Shiny Green Button

Today’s Wall Street Journal article titled, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility,” has our hackles raised around here today. The basic gist of the argument is that companies exist to maximize profits, and social responsibility puts profit at risk. The author advocates for leaving social good to government and corporate watchdogs. Here’s a tidbit:

Executives are hired to maximize profits; that is their responsibility to their company’s shareholders. Even if executives wanted to forgo some profit to benefit society, they could expect to lose their jobs if they tried—and be replaced by managers who would restore profit as the top priority. The movement for corporate social responsibility is in direct opposition, in such cases, to the movement for better corporate governance, which demands that managers fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders’ interest or be relieved of their responsibilities.

Provocative argument, but it seems a little short-sighted and simplistic to me. What about the positive impact of CSR on brand reputation? On employee productivity and innovation? What about its potential to reduce risk? I dare say, that’s just a short list of benefits that are all in line with shareholder interests, and therefore are a reason for corporate executives to make CSR a part of their agenda. Also, the author seems to be making the assumption that short-term profits are best for shareholders. What about long-term, sustainable success and the viability of the company?

What’s your response to the WSJ article?

Photo credit: jeroen_bennik on Flickr

I was just blown away by how honest and principled Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz seems to be, when reading the recent interview with him in Harvard Business Review. 

For example, here’s his response to a question about decisions he’s made that have been unpopular with Wall Street:

Within the past year I got a call from one of our institutional shareholders. He said, “You’ve never had more cover to cut [employee] heath care than you do now. No one will criticize you.” And I just said, “I could cut $300 million out of a lot of things, but do you want to kill the company, and kill the trust in what this company stands for? There is no way I will do it, and if that is what you want us to do, you should sell your stock.” What I stand for is not just to make money; it’s to preserve the integrity of what we have built for 39 years …

Especially in light of other recent CEO news, Schultz’s words were a welcome change of pace, and I must say, a brilliant piece of PR. Schultz seemed to be reaching out to all of his audiences—employees, customers, shareholders—and hitting just the right note. If I were a Starbucks employee, reading those words would make me proud to work at Starbucks. It’s motivating to know the company’s top guy cares as much about people as profits. As a socially conscious customer, I can feel great about buying my morning coffee, because my $2.50 happens to be funding the well-being of human beings, not corporate growth at all costs. For me, that’s a better purchase motivator than any sleek new packaging or combination of syrups.

And, shareholders? I’m sure he scared a few of them off. But maybe Schultz’s strategy is to not just have a more sustainable company—and by sustainability here, I mean long lived as well as green. Maybe he’s shaping a more sustainable investment environment, with shareholders who care as much about the complete health of the company as they do their returns.

Photo credit: Lel4nd on Flickr

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal contained an article about the chocolate giant Nestle’s recent troubles with activists. The issue: Nestle’s use of palm oil from a supplier accused of razing rainforests to get it.

Activists took advantage of social media outlets like Facebook and YouTube to raise awareness. Nestle responded by asking Google to remove the protesters’ videos, citing copyright violation, and threatened to delete comments from the company Facebook page. Bad idea. Nestle’s defensive actions only riled up the activists even more.

I couldn’t help but think of the situation in terms of personality types. If Nestle were a person, they would be a curmudgeonly introvert, demanding to be left alone, waving a fist and yelling at the crazy kids to stay off its property—or else.

What social media requires is an extrovert, someone who likes people, who wants to listen and engage. Someone who is interested in the conversation and the buzz that comes from pinging ideas back and forth.

Some marketing experts are advising Nestle to shut down its Facebook page altogether, according to the Wall Street Journal. But it seems like the worst possible time to shy away. Here’s an idea for you, Nestle: Hire the most outgoing, sociable person (or team) to manage your social media strategy. Give them the power to be transparent—let them blab about all the details of your progress so your customers can follow along as you take steps to address your palm oil problem. Let them get to know your critics, and treat them like friends with a bit of constructive criticism, rather than adversaries. The more open and honest Nestle can be, the better chance they have of turning their critics into champions.

The Sun is setting
The CEO tweets goodbye
New dawn for HR

Photo credit: basheertome on Flickr

I love this quote, which comes from a recent LA Times article about how auto companies are using Twitter to reach out to their customers. It’s from Geno Effler, Volvo’s VP of public affairs:
 
“We helped condense [Volvo president Doug Speck’s] sentences down to 140 characters. It helped him connect with consumers. We found it to be very worthwhile to talk about the XC60 as it was coming to market, to answer basic questions about the car or about safety, and convey the information in very short spurts.”

I love it because it mentions character counts, which is something many of us at AHA! wrangle with on a daily basis. Some of us do it so much we can tell how many character a sentence holds, just by looking at it.

Writing to a character count can be a frustrating task  at times. When you have multiple stakeholders, all with strong views, sometimes you just don’t have enough characters to accommodate everyone. On the flip side, it forces prioritization. When you only have 25 characters, including spaces, you better know exactly what you need to say.

So delivery mechanism aside, character counts can be a good practice to put into place, especially when there’s an important message that needs to be communicated and lots of ideas jockeying for attention. Even if it’s used as an internal tool, and your character-restricted phrase or sentence never sees the light of day, the discipline it imposes can serve as a touchstone when creating a longer piece.

Counting characters, it seems, can also build character—brand character, that is.

photo by Kevin Dooley

Here at AHA!, many of us are writers who live, breathe and even dream about messaging. So when the New York Times ran a front-page article, “Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus,” on a soon-to-be-released report that gives climate change messaging a makeover, it got my attention. The report, “Climate Truths: Making the Necessary Connections,” written by EcoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing firm in Washington, D.C., is due out at the end of May.

The writer for the Times, John Broder, who read a leaked summary of the report, generally pans the report’s assertions as misguided advertising techniques. Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Carbon dioxide discussions should be reframed as “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” And, “cap and trade” may gain more traction rebranded as a “pollution reduction refund.”

My first reaction to the writer’s skepticism is why should concepts like “global warming,” “climate change” or whatever you want to call it NOT get the same attention to the nuance of language and research around its perceived meaning among key target audiences that goes into successfully marketing a product, service, campaign or program? I mean, this is the greatest messaging project of the twenty-first century. And clearly, science doesn’t sell itself.

My second reaction is that—if examples cited in the article are any indication—the writers could use our help. I do like “pollution reduction refund” versus “cap and trade.” However, “our deteriorating atmosphere” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. I share many of the same thoughts as George Lakoff, who responded to the Times article very eloquently on the Huffington Post.

I don’t want to detract from the report with even less information than the Times writer. I eagerly await the published report. I promise I will hang on every word. And, I invite EcoAmerica to contact us immediately to begin work on “Climate Truths 2.0.”

I’m serious. Call us. 360-750-1680.

So, imagine you’re a bank, and you manage to pick up a whole lot of extra branches and customer accounts on the cheap. Of course, you’ll be changing the name of these new branches, which could make already skittish customers nervous. How do you announce the change that makes everything seem okay to depositors looking to pull their funds and transfer them to the seemingly superior security of their mattresses?

Here’s what Chase did, facing this very situation, to roll out the Chase name to former customers of the once-beloved WaMu in California:

There’s a clear break here from the Starbucks-casual image that WaMu cultivated (to considerable success, we should remember). It’s a montage of California cliches, from surfing to Easy Rider, accompanied by a remake of John Lennon’s “Instant Karma.” While the chorus “we all shine on” obliquely promises continuity, the future into which we’re headed is presented in a strangely disconcerting black and white. The lack of color strips the life and joy out of the images of freedom and happiness we see.

“Chase. New to California, but not to banking,” concludes the narrator at the end. This was probably intended to be reassuring to WaMu customers being brought into the Chase fold, but I also detect an undercurrent that says, “Now we’re Chase. Deal with it.” It’s a more austere approach to bank branding than WaMu customers are used to, and it perhaps signals a change in customer expectations: If the warm, fuzzy WaMu I trusted so much turned out to be just like all the other subprime-mortgage peddling grifters, maybe I don’t want a friendly casual bank. Maybe I just want one that will stay in business and not lose my money.

I didn’t have to stray too far afield for amusement today. A stinging analysis of Tom Friedman’s column caught my eye as I scanned the Huffington Post. The writer, David Roberts, skewers Friedman’s critique of the Democratic House climate and energy bill, one assertion at a time, with a skill that is captivating and frightening to behold. Oh how I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning…

Admittedly, I am a fourth wheel in this discussion, commenting on one writer’s scathing analysis of another writer’s critique of another group’s proposed action. I am the archetypal bastard derivative blogger commenting on something with little information or fear of recrimination, thrice removed from anyone actually working to solve the world’s problems.

My first take is that the critique and the analysis are unproductive. A form of greenbashing or “outgreening” by both writers.  The House energy and climate bill is already being undermined by skeptical, moderate Democrats, in addition to their uber-skeptical Republican counterparts. Now, House Democrats’ efforts are undermined by Tom Friedman, whose credibility on this issue is now being called into question by a writer determined to outgreen him.

On second thought, I think it’s healthy. It’s good to see Friedman playing devil’s advocate when it comes to proposed policy. And it’s good to see luminaries like him pilloried as much they are pedestalled.

For the record, I think Friedman’s misguided in his editorial. However, lively debate over how to address climate change is exactly what we need right now. And this is not the kind of greenbashing served up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh against all environmentalists. Nor is it the well-intentioned, though sometimes rabid, watchdogging form of greenbashing unleashed on corporations such as Apple, that may need a hot cattle prod poked at their brand. This is an intellectual variety of pro wrestling that will occur until a solution is put in place that has any signs of working. And that may be a long time.

My forecast calls for intellectual discourse around appropriate action to continue to heat up, while debate over the existence or cause of climate change begins to blow over for good (no matter what the latest Gallup poll says).

Ah, high fructose corn syrup. How we love to hate thee. Hence why the Corn Refiners Association has shot back with their, um, vaguely offensive ads:

The folks behind Brain have astutely pointed out that the CFA could have taken any number of valid approaches to this campaign, such as focusing on how HFCS has kept food prices low or how it benefits American farmers—arguments with holes, for sure, but at least less offensive and somewhat substantive. Instead, they chose to depict those of us who question the prevalence of the sweetener as social pariahs who make their friends and loved ones uncomfortable by rudely assuming ignorance.

Now, Curt Ellis (of King Corn fame) has responded to the campaign, liking it to tobacco ads of yore. Behold the King Corn version:

Ellis’ critique hinges around the fact that, yes, HFCS is probably safe in moderation, but most Americans don’t actually intake it that way. In fact, the New York Times’ Well blog reported in October on three new studies about HFCS, including one that found that drinking two sodas a day raises your risk of kidney damage by 40%. If “moderation” is considered less than two sodas a day, then I know far too many people who may want to schedule an appointment with an nephrologist.

But the Well blog reminds us too, by way of this Washington Post article, that the effects of HFCS reach beyond public health. Growing corn the way we do—as a monoculture—depletes the soil of nutrients, requiring more pesticides and fertilizers that create damaging runoff.

I don’t need to get all Michael Pollan on you, and I won’t. I couldn’t possibly say it better than he does anyway. Point is that there are many, many issues with HFCS (including, get this, that it may make people fatter faster than other types of sugars do) and a poorly thought-out ad campaign sure as hell isn’t going to make me stop preaching about them.