationale it means that you can agree a set of benchmarks for things that you can measure that advertising can effect and come up with a formula to measure how much the brand itself is worth separate to more tangible things like assets, contracts etc...  Do some advertising to raise the scores and then you can raise the value of your company.  Some of the broader principles are sound but what if some of the assumptions it makes are not right.  What if suddenly you went out of fashion, or something in culture swung against you, or people just weren't as loyal as you thought they were going to be.  There is a new book out which I've read bits of that say that there is a huge brand bubble that could burst at any given time based on the argument that 'companies think their brands are worth more than consumers do.'  When you say it like this it sounds like it could be true. What is the answer to this problem assuming that there is one.  To my mind this says that you need to find more tangible ways to build brand value over and above a static set of communicated values.  A more tangible version might be to think more in terms of a mission or goal that leads every part of a business from the service that it provides to customers to the style of innovation that will create future profits.  In this more industrious action orientated definition the overall behaviour of the business as a whole the brand remit.  Sustainability offers the framework to do this as it helps you to define what good behaviour and bad behaviour looks like and adds substance to your mission.  Get this right and you will have established a more solid role for your brand to avoid the risks inherent in any brand bubble if it were to burst.  Tomorrows tastes and business environment are looking increasingly like a sharp edge that could catch out the laggards.  

What would branding with substance mean?

Ever since I have worked in the advertising business there has been a trend away from advertising in the conventional sense.  The creative advertising production process is a counter force to this in the way that it is structured and rewarded but around the edges lots of different models have sprung up to demonstrate that in the modern world of people who know what they want and how to get it, the role for advertisements to inform people about products is diminishing.  The engagement model, digitally led, experience led, brand as service,  brand as media, brand entertainment, destination planning, consumer centric planning; all of these speak to the notion that marketing needs to be worthwhile in its own right in order to earn an audience.  It needs a point or a purpose that make people choose to engage with it.  I started to play around with the idea that basically brands used to create intangible image associations but now they need substance.  Its no coincidence that the word content is such a buzz word - content has substance and therefore can have value for people that advertising in the traditional sense can not.  

So knowing this the problem becomes not what but how.  How would you go about creating real things of substance for brands?  This is a question that brand marketing agencies are grappling with at the moment.  Everybody seems to be able to define one way or another what the answer should be but far fewer can actually execute it in a satisfactory way.  The way seems blocked.  I think we have all of the answers but we need to think bigger.

If the old approach was about the image that a company wants to create then creating substance would be more about the things that it actually does in the world.  If you want to be defined by your actions you need to start thinking about what the right kind of actions should be.  A person of substance would have good qualities, depth and character, values and ethical principles.  Sustainability offers a framework for how companies can engage with all of these things but quite often this is a function of CSR rather than branding.  This blog is about the idea that all  brands need meaning and purpose and authentic stories to tell and many other things of substance.  But its also about the idea that sustainability thinking offers up nearly all of the answers that it has been looking for.  At the moment I'm pretty sure most people won't see it like this and will see CSR and sustainability and Marcoms and branding in worlds of their own.  But new culture and ideas are about fusing and joining the dots within what we already have.  So here the idea is to smash these worlds together and see what colours shapes and patterns emerge.