Do Goodvertising and Purposeful Communication Need a Code of Ethics?
Philanthropy, CSR, and purposeful communication have at least one goal in common: to do well by consumers who, directly or indirectly, are being addressed. But is it always so? Through the analysis of the communication that the companies Purdue Pharma, British Petroleum have adopted, we will try to understand whether there is a virtual limit beyond which not only the “purposeful” campaigns (guided by a “high” purpose’) are no longer effective for companies that adopt them but whether they are also potentially harmful to consumers.
Philanthropy Or Reputation Laundering?
in 2018 the Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan, New York, was at the center of a protest against its financing by the Sackler family, the head of Purdue Pharma, which markets OxyContin. A few days afterwards, Columbia University and the University of Washington, which have both received donations from the Sacklers in the past, announced that they will no longer accept grants from the family.
What is behind this protest?
The American photographer Nan Goldin, who claimed to have become addicted to OxyContin after the pills were prescribed, lead the protest along with other artists and activists against the campaigns of cultural philanthropy, claiming that accepting funding from owners from similar companies makes cultural institutions accomplices of their damage.
The eight members of the Sackler family were accused of intentionally minimizing the dangers of taking OxyContin painkillers (seemingly more potent than heroin or morphine) and deceiving doctors into prescribing excessive doses for many patients who would never have had to take the drug. OxyContin is now considered co-responsible for the opioid crisis that is killing more than 100 people a day in America and has generated millions of addicts.
Opioids are not the only epidemic devastating America, despite the U.S. being one of the highest economically performing countries today. “By most accounts, Americans should be happier now than ever,” writes Jean M. Twenge, co-author Of theReport ‘World Happiness,’ published March 20, 2019, which monitors the level of happiness of the citizens of 156 countries in the world. “The violent crime rate is low, as is the unemployment rate. Income per capita has steadily grown over the last few decades. ” Yet Americans are sad.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and co-author of the report, explained in these terms the phenomenon:
My argument is that the U.S. is suffering an epidemic of addictions, and that these addictions are leaving a rising Portion of American society unhappy and a rising number clinically lonely.
The fact that the Guggenheim Museum and other cultural institutions have accepted the subsidies of Purdue Pharma under the guise of a philanthropic action with the twofold aim of “bringing the general public closer” and diverting attention from their responsibilities, with an effect of “reputation laundering “[3] , is cause for concern.
Activists @British Museum against BP sponsorship
This of the Guggenheim is not an isolated case. Many will remember the long-standing partnership between British Museum And British Petroleum, which frequently was the subject of a protest. Last time at the center of the controversy was the exhibition “I Am Ashurbanipal,” with the protesters claimed to have been taken from contemporary Iraq during the Ottoman era. The banners of the event said “colonialism crisis” and “stolen items.” So for BP the philanthropic sponsorship of the British Museum has become a constant cause for concern.
And even more worrying is the (unconscious?) intercession an institution such as the British Museum or the Guggenheim are pushed to do to get the funds to survive. I get to ask if the price they apply is worth the game. And if it is acceptable to the Government that culture remains alive thanks to the ‘soul washing’ or ‘reputation laundering’.
Unfortunately, it seems no one can feel immune to some form of addiction (hence the term epidemic used by the author of Report World Happiness Jeffrey D. Sachs). And from this perception to the salience and relevance of the subject.
A question arises: the basis of the purposeful communication or goodvertising (advertising that does good – whether developed through actions of philanthropy or CSR ) shouldn’t be a code of ethics?
Article written in collaboration with Stefano Serafinelli, clinical Psychologist, mindfulness intervention trainer.
Foto: Guggenheim Museum rebranding / 2019 By kissMiklos
[3] “There’s the question about whether Yale or any other university wants to be complicit in the reputation laundering of the donor. And at the very minimum there is that negative to put on the ledger of whatever good could be done with the gift.” Rob Reich, professor of ethics, Stanford University
Since you’re here… Our mission is to monitor Advertising to make certain that companies obey ethical standards of trustworthiness and transparency while communicating their commitment to addressing the great challenges of the New Millennium. From climate emergency to social inequality through all the issues included in the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, we monitor the consistency of their statements, if they are ‘walking the talk’. With rising misinformation and commercial ownership, independent information is more and more rare. We think citizens deserve access to accurate analyses with integrity at their heart, so we can all make critical decisions about our lives, health and enviroment – based on fact, not fiction. Our editorial independence means our content agenda is set only to voice our opinions, supported by in-depth research, free from any political and commercial bias, never influenced by interested owners or shareholders (which we don’t have). It means we can stand up to mainstream and give a voice to those less heard. We hope this will motivate you to make a contribution in support of our open, independent journalism. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support BeIntelligent from as little as €5 – and it only takes a minute.Thank you.
I have been dealing with communication for 20 years, I have worked in marketing for large international and Italian companies and I know the mechanisms of advertising persuasion. I decided to invest my know-how and my skills to use the available resources of companies (budgets but also human capital) in positive transformation. Because to students from all over the world I teach at Purpose Brands in Catholic University I wish to give more and more examples of virtuous companies that have invested for the future, of everyone (and there are already many!). Because if we watch, without acting, without taking responsibility, we have no excuse. View all posts by elena grinta
CreActivism | Advertisers Against Harmful Products
In a recent article in the Creative Review, Naresh Ramchandani, a leading influential creative copywriter, asked the entire industry whether it is now time to introduce a ban similar to the one on cigarettes, on products that harm our planet, saying:
“By being production-heavy, or CO2-intensive, or non-reusable or non-recyclable, many of the products we’re paid to promote have an irrefutably negative effect on the environment. When an ad sells another one of these products, it advances its client’s profitability, but also harms the prospects of humanity. Which brings us to an extremely inconvenient truth for our industry that wasn’t raised at Cannes – in fact, I’m not sure I’ve seen it raised anywhere: that products like these shouldn’t be allowed to advertise.”
Two years ago, when I asked myself why I was so concerned about advertising and branded content & entertainment (BC&E), I had a clear and profound epiphany: responsibility. Leading the BC&E Association in Italy made it clear to me that there are no longer limits to brand persuasion, as now their messages are perfectly crafted as contents––which is a big opportunity, but it also implies a greater ethical responsibility. That led to considering how companies could play a “better role in the society” (for example, whether they used their efforts (investments, know-how, human capital…) to “do good”).
Purposeful communication is the way to tell a true unique story far behind the product or even the company history. There are many ways to tell a story, but not all of them are always the right fit.
#CreActivism is a term I borrow from Pascal Gielen meaning a form of action, a critical process of reflection on the problems that afflict contemporaneity with an active approach to improve conditions on a daily basis through creativity. It is the perfect portmanteau of #Creativity (which is a primordial act, physical birth, even before abstract speculation) and #Activism in its most contemporary and pacifist meanings.
Applied to advertising, #CreActivism combines perfectly with a couple of other marketing trends: brand purposing and brand activism, the first concerning the corporate goal, mission, and vision, the second regarding its concrete actions.
I consider #CreActivism to be a perfect unison between brand purpose, brand actions, and brand communication.
And to have a better understanding of what #CreActivism is, let’s take Patagonia as an example. #CreActivism for Patagonia has meant the creation of a disruptive advertising campaign “Don’t buy this jacket,” and at the same time the implementation of substantial actions to protect the environment (for example, investments in R&D against the pollution of C8 polymer after Greenpeace criticized the company). Although the approach was risky, the message was intended to encourage people to consider the effects of their consumption practices on the environment. As a result, Patagonia managed to establish a strong community of consumers who appreciate the brand’s products but, most importantly, its values.
Of course, it’s not always easy to find an authentic and credible “why” behind a product or company. And this can mean a potential backlash for brands that don’t walk the talk.
Look at the textile sector––the most polluting after the oil and gas industry––and campaigns like “Conscious Exclusive” by H&M. “Conscious Exclusive” is an example of “alternative facts,” given that only 1% of recycled clothes become new H&M clothes.
Take also the food industry, which is responsible for more than 25% of greenhouse gas emissions and a few public health scares. Take Chipotle as an example: the chain’s actions have not supported its sustainable agriculture and anti-GMO claims (remember the multi-award winning “Back to the Start” campaign in 2012?), as can be proven with the operational failures leading to E. coli pandemic and a collapse in #reputation, which is still having to be rebuilt several years after the crisis.
In Chipotle’s case, advertising claiming sustainable agriculture was in total contradiction with the consumer perception after the E. coli outbreak.
As we all know, brands are ultimately trying to sell more products. If they also “monetize” human values, it is a big ethical issue.
Since you’re here… Our mission is to monitor Advertising to make certain that companies obey ethical standards of trustworthiness and transparency while communicating their commitment to addressing the great challenges of the New Millennium. From climate emergency to social inequality through all the issues included in the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, we monitor the consistency of their statements, if they are ‘walking the talk’. With rising misinformation and commercial ownership, independent information is more and more rare. We think citizens deserve access to accurate analyses with integrity at their heart, so we can all make critical decisions about our lives, health and enviroment – based on fact, not fiction. Our editorial independence means our content agenda is set only to voice our opinions, supported by in-depth research, free from any political and commercial bias, never influenced by interested owners or shareholders (which we don’t have). It means we can stand up to mainstream and give a voice to those less heard. We hope this will motivate you to make a contribution in support of our open, independent journalism. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support BeIntelligent from as little as €5 – and it only takes a minute.Thank you.
I have been dealing with communication for 20 years, I have worked in marketing for large international and Italian companies and I know the mechanisms of advertising persuasion. I decided to invest my know-how and my skills to use the available resources of companies (budgets but also human capital) in positive transformation. Because to students from all over the world I teach at Purpose Brands in Catholic University I wish to give more and more examples of virtuous companies that have invested for the future, of everyone (and there are already many!). Because if we watch, without acting, without taking responsibility, we have no excuse. View all posts by elena grinta
A campaign to revitalize an ancient payoff Bad PR is Still Good PR
Trying to define manhood What if the true target was the female one? Riding social causes is the new black. Don’t sweep the dirt under the carpet Does this ‘cause related’ campaign will turn into a suicide in the market?
7 Ways to View the New Gillette Ad #toxicmasculinity
With its much-talked-about ad, Gillette is attempting to take its highly distinctive slogan “The Best a Man Can Get” and revitalize it for a new era.
A Campaign to Revitalize an Ancient Payoff
Gilette’s new campaign thoughtfully and critically examines what “The Best a Man Can Get,” the brand’s iconic tagline, means today. It’s a must watch, according to Arianna Huffington Founder and CEO at Thrive Global.
It’s similar to what Nike did for its ‘Just Do It’ tagline when it came out with the award-winning Colin Kaepernick ‘Dream Crazy’ campaign
“But the difference between Nike and Gillette is as glaring as that between night and day. Nike used the authenticity of Kaepernick, the pathos in his voice and the positivity of his message to inspire customers with an aspirational message that attracted them and then propelled them to purchase. Gillette’s ad feels like a tedious, politically correct public health video – the kind of film we were forced to watch in school about road safety before they invented the internet. Never mind making me hate Gillette, it makes me feel bad about pretty much everything.” Mark Ritson Marketing week [1].
The campaign is coupled with a donation pledge and a partnership with non-profits, starting with the Boys & Girls Club of America.
To be honest, while watching the video, you feel a little bit uneasy. You don’t know exactly what’s wrong with it, as the Blinkauthor Malcom Gladwell describes in his book.
If the brand purpose was sincere, it could build a support association, helping men who suffered from bullying and sexual harassment or creating a public school program to raise awareness on such problems (what they are probably doing). So, why did Gillette and its agency Grey opt to engage Kim Gehrig, one of a new generation of directors showcased by the Free the Bid campaign (which attempts to hire more female directors into advertising), who directed some of the most awarded campaigns in the last 3-4 years (John Lewis ‘Man on the Moon’, Sport’s England’s ‘This girl can’ just to name a few)?
“Instead of wasting millions producing this BS spot, Gillette should have just donated the money to the #MeToo movement.” Barbara Dickey, Owner & Chief Creative Officer, Cre8tivision LLC
Bad PR is Still Good PR
Yes, the video generated a lot of buzz and conversations.
Since the ad was posted on 14 January on Gillette’s YouTube channel, it has received more than two million views. But it’s also gained an over 80% downvote ratio with 500,000 dislikes. We can assume the concept of this campaign is to highlight the advent of a new “masculinity” banning any kind of toxicity (bullying, sexual assault, etc.).
This ad, instead of communicating the functionality of the product or highlighting its benefits over another product, is focused on evoking feelings about the brand, a brand that is a commodity in an increasingly boring industry (that’s oversaturated with too many competitors).
“In a commoditized industry, what becomes your competitive advantage may just be as simple as a making a social statement like this. To say they made a poor ad is really missing the point. On a more personal note, as a man with kids, I really liked the ad. And I liked the message. “The Best A Man Can Get.” Christopher Cope VP Sales & Marketing/Creative at Raleigh Enterprises
I looked at the polarized comments with interest. Well, if sparking the conversation was the goal, they’ve certainly already [2] achieved it! But while the video is going viral, the dialogue seems to be lost in translation on all sides.
There are articles (on Forbes and MarketingWeek, for example) that have underlined how the imagery and tone of the message (along with use of the phrase toxic masculinity) miss the mark. In truth, even if the intention was there, the execution fell short for many.
Some people found it sexist, condescending, and preachy to men. Others in general dislike politics and how others throw it around in seemingly extremist ways.
Yet some others think it represents the new “brand” of men.
Trying to define manhood
What does it mean to be a man nowadays? The ad suggests it is to stand boldly for what is right and protect others who are facing injustice, no matter what gender, color, or age. But isn’t this a golden rule for any human being, no matter their gender?
And shouldn’t responsible parents have already instilled most of these ideals in their sons?
“The implication from this ad is that, without self-awareness, men are automatically going to engage in “toxic masculinity” rather than assuming the majority of men are well adjusted, and that masculinity itself is not toxic. In contrast to the marketing campaign P&G used for women, which takes the opposite tack: you ARE even better than you think! You ARE good enough! Literally the opposite of what this ad is implying.” Roger Wemyss Cybersecurity Product Manager
“This was P&G’s attempt to replicate the (deserved) success of its Dove “Real Beauty” campaign, which also sought to affect social norms. The crucial difference is that campaign made the user feel better about herself. This does the opposite. Big mistake. “ Lisa Rothstein, Brand Storyteller, Communicate Better With Everyone | Brand Storyteller | New Yorker Cartoonist | Speaker | Copywriter | Visual Facilitator
“The strategy originally was probably on point; something around what an aspirational man looks like in 2019 as opposed to 1989. He doesn’t win at sports and fly planes, he is just a decent man and role model. Sadly, tactically this execution is dreadful. Conflates innocent male behavior with the very worst kind of almost criminal behavior. Focuses almost entirely on the negative, not the positive and leaves the viewer depressed.” Ian MacDonald Partner, VP Strategy & Media at CO-OP | Tech Investor
In 2019 you still find plenty of “men as idiots” ads that actually do tell men how to behave or make fun of abusive behaviors. Apparently nobody makes an uproar about those. And Gillette used to create a super-man ideal––“Its male image is masculine, confident and well groomed”[3]––in the last 30 years through influential sportsmen in the same “macho” context they now blame. After decades of Gillette feeding the same toxic masculinity they now condemn (Gillette promoted the new razor with a campaign in Italy starring Antoine Griezmann and Neymar Jr. no later than 6 months ago claiming: “No matter what the challenge, to do your best, you should constantly strive to improve yourself.”), the campaign puts a mirror in front of men and fuels the debate in the ‘human’ direction. What if, before awaking their consumers’ souls, they acknowledge the role they played in the past with a mea culpa?
“Sadly this is a company that embraced the toxins of mainstream masculinity to its fullest when it suited their advertising needs, and not only do I see no razors, I see almost no visual tip of the hat to the fact that their ads helped fuel this behavior in the past. If Larry keeps kicking me in the shins, I don’t want Larry to tell me, “We all need to take a good look at ourselves, and think about the damage we have done to people’s shins in the past!” I want Larry to admit he was a jerk and promise me he won’t kick me in the shins again.” Lyon Reese First Assistant Director.
They could take many different ways to get to the point: on Jul 11, 2018, Dollar Shave Club published on YouTube their inclusive campaign “Whoever you are, however you Get Ready … Welcome to the Club.”[4] A different way to welcome every kind of masculinity
On top of that, through the ad’s generalization, Gillette fell back on stereotypes. Although they are different from the generalizations against diversity, the ad is still contemptible because the principle itself still bundles all forms of masculinity together, be they toxic or not.
“The ad is amateurishly stereotypical and mostly offers a caricature of masculinity”. [5] Avi Dan, Forbes
The epic men (from Ulysses to trovadores ) used to be represented as full of dignity, honor, and respect, especially for women. Where has that gone? Men in pop culture (from advertising to video games) are rarely honorable anymore, rarely dignified, and everyone cries that “chivalry is dead.” Watch television today––what kind of masculinity is pictured? This holds true for the movie industry as well. During 1970s, Madison Avenue and Hollywood decided that sex sells––and women obliged. Now after more than 50 years, the industry is trying to turn that around.
“Enough is enough! We men are mad as hell, fed up to here, and are not going to take it anymore! I say we should boycott all personal grooming products (that includes you, Gillette), let our hair and beards grow long and shaggy, stop bathing and brushing our teeth, and start wearing furs and skins. We need to go back to being real men, the way our stone age male ancestors were before the invention of flint grooming tools turned us all into a bunch of soft sissified wimps ashamed of our toxic behavior (and odor). ” –Michael Coulas, Senior Software/System Engineer
????
Certainly the search for a new type of manhood is underway. Men have lost their reference points and struggle, even today, to find an ideal.
What If the True Target Was the Female One?
The campaign has the feminine touch of the director, who almost seems to use the film to free herself of a weight, a conscience too full of experiences (direct or indirect) that push her to shout, “Some are not enough!” (“Men need to hold other men accountable. To say the right thing. To act the right way. Some already are. But some is not enough”[3].)
“It’s rather sad that, as I watched the commercial, I found myself thinking, ‘This commercial and overall campaign must be the product of a woman’s mind. Men tend not to be so thoughtful and caring.’” John C. Leighton. former R&D executive in synthetic and natural polymers.
In so doing, Gehrig gathers, using her call of hope, the women who have already awakened their conscience (the quote from the initial #MeToo campaign is emblematic). That’s with results like this:
“Tomorrow morning I am going to start buying Gillette products for my husband and my son. I AM certainly your target demographic customer and a vocal brand advocate now. WELL done.” Jill Elliott, SPHR , SVP, People + Culture + Charitable Foundation R&R Partners
Riding Social Causes Is the New Black
Dentsu Aegis counted that in 2017, nearly 50% of the Cannes Lions awards were handed to purposeful campaigns (as opposed to 29% of the Grand Prix or Gold Lions in the previous four years). This trend was reinforced in 2018: Almost 60% (15 out of 27) of Cannes Grand Prix winners were assigned to purposeful campaigns. Trend-watching CEO David Mattin says consumers don’t want to make the world a better place, they want brands to do that for them. I know it’s not 100% true (some of them are ready to make a change), but it’s a big deal for corporations. And also a big challenge. That’s probably why purposeful campaigns have recently become an advertising trend.
“This is a moment here. The largest CPG company in the world just jumped into the camp of American Progressives with both feet. Bravo.” Pete Louison Creative Director at Oracle Data Cloud
“Amazing and brave leadership from Proctor and Gamble. Rather than demonizing men, I believe the ad highlights the enormous impact good men can have. Living in a country (Australia) where hundreds of women die every year at the hands of male partners / family members, where sexual assault and sexism is still a major problem, where young gay men go through absolute hell – anything that can encourage us all, and particularly men, to rethink behaviour has got to be a positive step. As a strong believer in business’ power to do good in this world, I’m wholly supportive of this campaign. ” Beth Worrall, National Skills Program Lead at Microsoft
And what if it were another brand that jumped on the purpose bandwagon? Is this something Gillette really believes in? Why is this brand thrusting itself into a movement? Is this a sincere message or an exploitative play? Does Gillette have the right to drive this conversation?
Don’t Sweep the Dirt Under the Carpet
There’s potential backlash for brands that don’t walk the talk. If brands create their own identity through purposeful campaigns, they actually expose themselves to the risk of being strongly criticized if there is a perceived values gap. As we all know brands are ultimately trying to sell more products. If they also monetize human values, it is a big ethical issue.
“You wanna talk about toxicity? Let’s do it, Gary! 1. Proctor & Gamble tests on animals, and has for decades. 2. Aluminum in your deodorants, + fluoride in your toothpastes and mouthwashes cross the BBB (blood brain barrier), causing the reduction of dendritic spines in the brain. This phenomenon is DIRECTLY linked to Alzheimers and other neurocognitive impairments plus a myriad of other neurological and physical ailments caused by heavy metal toxicity. You were saying?” Wes Dickinson, President at Lighthouse Group LLC
“You can’t be a purpose brand by accident – it has to pervade who you are, what you say and what you do.” Rob McPherson Former President – Bacardi Canada.
The brand was involved in another social campaign last year, Handle with care, which brought the public’s attention to the “grey generation” and started a new chapter of brand advertising, intended to redefine masculinity.
That campaign probably wasn’t strong enough, even though Grey decided to push on the accelerator and had possibly bitten off more than it could chew. I think brands that take purposeful communication seriously should start from their “why.” Once they find the real reason why they exist, they should “creact”: engage a critical process of reflection on the problems that afflict contemporaneity with an active approach to improve conditions on a daily basis through creativity.
Will This Cause-related Campaign Turn Into a Market Suicide?
Marketing success or failure is ultimately judged on whether the campaign moves the sales needle. Will P&G’s stock go up or down? Hard to answer: Nike’s stock went up after its campaign on social issues while Starbucks’ stock went down after claiming its mission is to “inspire and nurture the human spirit.”
“There is a special place in marketing hell for companies that not only waste their marketing budgets but actually invest that money into things that ultimately make their situation much worse. That’s going to be the cost of this foray into brand purpose for Gillette” (MarketingWeek).
Working in the advertising/media industry for the last 20 years has helped me to understand how companies could play a better role in society. For instance, they can use their efforts (investments, know-how, human capital, etc.) to do good. But as I am a marketing (and business) professional, I know that it would only work if they balance their good deeds with their financial performance.
At this stage we can certainly say Gillette did two things: 1. got people talking or texting about Gillette with intent and 2. started an important discussion about what makes a man masculine.
Since you’re here… Our mission is to monitor Advertising to make certain that companies obey ethical standards of trustworthiness and transparency while communicating their commitment to addressing the great challenges of the New Millennium. From climate emergency to social inequality through all the issues included in the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, we monitor the consistency of their statements, if they are ‘walking the talk’. With rising misinformation and commercial ownership, independent information is more and more rare. We think citizens deserve access to accurate analyses with integrity at their heart, so we can all make critical decisions about our lives, health and enviroment – based on fact, not fiction. Our editorial independence means our content agenda is set only to voice our opinions, supported by in-depth research, free from any political and commercial bias, never influenced by interested owners or shareholders (which we don’t have). It means we can stand up to mainstream and give a voice to those less heard. We hope this will motivate you to make a contribution in support of our open, independent journalism. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support BeIntelligent from as little as €5 – and it only takes a minute.Thank you.
I have been dealing with communication for 20 years, I have worked in marketing for large international and Italian companies and I know the mechanisms of advertising persuasion. I decided to invest my know-how and my skills to use the available resources of companies (budgets but also human capital) in positive transformation. Because to students from all over the world I teach at Purpose Brands in Catholic University I wish to give more and more examples of virtuous companies that have invested for the future, of everyone (and there are already many!). Because if we watch, without acting, without taking responsibility, we have no excuse. View all posts by elena grinta
Discover More About Cause Related Marketing 2.0 Thanks to Burger King and Mattel
When a company has difficulty in finding its ‘good side’ instead of purposeful communication, one of many solutions can be “cause related marketing 2.0” (CRM). What exactly is involved in a “linear CRM”? The cause supported by the company is not necessarily a charity’s––it has to do with marketing.
Take for example hackvertising, a strategy of multi-award-winning Chief Marketing Officer Fernando Machado, who launched some of the most interesting campaigns in the last few years, including Dove’s Real Beauty sketches and Burger King and its “net neutrality” prank:
Burger King played the role of “facilitator” on a subject of public interest (the neutrality of the web), creating awareness among a range of citizens not used to taking part in such conversations and raising public attention of an issue that may not have received much attention otherwise. With this project, Burger King underlines that brands, thanks to their share of voice, their ability to be heard, can direct the gaze of citizens towards urgent current issues playing a role well beyond the pure player within their market.
For another example, look at the new Barbie’s strategy as described by Alaina Crystal from AMV BBDO. Crystal digs deep into the reason why Ruth Hander created Barbie with such a contemporary purpose:
“The little girl could be anything she wanted to be.”
Starting from this, in 2016 Mattel transformed Barbie’s shapes in response to the scorching criticism of an ideal body shape that is unattainable for most girls, communicated a positive message of girl empowerment with Imagine the Dossibilities, and in 2017 their “Dads Who Play with Barbie” campaign aimed to broaden their audience and broke prejudices against men partaking in feminine activities. However, while Mattel has taken positive steps in its communication, it has not communicated a responsible plan for the company’s suppliers to fight against Chinese factory workers’ poor labor conditions and toxic products.
Although I appreciate Mattel and Burger King efforts towards a more conscious consumer, all of this is not without risks. There is a potential danger that the brands’ commercial aims (selling more burgers for example) could end up simplifying the very issues that they are supporting.
And so one wonders how Mattel is taking responsibility for suppliers to combat the inadequate working conditions in Chinese factories and fight against the use of toxic products. Likewise, if we look at fast food restaurants, the impact on the environment of production, delivery, cooking, and packaging of food is enormous and according to some sources cited by the Guardian, Burger King’s animal feed comes from deforested lands in Brazil and Bolivia.
If we don’t start seeing brands for what they really are, instead of only seeing what they want to show us, we won’t be able, as consumers and concerned citizens, to demand respect and responsibility towards our planet. The only way companies are going to change is if they see a reaction from us towards a more sustainable production and consumption. Let’s change the talk.
Since you’re here… Our mission is to monitor Advertising to make certain that companies obey ethical standards of trustworthiness and transparency while communicating their commitment to addressing the great challenges of the New Millennium. From climate emergency to social inequality through all the issues included in the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, we monitor the consistency of their statements, if they are ‘walking the talk’. With rising misinformation and commercial ownership, independent information is more and more rare. We think citizens deserve access to accurate analyses with integrity at their heart, so we can all make critical decisions about our lives, health and enviroment – based on fact, not fiction. Our editorial independence means our content agenda is set only to voice our opinions, supported by in-depth research, free from any political and commercial bias, never influenced by interested owners or shareholders (which we don’t have). It means we can stand up to mainstream and give a voice to those less heard. We hope this will motivate you to make a contribution in support of our open, independent journalism. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support BeIntelligent from as little as €5 – and it only takes a minute.Thank you.
I have been dealing with communication for 20 years, I have worked in marketing for large international and Italian companies and I know the mechanisms of advertising persuasion. I decided to invest my know-how and my skills to use the available resources of companies (budgets but also human capital) in positive transformation. Because to students from all over the world I teach at Purpose Brands in Catholic University I wish to give more and more examples of virtuous companies that have invested for the future, of everyone (and there are already many!). Because if we watch, without acting, without taking responsibility, we have no excuse. View all posts by elena grinta
Communication For Good. 2019 Italy Trends June 9, 2019 The research conducted by The Easy Way and EG Media… 
