Brands and doing goodPatrick Collings

Sagacite Brand Agency

February 2009

photo by Kevin Dooley

from the perspective of the brand

because it is the right thing to do

commentary: would be ideal, but often brands felt obliged or pressured into funding causes

d o i n g g o o d t o l o o k g o o d 1960s | 1970s | 1980s

commentary: funding in a shotgun approach often not even related to the brand’s business

2reasons

change

commentary: two developments changed how brands funded social causes

commentary: the first development was when exxon needed environmental allies to help with the exxon valdez spill. the organization found their social giving had not nurtured environmental groups

commentary: the second development concerned public outcry and boycott of goods as experienced by shell with plans to sink the brent spar oil rig and nike with child labour (next slide)

commentary: no logo was a rallying cry against the perceived bad that organizations did

d o i n g w e l l a n d d o i n g g o o d 1990s | 2000s | onwards

commentary: funding was more aligned with the business and strategy of the brand

the corporate is not distinct to the offering

awareness

understanding

opinion

resonance

commentary: use the cbbe pyramid to demonstrate the importance of opinion towards a brand

40% said they responded negatively about companies perceived as not socially responsible

90% want companies to focus on more than profitability

60% said they form an impression of a company based on perceptions of social responsibility

17% said they avoided the products of a company perceived as not being socially responsible

consumers are increasingly caring about societal issues

and they want to associate with brands that care

also

commentary: doing good is important for inside the company

help attract and retain staff

decrease operating costs

appeals to investors and analysts

brands that do good in the eyes of their market are being

rewarded for their efforts

and those that don’t are being punished, even being neutral can

put a brand at a disadvantage

commentary: video that talks about large scale greenwashing by brands

how to get into the

of the brand

photo by Mark Dodds

does this fit with our business strategy and focus?

is the issue being tackled of importance to our stakeholders?

is the organization approaching us credible?

isn’t government handling this?

are our competitors already in this space and do they own it?

what are the risks of becoming involved in this?

how will this give visibility and credibility to us?

how will we communicate this to our stakeholders and market?

not only about giving but also about doing

commentary: brands are not just been asked to give money to organizations but also to take active steps to improve how they operate

Global Carbon Exchange

commentary: slide dealt with the number of organizations that were considered / approached / by one brand on on environmental and society issues

awareness

understanding

opinion

resonance

the same applies

“For many years, community development goals were philanthropic activities that were

seen as separate from business objectives, not fundamental to them; doing well and doing good were seen as separate pursuits. But I

think that is changing. What many of the organizations that are represented here today

are learning is that cutting-edge innovation and competitive advantage can result from weaving

social and environmental considerations into business strategy from the beginning.”

Carly FiorinaNovember 2003

the book corporate social responsibility by philip kotler and nancy lee was used as a reference for several of the slides

presentation bypatrick collings

patrick@sagacite.co.za