Search results matching tag 'ethics'

An email, by proxy

692072 — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:59:00 GMT

I started to write a blog post yesterday about the ethics of signing an eCRM email personally, even though the signer would have been on holiday at the time of broadcast. It was an interesting question, scuppered a little by the vagueness of the ethical dilemma, and thoroughly undermined by the fact I'm off on holiday myself later today with no guarantee it would be published before I go.

This week I read about a new service that's caused a bit of a stir, that will send emails on your behalf to loved ones after your demise. Very little different to what a Will can do, though I suppose more easily distributed and less focused on a fusty solicitor's office and family tantrums, and more to do with being able to say things in death not possible due to location, fear or convention in life. In the meantime you can also, of course, have someone pretend to be you on your behalf – though a big brand hiring a PR company to write the CEO's blog is clearly beyond the pale (and doesn't achieve the Groundswell thing anyway). It's much, much more effective and engaging to just be yourself, something which, for example, Jane Fonda does so disarmingly on her blog.

Next week it will be Natalie pushing the button on Underwired's monthly news email (so if you want to read a few thoughts on the Payment-by-Results zeitgeist then drop her an email to join the list – natalie@underwired.com). And then of course while I'm away I'll be vicariously sending correspondents my out of office autoreply... the realisation of which finally spiked yesterday's blog draft.

Every Brand Needs a Moral Contract to attract Women

2085942 — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:15:00 GMT

The latest N-vision data highlights 50% of women buy fair trade products compared to 35% of men. Women are 10% more likely than men to boycott those manufacturers who contribute to pollution. Women are 5% more likely to consider themselves as ethical shoppers compared to men. Younger women (under 35) and older women (45-64) are far more likely to disagree or disagree strongly compared to men with the statement 'Most companies in this country are fair to consumers.'

There has been a change in the nation's mood over the last 30 years: In 1980, only 12% of women and 15% of men agree with this same statement about fairness. By 2008, it was over 40% of men and 42% of women.

There is now a sense of injustice about the way women feel companies treat them. A feeling of being cheated by those corporations who have power. A sense that they should be 'doing their bit' for the people and their 'bit' should be much more significant than it currently is.

I predict women will lead the movement from a 'me' society to a 'we' society. Women no longer want a society with naked greed at its heart. They want generosity as its core value and will seek out brands that offer this.

Brands which are seen to lack this moral dimension are loosing out on more than just a sales opportunity: Brands which are known for their morality are more easily forgiven, or at least given the benefit of the doubt in the event of rumors and bad-news. Take the opposite extreme: Brands such as Monsanto which have allowed themselves to be known for doing things which are not entirely ethical are more easily embroiled in yet more whispering campaigns. There's a huge cost to appearing immoral.

Brands such as Kiva.org (the micro-lending exchange) are leading the way with a moral contract at the heart of their proposition. Technology brands,with the exception of Google's "Dont Be Evil", are trailing way behind with moral propositions.

But why should tech brands care? We are used to buying our tech-products from anonymous sounding foreign brands of whom we know very little about. What could these companies benefit from being seen as ethical? I think there is still a great deal to win in a world of undifferentiated products in commodity markets. You might as well flip a coin when choosing between an Asus and an Acer, but what if the manufacturers could find a way show their differences which appeal to the "slacktivist" sense of moral consumers?

The cynical amongst us will call it green-washing, but the fact remains that people will often choose a higher-priced product if they feel that it is more ethically sound, even people who'd never attended a protest march in their lives. Shopping is a form of passive-activism.

Tech brands must take the advice of Bill Bernach and:

Stop believing in what we sell and start selling what we believe in."

The fact remains women are still more loyal to companies than men. Men are approx 10% more likely to agree with the statement 'I am less loyal to companies that I previously was'. If tech brands want to attract and retain the most loyal sex, they must start with a moral contract and set of values.

This is no longer niche idealism but corporate realism.

What's the big ideal Ogilvy?

917990 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:32:00 GMT

My very good local paper - The Wharf, interviewed Ogilvy Group Chairman & Chief Exec, Gary Leih this week (Ogilvy has a 1300 emp HQ at Canary Wharf). He comments on the pain of making 60 redundancies in January "it was awful" but also says something significant about the changed world we live in as marketers:

"It's not good enough to have a big idea anymore, you need a big ideal'.

Ogilvy research is showing that far more consumers now want to know what a company stands for before making their purchase.

If consumer buying patterns aren't enough to convince companies to get their house in order then the sort of citizen journalism that sent Domino Pizza into a panic last week maybe will.

Planned, or knee jerk, ethics moving up the corporate agenda can only be a good thing.

The full article is here.

Public Relations, Ethics & Sardines

917990 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:11:00 GMT

There was a time, before the rise of social media and user generated content when organisations could get away with scurrilous acts of consumer extortion safe in the knowledge that the muted customer had few ways to hit back other than writing to Watch Dog.

Then came user generated content, forums, websites like ‘ihatedell’ and this week the magnificent ‘www.trainsardine.org’ a platform for commuters to complain about the million pounds a week they pay to travel like sardines in this country.

As a result, ethics suddenly has an elevated place at the board room table because a lack of them can now seriously damage a company’s profits.

A point Danny Rogers makes in PR Week this week, underlining the now close association of ethics and PR. He says: “Ultimately, comms staff can tell the wider world about what has been achieved. Indeed they can do so more effectively if they were involved all along. They can even inspire others organisations to do likewise. In other words, PR can be a force for the wider good.”

Makes you proud doesn’t it.

The dangers of artificial word of mouth

878512 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:28:44 GMT

Take your pick - you can read this guidance note from the IPA, a little dry, but useful to understand where the law stands on the issue - or you can read this short story by Hari Kunzru which will be of less practical use but will leave you moved...

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS

The Superbrands survey is meaningless

878512 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:03:53 GMT

Mike Butcher, Editor of Techcrunch UK, isn't mincing his words:

The entire media industry knows that Superbrands compiles its list then goes to the companies named and asks them if they want to pay to be in the list. If the firm says no, they don’t make the list. So given that a firm with a perfectly good brand might have been left out because they weren’t bothered about paying, the list is therefore meaningless.

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS

Why authenticity matters

878512 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:29:40 GMT

NixonMcInnes reports on the amusing tale of the Guardian's new travel blog, concluding:

You can’t out-smart your readers. If you aren’t being authentic, you will be found out by the crowd.

Update: ShinyRed has more.

Update 2: Our perspective shifts - Hate mail hell of a gap-year blogger.

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS

Situation comedy

878512 — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:08:54 GMT

No, I'm not talking about Apple's 728x90 (although it is funny). In light of the recent fracas about online display advertising and the content it's appearing next to, it's worth remembering what can happen when placements go really wrong. Enjoy.

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS

The 7 deadly sins of digital

878512 — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:10:04 GMT

Iain Tait has compiled a list of the 7 deadly sins of digital, most of which I'd agree with. Useful for all of you above-the-line types who don't want to repeat the mistakes us digital types made years ago...

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS

The dark art of negative SEO

878512 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:13:07 GMT

Forbes has an enlightening article covering the dark art of negative SEO:

reducing a competing site's visibility to searchers - or making it seem to disappear from search results altogether.

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS