It's a simple enough question - why do ethical-thinking folks (and that, IMHO, should be all of us) hate market-dominating firms like Wal-Mart and Tesco but love Innocent, even though its share of the UK smoothie market went from 37% to 61% between last year and this?
Well it clearly isn't about their "ownership" of their market spaces - Tesco and Wal-Mart are just as dominant and have just as much market power in their areas.
So why is Wal-Mart seen as "The Beast from Bentonville" and Tesco "The Creature from Cheshunt" (my own phrase!)?
The simple answer is their perceived behaviour — how they're seen to use the market power they've gained through success with customers.
Do any decent Internet news search and you'll find scores of stories coming up about how Wal-Mart and Tesco are said to be Janusian (two-faced) in being nice to customers and promoting themselves as helpful and friendly in their advertising to them (c.f. Tesco's long-standing "Every little helps" slogan and use of the voices of well-loved celebrities in their UK TV ads) while at the same time being horrid to their suppliers (see countless examples of Tesco being accused of forcing down prices paid to farmers and demanding payments from suppliers just to stock their products, supposedly to cover the costs of in-store promotions) and staff (see the long-standing stories surrounding Wal-Mart's use of low-paid, sometimes illegal, immigrant staff supplied by agencies).
So why are we bothered? My view is that, from our own personal experience, we hate bullies, particularly disingenuous ones who pretend to be nice while actually being nasty. Like the "Things It Took Me 50 Years To Learn" item - "If someone is nice to you and nasty to the waiter, they're not a nice person."
But, as I suggested, not everyone is bothered. Some folk don't care about how Tesco behaves to its suppliers - they just want it to give them the lowest prices and best service. Who cares how they come about?
But as the number of ethically-motivated consumers grow, perceived behaviour will become an increasingly important part of corporate strategy as a source of competitive advantage and differentiation for long-term market leaders.
P.S. Note from my little black Ideas notebook - "1/3/04 - Ethical is the new organic." I may not have published it then, but it's increasingly proving to be true.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Brand perception management - a key corporate competence
http://media.guardian.co.uk/marketingandpr/comment/0,,1545579,00.html
I read this article and immediately thought of companies like Innocent Drinks, Nokia and Starbucks — who are not only good at being good (ethical) but also good at managing the perception of their brand by customers and potential customers.
Innocent is very open about its ethically-driven mission statement and lives that through its donation of 10% of its profits to projects in the countries from which it sources its fruit and its annual free festival, Fruitstock. It's cheeky, fun, brand personality comes through in the silly jokes on its packaging, adverts, e-mail newsletter and website.
Nokia, being more corporate, manages things through its marketing and CSR (corporate social responsibility) activities, including its participation in a brilliantly honest and transparent (but also hilarious at points) BBC4 Storyville documentary about its CSR audit of the Chinese manufacturer of its phone chargers - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/made-in-china.shtml
Just by doing the film they showed how much they really mean all that stuff - it wasn't just tick-the-box for them.
Ditto Starbucks, whose approach to CSR has been deliberately low-key. While they do Fairtrade-like programmes to ethically source all their coffee and a lot more besides (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/csr.asp ), they don't make a big thing about it in their marketing activities, perhaps for fear of being accused of being a big Janusian American corporation by the anti-globalisation folks, even though Starbucks can prove everything they claim.
So much of their perception comes down to the other stuff they do in their marketing and the actual experience itself, which includes the whole thing about making it "The Third Place" in your life (with everything instore, including the muzac, carefully planned to match the brand - don't forget Mr Starbucks, Howard Schultz, is a marketing man!) and by selling cool music through its Hear Music label.
So where is this going to?
I believe some customers and potential customers assess their potential for a relationship with a brand based on their existing perception of it - functionally and ethically. How much price plays a part depends on how ethically-motivated they are.
But the more transparent they're seen to be, the more trustworthy they're perceived to be and the greater is their opportunity to start a new brand relationship with that ethical consumer.
And that's why managing the perception of your brand is a key corporate competence in the 21st Century.
I read this article and immediately thought of companies like Innocent Drinks, Nokia and Starbucks — who are not only good at being good (ethical) but also good at managing the perception of their brand by customers and potential customers.
Innocent is very open about its ethically-driven mission statement and lives that through its donation of 10% of its profits to projects in the countries from which it sources its fruit and its annual free festival, Fruitstock. It's cheeky, fun, brand personality comes through in the silly jokes on its packaging, adverts, e-mail newsletter and website.
Nokia, being more corporate, manages things through its marketing and CSR (corporate social responsibility) activities, including its participation in a brilliantly honest and transparent (but also hilarious at points) BBC4 Storyville documentary about its CSR audit of the Chinese manufacturer of its phone chargers - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/made-in-china.shtml
Just by doing the film they showed how much they really mean all that stuff - it wasn't just tick-the-box for them.
Ditto Starbucks, whose approach to CSR has been deliberately low-key. While they do Fairtrade-like programmes to ethically source all their coffee and a lot more besides (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/csr.asp ), they don't make a big thing about it in their marketing activities, perhaps for fear of being accused of being a big Janusian American corporation by the anti-globalisation folks, even though Starbucks can prove everything they claim.
So much of their perception comes down to the other stuff they do in their marketing and the actual experience itself, which includes the whole thing about making it "The Third Place" in your life (with everything instore, including the muzac, carefully planned to match the brand - don't forget Mr Starbucks, Howard Schultz, is a marketing man!) and by selling cool music through its Hear Music label.
So where is this going to?
I believe some customers and potential customers assess their potential for a relationship with a brand based on their existing perception of it - functionally and ethically. How much price plays a part depends on how ethically-motivated they are.
But the more transparent they're seen to be, the more trustworthy they're perceived to be and the greater is their opportunity to start a new brand relationship with that ethical consumer.
And that's why managing the perception of your brand is a key corporate competence in the 21st Century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)