Employees on the loose…

If you believe the Clue Train Manifesto (which I do) then you could start to think that the established brand marketing methods are a stop-gap.  A space opened up when the actors of the small intimate market places of history were dissipated into different places and even time zones by mass culture.  Advertising filled the void and created a semblance of contact even though it was not the kind of personal interaction that typified the old market place. In the mean time we forgot that market places are always just conversations between people. But now we have the internet to help us remember and recently it seems to be bubbling over a little bit. This spirit is probably most alive through the staff in technology companies where a culture of open hyperlinked conversations based on home made intranets and wikis is the norm. But just recently since twitter has been around and since facebook started being used in a bit more of a blog-like way than a myspace way, I have noticed that quite a few people from the big agency group I work in are connected and exchanging interesting stuff in a new way. Many are even posting stuff about the clients they are working on becoming a bit of a media channel in their own right. Whether companies see this as a scary prospect or an untapped opportunity it’s not going to go away. The employees are on the loose! 

Again Obama shows us how its done.

If the UK politicians expenses scandal is a good lesson for the corporate world about how behind the scenes insular thinking is dead then Obama so far seems like a lesson for the new corporation that needs to emerge!!

Green Land-grab

Some people think that there is only a short window of opportunity when sustainability will present a point of different for brands.  In this way of thinking it becomes a space race to claim as much of the available ground as possible before sustainability claims are no longer differentiating.  I think there is a first mover advantage argument to be made but that also the journey will be endless.  In the fast food business their is a fundamental assumption that the entire model depends on scale meaning a small number of large production sites distributing to a high number of outlets.  The 'eat local' movement seems incompatible with their whole way of doing business and would be pretty far down the list of measures that most would consider.  Mcdonalds has actually made big gains in being the first mover in being a better kind of company than peoples expectations of them but at the same time there is already a fast food company with an 'eat local' business model that could blow much of this out the water.  Read more on Springwise.  Lets here it for Burgerville.

Brand Reinvention

Following on from the last post on brand retirement another life-stage that many brands could find themselves in need of is Re-invention.  Celebrities do it all the time to reinvent their image to a public and media who are looking for something new.  Corporate brands seem to think that its all about staying as close as possible to one thing for as long as possible.  Saying something is 'off brand'  is the quickest way going to kill a good idea.  But Ford - they had no choice.  Their re-invention is more like a miraculous resurrection from a near death experience.  And 'green' seems to be something that they want to embed into the post bankruptcy brand.  Again like they had any choice.  Of course its easy to comment from the outside looking in without any knowledge of the broader strategy but a advertising style film would not be my starting point for the new journey.  Perhaps even there was an idea in the old company that external brand communications would be enough to keep the brand relevant without the same innovation in sustainability thinking that has put the top Japanese brands on a surer footing.

See the video on Cherryflava...

Brand retirement

Most companies think about dipping their toe into sustainability by launching an eco brand. The logic is pretty straight forward I suppose i.e. ‘if theres money in this green trend then a new product launch would be the best way to attract it.' But might it be a more powerful marketing tool to do the opposite. To resign to retirement a product or brand that you think is sat on a business model that can't adapt well enough to compete in future more enlightened market places. Companies are not generally very good at counter intuitive thinking because it means backing the less simple, harder to argue option. When 100 people or more need to buy in that’s not easy to pull that off.  

It seems that GM have decided to off load the Hummer which has become short hand in recent years for environmental recklessness and ignorance. 500million is the price quoted. I am not sure if that’s a lot of money or not in the scheme of things but imagine the message it would send if they simply decided to hold their hands up and say they have decided to send the hummer brand into retirement. How much fun would it be to work on the marketing brief for that.  It would be a bit like when George Bush stood down.  We didn’t agree with what he stood for and it was a bit late in coming but we can wave him off with relief and just a little fragment of sentiment.  

I think a good example of dead wood would be airmiles as rewards for frequent flyers. Give regular flyers special treatment and try and make the pain of business travel a little more bearable but don’t give them tokens to fly even more; a well meaning idea that has had its day. On a personal level I have a small build up of air miles from Air Berlin and British airways. Consider them now publicly retired from service. Maybe there is a business idea in that. A retirement home for airmiles that would collect them off conscientious executives and give them to charities for some of the handful of others services that they can be used for such as visits to British tourist attractions that the average executive would not themselves use.

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.

MP's expenses and the end of 'behind the scenes' thinking

On BBC1's question time the sense of public contempt for politicians in light of the expenses scandal was pretty clear with derision even for public favourites like Ming Campbell.
 
It struck me that this whole business is a good metaphor for the relationship between companies and sustainability. A perfect example of the notion that there are negative consequences when there is a discrepancy between what you do and what you say. In this instance we all know that people have become disconnected from the political system. There is a general sense that the public face of the politician is not the whole story – that we are being sold some kind of façade or pretence created specifically to meet our expectations but somehow plastic and unreal.  
 
For most of the time this seems to be simply just the way things are and time passes without any great events or drama; just a background disquiet . Then out of the blue a crisis hits where it is revealed that behind the scenes everything is not as it was communicated. In this case we found out that the same politicians who talk to us on a daily basis about moral issues and the way that people should behave are caught taking advantage of their position and acting selfishly without due thought to the broader interests of the people who they represent  or the hard earned cash that they have to give up for the public purse. If only they had thought to ensure that everything that they stand for in front of the camera and on stage was perfectly aligned to the way they conduct themselves behind the scenes! The only rational argument for doing this is a belief that nobody is looking.
 
Corporations can fall foul of the same problem. People already have a general sense that they are selling us one view of themselves while concealing the reality behind closed doors or in far away places. This status-quo can only go on for so long. Every now and again a new issue will reveal practices that are out of sync with public expectations or company promises. When this happens the cost is large and lasting. 
 
The thing that should keep companies on their toes even more than politicians is that public expectations of corporate behaviour are far more changeable than the idea of what is morally acceptable for the political class. Today it might be ok to use certain materials or techniques to bring a product to market that tomorrow will not suffice to convince people that your leadership position is justified.  
 
This expenses scandal could have happened at any time in recent years and the response would have been the same. Keeping ahead of expectations on sustainability proportionately across an entire enterprise  and being open and transparent about this at every stage is a never ending journey.