Did the writer read the entire article or just rolled his eyes after the 1st few paragraphs? The goal of "purposed based marketing" is to connect a practical and personal reason with the decision to purchase the brand. He used Pampers and Safeguard soap as 2 examples. If you read the article in WSJ, you'll understand.
Social consciousness only works if it makes or saves money. The end! Unless there's a perception that more people will become your customers because you're "such a nice company" or if you'll save cash by "going green" or something similar you should NOT advertise.
I suspect that he'll be successful if he can produce really smart spots, like those IBM commercials about "tree-hugging" business plans. I suspect he won't if he just produces a diet of PSA's unless he can land large, rich companies with serious image problems like ExxonMobil.
@ADismalScience: This doesn't explain things like the organic food industry, fair trade coffee, etc. Generally these are a little to a lot more expensive, but people buy this stuff anyway. Myself included.
Sure it does. Organic food is largely offered by large conglomerates who charge a premium for your ability to be "socially responsible." Advertising those products is both lucrative and a positive thing for conscious customers - but remove the "lucrative" and it does not happen.
A friend of mine works for a major finance company here in Australia. He is a true visionary who established a branch of the parent company that would only invest in socially and environmentally responsible projects. He recruited like-minded people, and within 2 years the returns for investors on his package far outstripped those of his peers who were investing in traditional markets. Even after the recent market heebie-jeebies, his figures are standing up very well.
So, @ADismalScience: I totally concur - and also believe it can be done.
@ADismalScience: Social consciousness in business only works if it makes or saves money. In other endeavors, social consciousness works and often should be the goal.
I know you meant business and marketing, but the wannabe-sociologist in me had to mention the difference. ;)
Of course, on the other hand of that in many industries the easy profit is all that is seen, forsaking the greater social conscience which could, in the long run, be more profitable. The two are not mutually exclusive.
@ADismalScience: Right, Dismal...because executives unerringly ensure that their every decision has a positive impact on the bottom line. That's why so many of them voluntarily limit their own compensation, for instance.
My view is that CSR is absolutely tailor-made to accommodate the sector of the marketing universe that we now know as "branding." And if something contributes to branding, then it automatically contributes to bottom line. Ask any marketer.
10/31/08
10/31/08
10/31/08
* bankruptcy
* CEO pay
* CEO scandal
* Chicoms
* child labor
* corrupt politician
* dangerous product
* deadly product
* massive layoffs
* plant closings
* pollution
* scandal
* sex scandal
* tanking stock
* terrorism
* other (please specify)`
10/31/08
10/31/08
10/31/08
I suspect that he'll be successful if he can produce really smart spots, like those IBM commercials about "tree-hugging" business plans. I suspect he won't if he just produces a diet of PSA's unless he can land large, rich companies with serious image problems like ExxonMobil.
10/31/08
10/31/08
Sure it does. Organic food is largely offered by large conglomerates who charge a premium for your ability to be "socially responsible." Advertising those products is both lucrative and a positive thing for conscious customers - but remove the "lucrative" and it does not happen.
10/31/08
So, @ADismalScience: I totally concur - and also believe it can be done.
10/31/08
I know you meant business and marketing, but the wannabe-sociologist in me had to mention the difference. ;)
Of course, on the other hand of that in many industries the easy profit is all that is seen, forsaking the greater social conscience which could, in the long run, be more profitable. The two are not mutually exclusive.
10/31/08
My view is that CSR is absolutely tailor-made to accommodate the sector of the marketing universe that we now know as "branding." And if something contributes to branding, then it automatically contributes to bottom line. Ask any marketer.
10/31/08