I’ll upload a few every day…

Your Amouse-Bouche:  (a tasty titbit of amusement for your tastebuds)

Hamley’s is a real life Toy Story. A toy retail experience like no other. 6 Floors of Lego, Ben 10, Barbies, Magic tricks and life size teddybears – their retail assortment is endless – and for children of all ages, so is the fun.

Store Interior: Top Floor

It's not Christmas without a tree full of toys and foot-long Gingerbread men...

“]

If you're selling toys, you've got to let people play with them! [How I miss the days of Scaletrix...

And if you're going to have a shelf at all - make sure it's a London Bus! (Photo courtesy of amancay7.dz-host.com )

A virtual Jean Reno-like character with the mandate of protecting you.

Although rather hush hush about what exactly the elusive Ben is offering – apart from saying he can satisfy your needs (for information security on your iTouch and iPhone) - by protecting passwords, contacts,  photos and videos, notes and reminders…

Although it’s relatively new Ben the Body Guard has been uniquely marketed to my eyes and has combined several winning elements:

If marketing within video-based games (online, on your computer, on your wii, your xbox…) is a winner, although somewhat basically, Ben the Bodyguard leverages online gaming to be one of the pioneers of a really ‘cool’ way of publishing an advertising narrative.

Although it’s interface is relatively simple, it combines consumer education with an interactive videogame-like feel.  Follow Ben as he walks non-chalantly through of the dangers of city living with all your most important secrets – your business contacts, your undercover aliases and your extra-curricular activities — being exposed.

http://benthebodyguard.com has also gone viral – according to Twitter(url)y @http://twitturly.com/ it THE most tweeted and retweeted website at the time of writing, beating Justin Bieber’s grammy nomination and NASA finding extra-terrestrial life. In the 30 minutes I took to put this article together, it was retweeted a further 1546 times.

That’s not even including facebook.

Ben is also brand energizer – he functions not only as the face of the brand, but also from his character – as a security guard in the big city – where all kinds of threats loom and surround, he serves as a metaphor for conveying why you need him and how he can help you.

Ben the Bodyguard is playing on his novelty and his product release in January 2011 to be somewhat exclusive – he’s your personal bodyguard on speed dial and note, when he’s available, he’ll contact you. 

The dark corners and synthetic lights within this virtual metropolis-themed webface support the need for his services and not only enhance his image, but his professed notoriety as well.

Ben is definitely something or someone to watch!

Ben the Bodyguard is not affiliated to Apple but it is exclusively intended for their products – and noting the importance of information security in today’s world, would this be enough to tip your decision of which phone or gadget to buy in their favour?

 You may have privacy concerns but you may need to accept the fact in today’s digitised-everything that one’s personal information is arguably available for anyone to access, if they really want to access it. The internet is a powerful and helpful resource. Don’t share what you don’t want to be accessed but realise that an brand identity may need a name behind it.

A brand needs the help of an image, to let people create a picture (a strong, favourable and unique association) of you or what you are.

This may include a profile picture, an ‘about me’ story, a logo, a slogan – anything which can identify you as being you.  Make sure these are relevant to what you are saying.

Studies have shown that people accept, trust and prefer authors of online web content who have a profile photo – whether on Twitter, Facebook or your blog – which makes sense, as most human-beings are more stimulated by visual information – something tangible and credible we can believe in.

 Secondly. Decide on why exactly your brand is meaningful and stick to it. I suggest deciding on a theme, whether sport, travel, your company, your art etc. hardly all of them in the same space.

Furthermore, if you’re looking to attract a certain following for example, women drivers aged 25-33 – make sure that they find you continuously interesting and relevant.

Conversely – keep your ideas fresh and always allow customer response via some medium (email, blog comments etc.) so that you can constantly refine and improve your value proposition.

 What is harmful/helpful to your brand?

 Think of yourself as your own publicist or image consultant (look at it from your desired audience’s eyes…)

1) Step back and look at what you do that makes you both valued and valuable – what you’re good at, what interests you and what conforms to your values.

This is the brand you should be nurturing and marketing.

2) Establish SMART goals for your brand (Goals that are…)

3) Step back and identify which of your behaviours facilitate/obstruct the actualisation of these goals.

4) Establish/understand the intentions driving these behaviours, and actively set about changing harmful behaviours and maximising or emphasising helpful behaviours.

 “Google never forgets.” – I agree with Seth Godin on the fact that if someone googles your name they shouldn’t see anything that would contradict your brand.

Not that he’s implying being a saint, rather just full your name’s search terms with brand goal actualisers.

5) Constantly evaluate.

Step back and see what your audience is seeing – google yourself; then refresh stale ideas/mediums to make sure the associations you’re creating are the most congruent with your brand’s identity.

Lastly, Intellectual Rights Protection:

Let people distribute your brand property, but make sure that it’s linked to your brand.

Read more?

 Blecher, S. 2010. Personal Branding: Posting your Photo Increases your Twitter Following. [Online]. 6^th April.

<http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2010/04/06/Personal-Branding-Posting-Your-Photo-Increases-Your-Twitter-Following.aspx> [6th Jul 2010]

 Universal Events. 2010. What is NLP. Universal Events [Online]

<http://www.universalevents.com.au/nlp-what-is> [7th July 2010]

Godin, S. 2009. Personal branding in the age of Google. Seth’s Blog [Online]. 28^th February.

<http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/02/personal-branding-in-the-age-of-google.html> [6th Jul 2010]

7 billion people in the planet – and YOU want to do something meaningful with your life… You may have a great idea, or a vaguely special skill or a goal to realise, but have you thought about how you will do these things?

The people who have achieved greatly and who are remembered for doing it too, did not just build an image – they built a brand.

To even seem somewhat worth paying attention to – whether you want to start a social movement, sell your ideas for a fortune or be featured on TED, you need to have a bona fide strategy which will put your brand on the map.

So what will the world recognise about you? What will symbolise you? What must people see, hear or feel to recall you and everything about you?

We all have some unconscious idea about what a brand is – we know Adidas, Shell, Coca-Cola, Levi Strauss – we also know Barack Obama, Kiefer Sutherland and Diego Maradona – brands may be symbolised in labels (among other things) but are not limited to saleable goods and services, brands are people too.

These brands have one thing in common: the power of association.

They publicise themselves via developing strong, favourable and unique (tangible or abstract) associations channelled through various media, for people to develop a psychological or emotional connection to who they are and want they are about. 

As personal brand expert William Arruda aptly says, “your brand is held in the hearts and minds of those around you”- so make sure people can and want to connect to you.

Thus when confronted with associated stimuli, people immediately think of what they want them to – cue top-of-mind-awareness, what every marketer wants. What you want.

The rider is though, make sure you’ve got something of value to share, or something that makes you valuable.  There’s no point in branding something worthless – otherwise your strong, unique associations will only be unfavourable and your brand, your name, will be ruined. If you haven’t got this, start afresh.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)-based strategies say that in order to find, be successful and enjoy one’s life mission, one which is valued and valuable – you need to find congruency between what gives you pleasure, what you are skilled at and what you value in life.  In this way, determining what is most important in your life, will help you find what makes you both valued and valuable – because you will work your hardest at that.

So if you’ve got a great idea or skill and you’ve got the will to get it somewhere, all you need is learn how to market yourself correctly – and given a decent dose of common sense and the diligence to maintain your brand – it’s relatively simple.

Read More:

Arruda, W. 2002. An Introduction to Personal Branding: A Revolution in the way we handle our careers. Reach CC [Online]. N.d.

<http://www.reachcc.com/reachdotcom.nsf/ed8b12ad19f4f661c1256b700081e7e3/79325a245696e988c1256de000431539/Body/M2/intropersonalbrandingv3.pdf!OpenElement > [5th July 2010]

Bhalotia, N. 2002. Personal Branding: “Me Inc.”Brandchannel [Online]. April.

<http://www.brandchannel.com/images/Papers/PersonalBrandingMeInc.pdf> [4th July 2010]

Frost, R. 2003. Me Incorporated: Your own Magnetic Brand. Brandchannel [Online]. 4^th August.

<http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=169> [4th July 2010] 

Levinson, M. 2010. 6 Personal Branding Mistakes that can threaten your Job Search. CIO [Online] 13^th January.

<http://www.cio.com/article/515613/6_Personal_Branding_Mistakes_That_Can_Threaten_Your_Job_Search> [5^th July 2010]   

And if you’re really keen on the pioneering theory behind brand value:

Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity in the Journal of Marketing. 57(1). Pp. 1-22.

Well done to those teams who have made it this far as well as to those who will return in 2014 to try again! May the best team win! [Note, I said team, not dramaqueen]. 

What is ambush marketing?

 The official sponsors of such an event pay millions to the organiser for the right to associate all of their marketing with the event itself. 

Thus, ambush marketing effectively is the hijacking of the right to association (without paying sponsorship fees).

Generally brands toe the line sufficiently so as to only vaguely infringe the rules set out by the organiser but if successful, still walk away with relatively inexpensive publicity – which generally is positive as well.

The most blatant examples this time round:

Kulula.com, one of South Africa’s low-cost airlines, was accused by FIFA for infringing their world cup trademarks in the months leading up to the event.

Kulula’s campaign included dubbing itself the “Unofficial National Carrier of the You-Know-What.” Its ad also featured soccer stadiums, flags and vuvuzelas.

After an obvious outcry from FIFA, Kulula responded with an even cheekier ad with the headline, “Not next year, not last year but somewhere in between,” a greyer move making legal action by FIFA even harder to pull off.

Take a look at their two most prominent print ads to see Kulula’s ingenious comparisons:

 http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/Kulula-flights/2010/Kulula-World-Cup-advert.php5

Perhaps a stauncher example of this echoed Dutch brewery, Bavaria’s actions in the 2006 world cup; with the arrest of 2 Dutch women for ambush marketing and the expulsion of 36 Netherlands ‘supporters’ wearing orange Bavaria dresses from a stadium.

Bavaria received huge publicity from this year’s stint, whereby thousands of internet goers sympathised with the targeted women.

It is thought that Bavaria hired a troupe of women models who reportedly all arrived in the stadium wearing red fan gear, thereafter simultaneously shedding their outer-guise to reveal the controversial orange dresses.

36 People in a stadium may or may not get the attention of the cameras but 36 beautiful women changing their clothes definitely will.

FIFA moved quickly if not somewhat aggressively to ensure the sanctity of official sponsor Budweiser’s advertising turf. If anything their response only made marketing martyrs of the women and the Bavaria brand.

But what about Tom, Dick and Harry?

Others include, Jameson Whiskey’s overtly soccer themed cinema-screen campaign, Nando’s “Dear Mexicans, free lunch if you lose,” as well as almost every single business proposition in the country.

Everywhere one looks from factories to investment companies to wine estates and even beauty salons, flag banners, soccer balls and vuvuzelas adorn store fronts and offices like Christmas trees.

Few people ‘who matter’ (in the eyes of FIFA) will see this enthusiastic fan fever beyond those of the tourists who visit South Africa.

Yet millions of people were watching the Netherlands game in which officials jumped on the offending models.

Is the joke on FIFA? The women are pleading rights’ abuse and Bavaria is of course, supporting their cause with great gusto.

A Ball by Any Other Name.

Soccer fever is undeniably sovereign. While FIFA was incensed by Kulula’s display of national flags in their marketing – FIFA can’t copyright the use of flags, vuvuzelas or soccer balls let alone the year in which the event takes place.

Understandably though, it has to protect the interests of its official sponsors.

But in today’s world FIFA would gain more respect by fairly confronting Kulula or any other rival and running with their marketing challenge – making for more sound business practices and ironically better sportsmanship.

Thus, is it fair to confront ambush marketing with legal action when everyone’s doing it?

Or is there another way in which organisations (or companies) like FIFA can handle ambush marketing?

Sources:

News24. 2010. Dutch women traumatised. News24  [Online]. 17^th June.

<http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Dutch-women-traumatised-20100617-2 http://www.sport24.co.za/Soccer/WorldCup/NationalNews/Dutch-women-claim-rights-abuse-20100618 > [26^th June 2010]

Potter.S. 2010. Ambush Marketing. Kipp Report [Online]. 20^th June

<http://www.kippreport.com/2010/06/ambush-marketing/ > [26^th June 2010]

Sport24. 2010. Cops arrest Dutch ‘ambushers’. Sport24 [Online]. 16^th June.

<http://www.sport24.co.za/Soccer/WorldCup/NationalNews/Cops-arrest-Dutch-ambushers-20100616> [26^th June 2010]

Sport24. 2010. Dutch women claim rights abuse. Sport24 [Online]. 18^th June.

<http://www.sport24.co.za/Soccer/WorldCup/NationalNews/Dutch-women-claim-rights-abuse-20100618 > [26^th June 2010]

What happened?

On the 20^th of April, an explosion on the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon not only killed 11 people but also compromised the rig’s pipe structure, resulting in the opening of an undersea oil well. The flow rate of the well’s disgorgement is hard to determine but revised estimates put it between 12 000 and 19 000 barrels per day.

Why? Preliminary investigations show that BP was aware of part malfunctions:

Abnormalities were experienced some hours prior to the explosion:

-          Leaks were noticed and pressure was at three times its normal level

-          Pump was shut down, indicating that crew tried to avert further disaster

Structural/procedural problems:

-          Cement structure holding well pipe assembled by Halliburton failed to cope under the higher pressure

-          The failsafe mechanism, the blowout preventer, which could have averted this crisis also failed and BP’s preliminary report suggests that it may not have been properly tested

Consequences?

BP not only has to deal with the torrent of negative publicity and the undermining and/or debasement of their brand’s values but is now also credited by public opinion as being anything but green. 

See Greenpeace’s FLICKR appeal to the public to ‘rebrand BP’:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceuk/sets/72157623796911855

Secondly, BP’s share price has dropped to an 18-year low, in the 42 days since the incident.  BP may very well see near-insolvency – the company cannot afford to take this lightly.

Thirdly, in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez episode, despite the relatively limited scope of both media and green consciousness, as soon as pictures of dead birds and oiled coastlines surfaced, Exxon experienced large scale boycotting of its brand. BP may stand to lose this too.

Fourthly, as of the 2^nd of June, response expenses total more than $1 billion, which is paltry in comparison to how much this incident will end up costing them. It is in BP’s interest to clean up their act.

Aside from the oil spill’s detrimental effect on the seafood industries on Louisiana coastline, which makes up the livelihoods of many people, the entire gulf ecology may have been compromised as well.  The Gulf ecosystem includes sperm whales, dolphins, fish and micro-organism life as well as sensitive wetland environments and birdlife. 

Furthermore, the nullification of this extensive fishing area will place will place extra pressure on global fishing areas leading to unsustainable fishing.  In addition, the oil spill is also posing significant health risks to the recruits and volunteers helping in the cleanup operations.

This problem may be further exacerbated by the arrival of the annual hurricane season. Meteorologists have little record of the effect of a hurricane on an oil spill of this nature and fear that such activity would only relay contaminants even further across the surface of the water, endangering more shore life and/or cause movement underwater, potentially causing contaminants within the water to be dispersed via currents and threatening undersea life.

So what has BP done?

1.  Attempted Crisis Resolution:

BP’s failed strategic attempts at containment have become highly controversial for several reasons.  Firstly, BP came under fire for using dispersants, which in themselves are hazardous, which may have diluted some of the oil but ultimately only have spread it further.  Thereafter, came “Top Kill” – the dumping of 30 000 barrels of heavy mud, in a failed attempt to plug the hole and settle the oil – and “Junk Shot”, which included a “mud injection” containing rubber balls and other rough textured materials aiming to clog the leaks in the fail-safe mechanism also had no effect.  BP also unsuccessfully attempted repairing these with submarine robots as well as attempting to cap the well with a prototype containment dome.

Secondly, the seemingly haphazard and illogical nature suggested to the relevant publics that BP may not have taken solving this crisis seriously and thirdly, dispelling the notion that ‘plugging the well’ may not be possible at all. The latest relief strategy aims to plug the well itself via what an LMRP (Lower Marine Riser Package) a so-called beta containment cap.

However, while BP’s chief executive Tony Hayward said the chances of plugging the well are between 60-70%, many believe BP to be fighting a losing battle.  Relief wells to alleviate pressure would be the next best option and are literally in the pipeline but unfortunately would only realistically be completed by August.  For the moment, effective clean up is the most feasible operation.

 2. Disaster Relief Efforts

BP’s cleanup efforts have also been harshly criticised for being incoherent and disorganised, specifically with regard to the placement of oil booms among other efforts such as shore sweeping/scraping and environmental scrubbing.

BP has also fielded strong condemnation and negative publicity from numerous organisations – including actor Kevin Costner’s team – which tendered alternative measures that were turned down for unspecified reasons.  However, a specific hot-line has since been established, for the sole purpose of reviewing public ideas and potential solutions.

3. Communication

Pres. Obama is quoted as saying among his many other comments related to this issue, that “BP is off running around doing whatever it wants and nobody is minding the store.” Whether this is true or not, Obama is definitely a brand ambassador and has the ears and eyes of billions of people and needless to say this is incredibly bad publicity. 

BP was undeniably late in establishing their communication efforts but the necessary measures therein were no doubt thoroughly executed. If not too thoroughly? Herein, media are starting to express their frustration at not being allowed unrestricted coverage of the spill and suggest that both officials and locals working onsite are being encouraged not to talk to them at penalty of losing their jobs.  The media realise that BP is trying to manage a crisis situation but they fear that BP is controlling the press in an effort to limit bad brand publicity.

Greenpeace, one of the few eyes to get aerial footage of the Gulf:

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceusa09/4585891548/

Even though there was a time-delay in BP’s response, BP’s top management, specifically CEO Tony Hayward, have been involved in all of these efforts and have remained centre-stage and public since then.

A crisis command centre was set up – the Deepwater Unified Command to manage all of their response operations – accessible both online and by telephone.  BP’s front page of their website, www.bp.com, is now completely dedicated to managing crisis-relief and potential solutions to the “Deepwater Horizon Incident” and is user-friendly.  Here anyone can take a look at diagrams and CGI videos of potential solutions as well as monitor a live feed of the well site and of current strategic efforts to solve the crisis. Relevant data updates are now publicised every day.

In addition to crisis-specific Facebook and Twitter platforms, state-specific websites were also set up to bring attention to the state of affairs and relief efforts in Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi and Alabama specifically.

Other specific-focus, telephonic crisis centres have been set up as well, namely to facilitate volunteers’ help, to register professional services’ help, to register boats to assist clean up operations, to bring attention to environmental and social degradation and distressed wildlife and to contact BP’s press offices in the US and the UK as well as to file claims against BP itself.

Final Verdict?

 1. Dishonesty?

While other parties such as Transocean and Halliburton were involved in constructing and operating the Deepwater Horizon rig, BP made the fatal panic-stricken mistakes of blaming everyone else and publicly downplaying the incident before the scope of the flow rate and/or damage could be assessed. On the other hand, against charges of BP lying about flow rates, it is hard to determine this either way as differing scientific opinion and varying oil well pressure must be compared against source bias and interest.  However, BP would have saved more face had the numbers been overestimated and then revised lower than doing what they did. 

In cases of crisis communication, honesty is not only the best policy but also the tried and tested method for brand recovery.  To say that BP should have been honest is admittedly a normative recommendation made in retrospect but conversely, dishonesty is simply unacceptable at a corporate level and is tantamount to fraud.

2. Brand Greenwashing?

The spill also brought to the surface past questions regarding BP’s ‘greenwashing’, now understood as the spinning of environmentally unsound corporate practices.  In semi-contradiction to these allegations, it must ultimately be said that BP’s business is the mining and refining of fuel sources and while BP has begun integrating greener energy-producing activities into their business plan, the simple fact is that most fuel sources currently available for use and feasible in their production are unsustainable and/or highly carbon emissive.

As of yet, there is only so much BP can do to legitimately ‘greenify’ its business. While there remains high demand worldwide for energy and fuels, business will continue to supply it. For some it may be argued that this is unfortunate but rational given the circumstances, for others, the status quo is inadequate and must be revolutionised. For a business proposition not just answering to shareholders but one employing and responsible for the livelihoods of 92, 000 people worldwide, some middle ground must be found.

3. Corporate Social Responsibility

Without saying BP was the direct cause of the Gulf oil spill, it is both responsible for the damage caused by the incident and responsible to those who/that have been negatively affected by its happening. 

BP has shouldered this responsibility to adequate extent but like promotional strategies, recovery marketing strategies, can always be improved upon.  BP has not gone unwounded in the process, with its market value falling about $25 billion since the Deepwater explosion. 

As it is expected that this spill may have long-term consequences, it may be necessary for BP to look into establishing a long-term strategy so as to begin making good the damage it has caused as well as to rebuild its company image. After all, the world still runs on energy.

“It is an engineer’s nightmare,” said Ed Overton, a Louisiana State University professor of environmental sciences. “They’re trying to fit a 21-inch cap over a 20-inch pipe a mile away. That’s just horrendously hard to do. It’s not like you and I standing on the ground pushing — they’re using little robots to do this.” [Kunzelman and Bluestein, 2010]

Long Term Suggestions for BP: 

• Keep the recovery process as a main focus
• Remain positive but realistic, encourage positive attitudes and input from both staff and the public
• Ensure staff are properly informed
• Actively consider public suggestions and publicise this
• Set clean up targets, be honest about reaching or not reaching them
• Continuously publicise strategic and relief efforts
• Maintaining crisis communication efforts may be expensive but is especially necessary to prevent the dismantling of BP’s brand and image
• Make developing and implementing image-building strategies a key focus from here on

Losing hope to say that the damage is irreparable is not helpful. Accomplishing something is only impossible if one believes it to be so.  Without comparing the leaks of tankers, to the leak of an undersea well, most major spills to date have been cleaned up almost in their entirety, despite the scope of their damage with the help of local forces boats and volunteers.  We can recover our losses, let us not be our own defeat.

Sources:

Achenbach, J and Fahrenthold, D.A. 2010. Estimates revised upward for oil spill. The Day [Online]. 28^th May.

<http://www.theday.com/article/20100528/NWS13/305289959/1044 > [29^th May 2010]

BP. 2010. BP Global | Gulf of Mexico Response. BP [Online]. 30^th May.

<http://www.bp.com/bodycopyarticle.do?categoryId=1&contentId=7052055> [30^th May 2010]

Burdeau, C. 2010. Weather hurts Gulf oil fight, new drilling on hold. 30^th April.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9055044 > [29^th May 2010]

Kaufman, L. and Krauss, C. 2010. BP Prepares to Take New Tack on Leak After ‘Top Kill’ Fails. New York Times [Online]. 29^th May.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30spill.html?hp> [29^th May 2010]

Kunzelman, M and Bluestein, G. 2010. BP stock tumbles as feds announce oil-spill probes. Yahoo! News [Online]. 1^st June.

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill > [1st June 2010]

Philips, M. 2010. BP’s Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill. Newsweek [Online]. 26^th May.

<http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/the-missing-oil-spill-photos.html > [29^th May 2010]

Pilkington, E. 2010. BP oil spill: grassroots anger over ‘lack of clean-up plan’. The Guardian [Online]. 28^th May.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/28/grassroots-louisiana-bp-oil-spill > [29^th May 2010]

 Russel, L. 2010. Hurricane plus oil equals more problems. CNN [Online]. 28^th May.

<http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/27/hurricane.season.worries/index.html> [29^th May 2010]

Sherman. J. 2010. BP had warnings before accident. Politico [Online]. 25^th May.

<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37776.html> [29^th May 2010]

Simpson, D. 2010. BP Tries to Shift Blame for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. AOL [Online]. 3^rd May.

<http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/03/with-oil-spill-spreading-bp-spreads-blame/19462326/ > [29^th May 2010]

So, what is socially responsible behaviour?

Caring for our environment? Yes.
Caring for our animals? Yes.

But what about us? Despite being the end consumer who ultimately buys the products, the humanity of the People element of the extended marketing mix, has been largely forgotten by commercial interests.

I recently watched Food. Inc – a documentary that sets out to expose the consequences of the monopolisation of national food production by large multinational corporations in the US – among other things, it suggests that the root cause of obesity in the US is not because of people’s inability to control their diet and say no to an offer to upsize, but rather the fault of policy and corporate mismanagement. Subsidies allow the producers of processed food to sell food at below cost, making healthier choices like fruits and vegetables simply inaccessible to people of lower means.

The pollution of our natural environment is not limited to global warming and carbon emissions, our natural environment includes us as human beings; and by default, us as consumers. Unhealthy food has become almost staple diet for many in the US and it is a growing trend everywhere else, simply because it’s more affordable. We agree that consumers demand and firms supply. So if consumers demand it, firms will make efforts to supply it at lower costs, at the risk of having severe consequences on consumers’ health?

Advertising/Marketing communication efforts are often blamed for ‘mis-educating’ consumers – informing them that it is socially acceptable to consume the wrong things, or things they don’t need. The response is always given that people do not buy that which they haven’t expressed need or want for. But what about when consumers not only don’t know better, but can’t afford to do better? It is fair to say that the responsibility falls on both consumers and marketers (and firm managers) to educate consumers about product contents, usage and consequences thereof.

There is growing talk that society will experience so-called ‘green fatigue’ – wherein those who have maintained an active ‘green’ consciousness by recycling and buying local – they are tired that their efforts are not having any noticeable impact, when many people either can’t or won’t change their traditional consumption and waste behaviour. Thus with less people requiring greener products and services, the commercial world will supply less and less as well.

Could marketers play some role here? Even though society may not demand, could marketers to some degree encourage and educate in order to stimulate that demand for the betterment of society?

In some countries, self-regulating industry bodies actively ensure that the socially protective standards are maintained, but not all. Food Inc. suggests that the relevant authorities in the US actively ignore basic ethical responsibilities. Even though society may look to the West for direction, it may become crucial for our greater good that other countries’ set a marketing and corporate example. Better still, prevention is better than cure.

Marketers (and managers’) jobs are to educate consumers. Education about how they can safely satisfy their needs and wants. Marketers ideally want to inspire trust and confidence in the products and brands they advocate within their customers.
That marketers’ role is to guarantee that trust is similarly to protect consumers from corporate mismanagement.

The Mac-generation: Macintosh or McDonalds?

Make the right choice.

Further Reading:

 1. Robert Kenner’s film, Food Incorporated.

             The film which inspired this article.

 Kenner, R. 2009. Food Inc. United States: Magnolia Films and Alliance Pictures. [Documentary Film]. 

 2. Interview with Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation:

             Details with the effect of fast food culture on the labour force behind big companies.

 Livshin, J. 2000. Unhappy Meals: Interview with Eric Schlosser. The Atlantic [Online]. 14^th December.

 Available at: <http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/interviews/ba2000-12-14.htm> [11^th May 2010]

 3. Excerpt from Schlosser’s book, Fast Food Nation:

           Questions whether accepted food science is accepted neural manipulation of consumers.

Schlosser, E. 2001. Fast Food Nation: Why McDonalds’ French Fries taste so good [Online Excerpt]. Houghton Mifflin.

 Available at: <http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/01/schlosser.htm> [11^th May 2010]