Showing posts with label cause marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cause marketing. Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2009

Of Mints and Markers: Curiously Strong and Sharp

Some products are things we never knew we needed. Smart marketing takes advantage of the unique ways that people value everyday items.


Before they became ubiquitous, Altoids were just a novelty product, something hipsters and old men handed out to their cronies. But then something happened and they became a must-have, commonly recognized brand. In 1995, when Kraft foods acquired the product, it had been around for, well, centuries, notable both for the concentration of peppermint oil and, starting in the 1920s, the clever tin in which they were housed. Their new campaign was rather tongue-in-cheek and campy with vague sexual references. The most famous was the turn-of-the-century carnival worker featured with the caption "Nice Altoids."

This ad ran for what felt like an eternity in contemporary marketing terms, but it also gave the mints a notoriety among a certain segment of the population. Nowadays, everyone knows the Curiously Strong Peppermint, its variations (chocolate covered ginger, so far from the original, but still so good), and of course, the tin. Altoids can now be found in many flavors as well as gum and sours and claim to be the number one mint in the USA, which has prompted the corporate owners to move manufacturing from Europe to Tennessee.

Another product that suddenly appears necessary to everyone's daily life is the Sharpie. Twenty years ago, permanent markers were the kind of thing moms used to label kid's clothes before sending them off to camp or office workers kept around to make sure their lunch leftovers in the company refrigerator didn't get eaten by someone else. Black and red were standard -- green was for unusual circumstances. Graffiti artists have always loved Sharpie (In college towns, local coffee shops even began leaving Sharpies in the restrooms, encouraging poetry on the walls and using the big fat black version to "erase" anything too raucous). Nowadays, the brand name Sharpie has replaced the less colorful "permanent marker" (like calling a tissue a Kleenex, the item and the brand have unconsciously collided.) The parent company, seeing a perfect opportunity, is coloring the world. Indeed, Sharpies have become an art necessity: here in Pittsburgh, the most local venerable shoe store staged a promotional event, where local tattoo artists would grace any newly purchased pair of Ugg boots for free.

Building on this kind of unusual usage, Sharpie has smartly linked its new website, sharpieuncapped, to a whole host of online communities, DIY enthusiasts, kids, and artists who generate endless innovative ways to use sharpies. There's even a David Beckham promotion, some amazing surf boards, and a nice YouTube video showing exactly how to transfer a design to a t-shirt. And for the really ambitious, there's always the opportunity to emulate artist Tim Bernard, whose Sharpie murals translate well into car designs.

Referencing their most recent summer campaign, Sally Grimes, global vice president of marketing for Sharpie, told Marketing Daily: " We're starting now because we think Sharpie is about much more than a school supply. It's a tool for self-expression not necessarily tied to any particular season."

It's one thing for a product to work its way into people's list of necessities and it's another for companies to capitalize on that successfully. For mints and markers, you can't do better than these.


Friday, June 06, 2008

Corporate social responsibility - what's it worth to you?

Whenever I teach at the college level about corporations and theories of social organization, there are always a handful of students who will claim that even egregious misconduct by big companies is offset by their philanthropic acts -- I've come to call it “the Ronald McDonald House Effect.” The question is this: Does it matter how much a company’s practices damage the environment if they pour some of their profits into good works? And does it matter if corporate social responsibility is done for selfish (image polishing) as well as altruistic reasons (if there even is such a thing as altruism)? Judging from recent media output on social responsibility, it matters, but we’re not sure how, or for how much.

As I’d tell my students, when it comes to ethics, there’s no simple equation to evaluate the actions of institutions. These are big questions that have to be answered in context.

Two big economic and social trends have pushed the complex issue to the forefront of today’s business news. The first trend goes under the sustainability/fair trade and labor banner, which, as polls show, matters more and more to consumers of all types. As environmentalism goes global, socially responsible business practices become mainstream concerns.

The second trend is the economic downturn. Although people are making greater use of discount stores, an equally common consumer trend during tight times is sticking to the tried and true, the trusted and well regarded. Here’s an example: studies show that mothers on a restricted budget will buy more expensive brand name items because there are greater risks associated with spending the last few dollars on a generic macaroni and cheese that won’t be up to standards, a laundry detergent that leaves your clothes grey, or shirts that come loose at the seams after a single wear. This is particularly true with food, where convenience stores full of more expensive brands have greater neighborhood prevalence than supermarkets or wholesale clubs, which often require residents to travel a distance, usually outside of public transportation routes. Sometimes that brand loyalty is tied to ethics: not only is the product good, but also it’s produced with overt concern for the health and wellbeing of the environment, workers, and consumers.

A study done at the University of Ontario asked, "Does Being Ethical Pay?" and showed that consumers were willing to pay more for goods they believed were ethically produced than unethical ones or ones lacking information. People who claim to have high standards about fair trade and other social responsibility issues were the most willing to shell out, especially if the item was highly rated as ethical. Folks who had no predisposition were willing to pay a bit more, but didn’t care after a certain level the degree of ethical imprimatur. But we're still left wondering what counts as ethical or responsible in any given setting. A company like Seventh Generation is going to have a completely different profile and attitude than Proctor and Gamble but that doesn't mean the overtly environmental one wins the ethical game hands down. P&G has both overt and quiet versions of social responsibility going on.

To be meaningful, social responsibility has to mesh with either the corporate founder’s interests or the company’s overall culture. I’ve heard the term “greenwashing” bandied about more frequently in the last two weeks than I’d ever heard it before – one website allows consumers to post and rank commercials according to the degree of greenwashing. Greenwashing is almost as ubiquitous as, well, green. Maybe it's because Oprah used the word, or it’s on a “What’s hot/ What’s not” list in some grocery checkout magazine.

The point is: consumers know when a company’s faking it. It’s hard not to get a little cynical when the industry hands out awards (called the Halo, even) for philanthropic work annually by The Cause Marketing Forum, honoring the best communications programs between companies and their favorite nonprofit causes. Indeed, corporate dollars are spent on research on “how to achieve the maximum benefit” from social projects “while still increasing shareholder value.” Although Marketing with Meaning has its sights on the right ideas (building long term relationships with customer base), the University of Ontario studies pinpoint a key issue: social responsibility becomes less meaningful if we dilute ethics to a broader, more general idea like “meaning.” I doubt “meaning-washing” will catch on the way “greenwashing” has, but you get the idea…


Still, some of today’s better versions of corporate philanthropy do often have an interesting and generative cast to their activities. The best are educational and, while somewhat connected to the product line of the company, not so tightly connected as to appear self-serving. A combination of online and direct promotions strikes the best balance. One place where companies are finding success are websites that allow consumers to research information on related topics, make contributions of their own, or participate in outreach and fundraising events. I'm always happy to note that some of my favorite food companies, like Ben and Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farms, and Annie’s Homegrown, set the standards for this.

Ultimately, consumers will vote with their wallets on the degree to which causes -- green or otherwise -- matter to them and their purchase decisions. I expect that many will start small... now I think I’ll postpone my search for meaning, and go get some ethical ice cream.