BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

One of the best things about my job is not only helping companies improve their business operations through branding, but simply having thought provoking conversations with professionals about the latest trends and challenges of the business. Saurabh Sharma, Strategic Planning Director at Ogilvy & Mather in Beijing, recently raised a great question about the role of transparency when communicating to a multifaceted consumer, and I thought it was worthwhile to share with you.

Question:

In BrandDigital, you have mentioned the need for brands to be honest and transparent. Last year, Timberland CEO, Jeff Swartz said in an interview with Fast Company that his company had to discontinue its sourcing from China because of what he called “violations to human dignity” that underscored the business model of the supplier called Kingmaker. This had an adverse effect, as prices went up and the timing of this event was really bad. Needless to say that this would have contributed to the subsequent decline in Timberland’s sales. How do you think the brand can reconcile the need for transparency and ethics when consumers are not at all obliged to return the favor? Customer is absolutely the king, but how can brands manage consumer hypocrisy when they demonstrate one set of standards as citizens and dwellers of this planet and another set of standards as consumers of products and services.

Answer:

One of the most challenging dimensions of marketing is, and always has been, the ability to separate what consumers say they will do and what they actually do when they get to the shopping aisles. While there have been many advances in research methods relative to how consumers will behave when it’s time for them to reach for their wallets, this question still stands as one of the biggest leaps of faith a marketer must make. In fact, there are very few consumers today who would not give the “socially acceptable” answer to questions concerning their intent to buy goods that save the planet, or from brands that stand for social responsibility. That said, marketers must look at “doing good” as a long-term business objective, not a short-term promotional effort, if they want to change the way consumers perceive their brands and become loyal to these brands. If the purpose of the company is built upon, and operationally driven, by doing good, it must be willing to live with two or three quarters of less than great sales as it builds this image in the minds of consumers.

Image via timberland.com

I wasn’t invited to the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, where leaders representing over 85% of the world’s economy are meeting to tackle world issues. I was, however, invited to write a column for Ad Age about the fact that consumers are more motivated than ever to choose brands that improve lives beyond their own. More so, that the very meaning of the terms “good brand or bad brand” have taken on entirely new meaning in a marketplace where corporate environmental and social responsibility is matched in interest only by the digital technology that makes it so easy to track and spread. When I say “good brand, bad brand,” I’m not referring companies who have taken up the mantle of cause-related marketing or philanthropy but, rather, companies who have made a considered decision to link their a brand benefit with social purpose and are becoming category leaders as a result. After you read the headlines about the world leaders, take a minute to read about some pretty impressive brand leaders who are making it easier for consumers to make a difference.