Strategy & Brand

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world… it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead

It took me 30 minutes this morning to buy wheat pita bread at the grocery store. Not because the lines were long or the aisles congested, but because every brand of bread I selected from my grocer’s shelf contained High Fructose Corn Syrup. I scoured the bread section looking for any loaf sans this pesky addition. Oatmeal, Wheat, Whole Grain, Rye, White…There wasn’t a single bread brand or style that didn’t contain High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). There was, however, HFCS-free wheat pita- so I bought it instead…

I’ll survive just fine on organic oatmeal instead of toast, but the question remains: why does the food industry still insist on using an ingredient that customers are consciously, actively trying to avoid for sound, healthy reasons?

It’s obvious the food industry has caught on to our growing concern for dietary health and nutritional value. Take a stroll down your local grocery’s cereal aisle and you’ll see an interesting new phenomena- nutrition labeling on the front of cereal packaging. This ‘front of packaging labeling’ isn’t regulated by the FDA, and it’s being used to make unhealthy cereals appear healthier than they really are- by showcasing only selective nutrition information on the front of the package (you’ll find more info on front of package labeling here, and here). This unregulated nutrition info has been shown to decrease the likelihood that people will read the actual ingredients list or peruse the FDA regulated nutrition facts panel.  Instead of making cereal healthier, they’re making cereal look healthier.  Instead of removing corn syrup from our food, the Corn Refiners Association began  working to make corn syrup look healthier by lobbying to changing the name of High Fructose Corn Syrup to the more natural sounding name: Corn Sugar. The Corn Refiners Association has spent more than 30 million dollars to air a series of new commercials attempting to convince the general public that our bodies can’t tell the difference between real cane sugar and corn syrup- as long as it’s eaten in moderation. Experts, including “Sugar Shock” author Connie Bennett have argued that eating corn syrup in moderation is nearly impossible since it’s the cheapest and therefore most heavily and widely used sweetener on the market (it’s found in 2 out of every 3 items available in your local grocery store). It’s in our cereal, our pasta sauce, our baby formula… Instead of helping us eat healthier, live healthier, the Corn Refiners Association dropped 30million dollars to make corn syrup look healthier than it is. (You’ll find an interview with Connie Bennett discussing the disturbing truth about these 30 million dollar corn syrup ads via AdAge’s youtube)

At BlackDog, we know: The better you are, the better you look. Brands don’t live in vacuums, they impact, influence, and shape the world around us.  Imagine what 30million dollars could do if it wasn’t being wasted on deception and manipulative spin?

We don’t brand bullshit, and we don’t buy bullshit brands (on or off the clock).  We know, whenever we buy anything, we’re buying more than just the tangible items we’re walking out of a store with. Our dollars, whether they’re spend on branded sneakers, a pint of beer, or a donation to a local not-for-profit, are actively contributing to that organization’s continued existence- for better or worse. It’s time for us to switch our brand loyalty to the brands that are positively contributing to the world we want to live in 10, 20, 50 years down the line.

Why are condom and tampon brands so far behind the eco-friendly times?

A cultural shift has happened and it’s made us all increasingly aware of our social and environmental impact. The 2009 Global Edelman goodpurpose* study found that “83% (of consumers are) willing to change consumption habits if it can help make the world a better place to live.”

In 2009, 71% of consumers thought brands wasted too much money on marketing and advertising and reported that they’d like to see brands spending more money on good causes instead- a 10% increase from 2008.

Even the household cleaning aisle at our local grocers has reacted to our growing concern with eco-impact and social-consciousness, so we were shocked to realize how few environmental impact indicators appear in the feminine hygiene aisle.

When it comes to tampons, pads, condoms, personal lubricant, and panty liners it’s the (extremely) rare exception when the packaging indicates whether or not it’s recyclable, identifies whether it’s made from recycled materials, or actually helps consumers to make brand decisions based on eco impact.

Of all the different brands of tampons, pads, and liners carried by our friendly neighborhood Wegman’s- only 1 brand indicated that their boxes were made from recycled materials (credit here goes to O.B.). We understand why the feminine hygiene industry may be confused- pad wrappers and tampon applicators comprise the vast majority of the trash that finds its way into wastebaskets in ladies rooms the developed world over. That does not, however, mean that packaging shouldn’t be made from recycled materials. If toilet paper can be hygienically crafted from post-consumer materials, why can’t boxes and applicators?

It’s 2011, it isn’t a secret that women menstruate, and eco-conscious women will probably be willing to put tampon boxes out with their recycling, but condom boxes present an entirely different recycling challenge. Do you really want your neighbors to know how frequently, or infrequently, you’re running through your supply? Do you really want them to know whether you’re using Magnums or Snugger Fits? The new plastic packaging on LifeStyles Thyns does happen to indicate that the package is recyclable, but are mindful lovers going to put their vibrant eye-catching blue condom box out with the recycling? Or will it be discreetly nestled in the trash?

The new LifeStyles Thyns’ packaging may be recyclable, but it isn’t made from recycled materials- we checked. So, do plastic condom boxes have a greater or lesser environmental impact than cardboard boxes? The presence of recycling symbol isn’t actually an indicator of a products’ environmental impact. An eco-aware, customer-centric, socially responsible condom manufacturer would be using recycled materials, would be finding ways to overcome our recycling hesitations, and would be driving their industry through thought leadership.

The condom, lube, and feminine hygiene industries have failed to keep their finger on the pulse of our cultural evolution.

Once a condom manufacturer creates eco-friendly packaging and a corresponding advertising campaign that promotes their green values, the competition will likely follow suit. Price and function are the easiest differentiators to duplicate but Constant Innovation and Commitment to Values are highly unique differentiators that can’t be faked, contrived, or easily replicated. Thought leadership ensures that you won’t just be the first on the market- you’ll the first brand that comes to mind.

*goodpurpose. “Despite Prolonged Global Recession, an Increasing number of people are spending on brands that have social purpose: According to the 2009 Global Edelman goodpurpose™ Study.” New York, 2009; 21 (October). http://www.goodpurposecommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/2009GOODPURPOSEGLOBALRELEASE.pdf

How can a business build brand equity around a charitable activity without appearing to be “doing it just for the publicity”?

Another thought on an otherwise answered question:

The Medinge Group recognizes “Brands with a Conscience” annually.  The self-described think tank nominates organizations that demonstrate a genuine “contribution to the betterment of society through sustainable, socially responsible and humanistic behaviour.”

Though we don’t agree with every company honored, we recognize, appreciate, and respect that The Medinge Group is proactively attempting to “drive change” and ultimately influence “positive transformation”. The Medinge Group loosely articulates the following criterion on their website:

What makes a brand humane?

• It has a visible conscience
• It apologizes when things go wrong
• It invests time and energy in relationship building
• It promotes the value of caring for one another
• It acknowledges that we are all fundamentally equal
• It’s visibly accountable for all its actions
• It takes risks in line with its values

Medinge 2011 Brands with a Conscience

How can a business build brand equity around a charitable activity without appearing to be “doing it just for the publicity”?

If the purpose of a business’ charitable activities is just to build brand equity, they are “doing it just for the publicity.” It’s not a publicity stunt if a business has a Big !dea- an inspired mission and vision worth supporting and carrying forth- and they use their time, talents, and resources to support a like-minded cause.

Businesses founded on Big !deas stand out and stand apart. If you’re communicating your Big !dea and conveying your purpose, your charitable contributions won’t be misunderstood. If your intentions are sketchy, if your mission and vision aren’t clear, or aren’t being successfully conveyed, you’ve got some brand issues to sort out. Get on it.

BlackDog believes we’re are all responsible for the ways we contribute to global and community problems or fail to contribute to their solution. Research indicates your customers agree with us…

• 83% of consumers are actively willing to change their buying habits if doing so would help “make the world a better place.”

• 61% of consumers have chosen a brand that differentiates itself through values, ideas, and impact over brands that differentiate on price.

• “64 percent of people globally say they would recommend a brand that supports a good cause.”

So, stick up for your values and the issues that matter to you and your customers fearlessly.

goodpurpose: “Despite Prolonged Global Recession, an Increasing number of people are spending on brands that have social purpose: According to the 2009 Global Edelman goodpurpose Study.” New York, 2009; 21 (October).

We appreciate that you operate in a complicated cultural reality – economic uncertainty, political divide, scarcity mentalities, and fear have collided in the health-care sector. The insured, underinsured, and uninsured are feeling anxious, concerned, entitled, angry, and threatened. We find it frustrating and shortsighted that the health-care “hysteria” is largely avoided by the very industry that is positioned to address the uncertainties and acknowledge the prevailing social vulnerability that we all sense when sea change is required.

We suspect that the majority of advertising campaigns designed and launched by health insurers are well-intentioned. But the reality is that the messages communicated have less to do with the higher order needs, desires, sensitivities, and fears of people than they do with promoting what any one insurer has to offer as a “program” or a “perk” in the same-old, same-old approach. It seems to us that the messages conveyed and brand promises made seem to rely on consumption axioms that actually provoke cultural contradictions and rouse social anxieties. Meaningless programs and messaging dominate the awareness strategies of insurers distracted by their own positioning. Even the most thoughtful participants in the industry are minimizing their role and limiting their potential by skirting the blazing issues.

Not long ago McKinsey reported that people are less concerned with having to change than they are that no one is defining how in relation to health-care. People want to know that health insurers understand that more and more decision-making power and financial responsibility fall to people, not companies. People want to know that health insurers intuit the seriousness with which they fear illness- given that more than half of the working population reports being ‘unprepared’ for an injury or illness. People want to know that health insurers realize health-care is costly to them, regardless of the “value” offered.

Until health insurers recognize the relevant, deeply personal influences and the range of emotions that control decision making it is impossible to speak the same language, elevate cultural understanding, evolve behavior – or – attract, woo, and secure ideal subscribers.

The times and reality cry out  for a thought leader, a compassionate visionary that is willing to address head on what must be done. A thought leader driven by deep convictions, that appreciates that it is moral to be realistic and realistic to be moral. A thought leader that acknowledges the uncertainty with a perspective that communicates solutions in an open declaration of confidence to an insecure people, at such a time as this. Rather than advertising quips that gloss and avoid the cultural tensions and political divide – a thought leader that speaks directly to the collective psyche of society, one ad, one sponsorship, one promotion at a time. A thought leader that will keep it real; interacting authentically and sincerely. No visionary should ignore the well-being of people in conflict, especially in the wellness industry. An energized industry insider ready to make a promise that can be kept, and communicated, through a perspective that holistically and strategically connects with the needs of people. What is needed is “a utopian moment of healing built around” ¹ solutions and concepts that address the way forward.

If the programs, products, and partnerships of health-care providers are in-sync with an honorable philosophy, a robust purpose and a motivating vision then the organization should NOT be dumbed-down with trite messaging and out-of-touch promotions. Health insurers have a responsibility to make explicitly plain how the industry and providers intend to participate and interact in the colliding worlds of health, wellness, and fear.

When the needs are great, the issues sensitive, and the future uncertain, it is necessary for organizations in competitive and personal arenas to reveal more of ‘who they are’ rather than what programs they sell. The insured and uninsured want to know the motives of health insurers; key to understanding and deciding who can and should be trusted in the new and uncertain world order. The contrast between health insurer’s campaigns and their organizational way of being were less important once upon a time then they are now. In the new health insurance world order who you are, what you stand for, and why anyone wants your version of health-care genuinely matters. Your purpose and philosophy, as it relates to health, disease, trust, and people are intensely relevant.

The debate on health-care seems to hover and stall at cost. To not integrate or speak to the emotional aspect of health insurance is to ignore a fundamental aspect of the very real human experience. What people are concerned about is security, which is related to freedom. Freedom certainly has a cost but it’s far more complex than premium rates. Freedom, and control, are foundational to our national health and wellness mindsets. It will take a confident thought leader with a genuine interest in the wellness of people to motivate a nation to healthier behavioral choices, key to securing their freedom and health in the new world order. To sincerely address the real issues, thoughtfully, in a relevant voice is to alleviate the fears that will ultimately distract people’s ability to make sound decisions. Once a sense of direction hits tipping point a sense of acceptance, responsibility, certainty, and progress will infuse the human spirit and collective willpower transcending powerlessness, confusion, fear, anger, resentment, entitlement…

We challenge the health insurance industry to reconsider and re-imagine their influence, relevance, and role moving forward. Visionary, purpose-driven, people-centric providers are in a position to offer more than benefits within a category. What is needed now is a compassionate visionary who has the potential to innovate, negotiate, and champion change within the industry and society. Competitive forces and the anxiety of the masses demand that insurers develop wider brand strategies that develop and broadcast differences that truly make a difference. To our way of thinking, an authentic brand is driven by a humanizing philosophy and a captivating purpose, fueled by relentless conviction intent on guiding people-centric, spot-on decision making that doesn’t disappoint. Anything less is just malarkey. Relevance, credibility, and awareness are not an accidental consequence of advertising campaigns nor are they fringe activities unrelated to the greater purposes and objectives that providers sincerely intend to achieve, short and long term.

In times of trouble we listen for the confident; we are willing to follow the confident. Are you confident? Are you different? Are you relevant? Credible? Compelling? Do you care?

There will be plenty of those that simply wait and watch to see what the future holds. Insurers that ignore the realities that keep us up at night and chewing our nails during the day, do so at our collective peril. We implore relevant providers to rise to the occasion as champions of the health-care revolution, provoking conversations, deepening their relevance and proving that the exceptional is possible. Genuine leadership finds the courage to address the conflicts of society, culture, and people…not merely customers, consumers, and programming.

The best prospects for a meaningful future demand that we all do our part, giving the best of what we have, generously.

View the 2010 Threats to Girlhood Report

Threats to Girlhood include all of the issues, mindsets, factors, trends, and circumstances that impact girls’ lifelong health, wellness, happiness, and ability to succeed. Identifying current Threats to Girlhood is an important step towards advancing the well being of girls, the possibilities for women, and the strength of communities.  The 2010 Threats to Girlhood report issued by BlackDog’s foundation Serious Play for Serious Girls provides a collective view detailing the breadth and depth of the challenges that girls face.  Good brands will use this report to guard against inflicting these challenges developed as an outcome of their actions.
Emerging research on the state of girlhood highlights the interconnection of girlhood threats. Education and poverty, body image issues and advertising, sexual abuse and self-harm, conformism and commercialism; the issues threatening our girls aren’t isolated and unrelated.  Radically reducing Threats to Girlhood will require that we, collectively, work to improve all the interconnected causes along the way, not just the side effects.

No one single parent, politician, celebrity role model, company, organization, product, publication, or advertisement is solely responsible for the development of girlhood threats. We are all, however, responsible for the ways in which we contribute to these threats or fail to contribute to their solution. Radically reducing Threats to Girlhood requires a holistic solution: an out-of-the-box and into-the-hands-of decision-makers solution that takes the whole girl, the world she lives in, and the interconnection of the threats facing her, all into account.

This report is certainly not exhaustive, but we hope it will help show the scope of the problem and the urgent need for a new perspective. Because Threats to Girlhood are continually changing, shifting, and evolving, this is an ongoing project intended to continue addressing threats and working towards solutions.

We believe that research shouldn’t be remanded to vaults and scholarly journals, so if your research helps identify a Threat to Girlhood or a solution to a girlhood threat, we hope you’ll pass it along for possible inclusion in the report. Please send your stats, facts, and insights on girlhood threats, along with a copy of the published research or report in which the insights appear, to us for review.

The missing piece in children’s branding isn’t a strategy for multi-media tie-ins, advergame licensing, or on-the-money, pop culture predictions. No, not this time; more of the same has only made the void more evident.
What is missing, and what is needed, is conviction. Purposed conviction turned dedicated intent, represented by a sworn commitment much like the Hippocratic Oath. Not a certificate program, membership to a created association, three days at a conference in Des Moines, or a “good enough” seal of approval representing lackluster standards. Children’s branding is in need of an internalized dictum to “first, do no harm” that aligns integrity, organizational purpose, brand management, and the optimal development of children. This sworn commitment requires a guiding philosophy that holds individual ability and judgment accountable, demands respect for scientific discovery, and vows to regard the holistic care of children and childhood above all other competing concerns. It also requires an adopted practice of responsibility and professionalism dedicated to promoting the highest standards of well being and optimal development at each developmental stage and phase, guarding the season of childhood.

Brands don’t exist in vacuums- they impact, influence, and shape our global ecology. From the modeling and messaging conveyed to children through the media, to the nutritional content of their breakfast cereal, children are being molded, influenced, and impacted by the brands they see, hear, and use.

Ideals to purvey, values to reinforce, cultural differences to overcome, stigmas and stereotypes to destroy, and threats to childhood are all too plentiful. What is sparse, are companies that guard the season of childhood, see their vocation as a service, and that champion the role and opportunity to proactively influence the healthy real life needs of children.

Children need inspired playthings and wholesome messaging to help them tackle real world issues. Brands are either meeting the demand with constructive tools, placating children with shallow entertainment, or are selling out by buying into the notion that what they produce, promote, and contribute is inconsequential to the cultural realities of our day. If companies don’t begin adopting actionable, responsible standards rooted in high ideals, transparency, health, and holistic wellbeing, the industry will become subject to restrictive legislation.

Brand is more than just “looking good”.  An authentic brand requires doing good.

Just putting a pink ribbon on your product doesn’t make you socially responsible. “Certified Organic,” “Carbon Neutral,” and “No Trans Fats” claims on your packaging won’t achieve it either. A brand isn’t socially responsible unless they are consciously and meticulously concerned with their impact on society. While the vast majority of companies think of social responsibility in terms of green initiatives and charitable donations, true social responsibility is a guiding philosophy that runs far deeper than individual programs, outreaches, or financial sponsorship.

Before a company adds a social responsibility page to their website or boasts about their community and environmental initiatives, they should ask themselves several questions: what is society? Why does it matter? On what does society depend? How is our company, as a whole, contributing to society? How are our products, strategic partners, affiliates, retailers, and third party service providers contributing to society? How are we detracting from it?  And, in which areas are we likely to effect societal trends and evolutions, for better and for worse, intended and not? Neglecting to understand, predict, consider, and moderate your social impact is socially irresponsible, even if you help fund a great cause.

If companies don’t abide by voluntary and mannerly rules of conduct and responsibility, stricter legislation will be required to uphold societal values. In her book “Why Manners Matter: The Case for Civilized Behavior in a Barbarous World,” Australian speechwriter turned noteworthy social philosopher, Lucinda Holdforth, suggests that the stability of modern society may actually depend more on manners than it does on legislation, transportation, or the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Every working element of society depends on manners. “Manners,” she explains, “are both evidence of a functioning society and an important means of upholding that society. Manners provide a form of social self-limitation, a means by which citizens signal their willingness to live together and abide by common standards…. Destroy manners- sweep aside all of a society’s habits, conventions and patterns of behavior- and you may well find that you have nothing left but chaos. And because human beings cannot live for long in a state of anarchy, sooner or later some form of oppressive authority will step in to restore order on a new, more punitive premises” (1).  

1.Lucinda Holdforth. Why Manners Matter: The Case for Civilized behavior in a Barbarous World. Amy Einhorn Books, 2009. P. 25-6.

Professional associations are a critical component in the US business ecology.  The ASAE Center for Association Leadership reports that: 

• There are 147,000 incorporated associations in the US
• 1,000 new associations are being formed each year
• 9 out of 10 US adults belong to one association
• 1 out 4 US adults belong to four or more associations

 Historically Professional Associations have proactively advanced the interest of professionals while establishing codes of governance that protect the public interest as well as the respective practice. Professional Associations have contributed significantly to ongoing research by harnessing the insights of members, forecasting industry trends, improving the quality of standards and practices, advocating knowledge sharing, and creating access to education locally and globally. Professional Associations establish ethical guidelines, resolve practice issues as they arise, provide mentors and provoke thought leadership. What’s more interesting and relevant is that Professional Associations act as the primary source for ongoing professional development beyond college in the US. (95% of Professional Associations support on-going education opportunities, certificate trainings, internships and mentorships).

Critical Challenge: Not all Professional Associations are created equal.

Guilty by association? Professional Associations appear to make the same promises, offer like perks in the same stuffy style on copycat websites. Professional Associations compete for limited members with limited time…and yet few organizations stand for a distinctive purpose or stand apart with a compelling perspective that connects with members and distinguishes one organization above another. Few Professional Associations have revealed the “big idea” that expresses the association’s reason for existence; the relevance, history, purpose, passion, integrity, advocacy, significance, social capital and successes in a compelling and meaningful brand story. Professional Associations that don’t want to be confused for ordinary must explicitly define or re-define their relevance, breaking from the herd to be heard.

Authentic and relevant Professional Association brands are memorable; they are differentiated by thought leadership, synergy, credibility, ingenuity, diversity, style, philosophy, design, sustainability…  when the list of distinctions is endless, the membership is boundless! 

What is truly the purpose of business?  Is it purely profits?  Certainly that is the purpose of commerce, but commerce is only one part of a business’s existence.  Businesses must start finding a means of participating in the full range of the environment in which they live.

The concept of  business “giving back” is a significant component of a company’s brand.   Traditionally seen as specific to the not-for-profit,  in recent years it has gained critical mass in the “for-profit” community. Thus corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been developing as a means of explaining the concept that a business can give back to the society that it exists within.  While the definition is dynamic across industries, it is clearly evident that more and more routinely, stake holders are using corporate responsibility as one of the yardsticks by which they measure companies…. for procurement, partnering and employement opportunities.  In fact, some innovative organizations are even starting to track these efforts and present awards to organizations that best exemplify the concept.

The 2009 Brands with a Conscienceawards were announced recently by the Medinge Group, an international think-tank on branding.  http://www.medinge.org/press/2009/01/international-think-tank-announces-2009.html.  These awards look at corporate responsibility in the fullest sense of it’s definition.  Nominees are considered based upon “…principles of humanity and ethics, rather than financial worth. The Brands with a Conscience list is shaped around criteria including evidence of the human implications of the brand and considering whether the brand takes risks in line with its beliefs. ” (Medinge 2009 http://www.medinge.org/)

Like any other concept that is in it’s early youth, CSR has strong supporters and critics, and as might be expected the definition remains flexible.   The Medinge Group winners make social responsibility the center piece of their strategic plan.  From today’s perspective on relevant brands, it is certainly a critical part of an organization’s overall strategic plan, given that customers, employees and partners are bringing this to the forefront as part of their decision on where to build relationships.

There is no better time to begin.  You can take small steps by looking at the immediate environment where your organization functions.  Is there a way to give back to your community?  Are there organizations that a large part of your employees belong to or support?  Is  there an organization or independent agency in your industry that provides direction on where to give back?  You can take a bigger step by incorporating these plans in your strategic efforts, starting with defining level and ownership.  The temptation will be to assign this to Marketing or HR.  Truth is, that done correctly this is a company wide responsibility.

One final caveat… this can not be done for the sake of manipulating the customer or getting something back.  In today’s socially conscious environment, any effort that is done for gain will be seen through quickly.  Giving back is just that… giving back, done for no greater reason than it is the right thing to do.