Admap Prize 2013
Can brands maximize profits and be a force for social good?
Social Good, Personal Best: How a basic selfish desire may be just what business and society
need.
Essay authored by: Guy Champniss
Can brands deliver both profit and social good? We all know what we’d like the answer to be, and
have seen the much-vaunted examples of brands that appear to generate immense profits through
driving social good: towering brands that have been built, it seems, on the value of virtue. But
anecdotes and case studies, no matter how impressive, can only get us so far. A more accurate
answer, I’d like to argue, lies within the core mechanics of consumer behaviour – and behaviour that
is selfish, rather than selfless.
1
Marketing is an application of exchange theory . In a restricted exchange condition - which is
applicable to most marketing situations - two parties trade resources (typically time and money), in an
attempt to yield value from the process. The value gained can take many forms: for the business, it’s
utilitarian, typically as hard cash, but can also be time, via commitment or support (when we
recommend a brand, for example). For the consumer, the value can be even more varied, including
2
utilitarian, hedonic or symbolic . Whatever the perceived value within the exchange, marketing’s job is
to efficiently broker that exchange. And the brand’s job is to reliably and distinctively signal the
potential value in that exchange. Put another way, the brand represents the promise of value in the
exchange. The more we believe in the promise, the stronger the brand becomes (and vice versa). So
a strong brand can create more value for the business: money and ultimately profits.
Brands can also put their weight behind efforts such as cause-related marketing, social marketing
partnerships, sponsorship, and brand-backed philanthropy. In all cases, hefty amounts of social good
can be delivered: profiles get raised, issues get simplified and discussed, and donations get made.
3
Through cash and guile, commercial brands can pull numerous levers, such as increasing fluency
4
around complex topics (Dove’s Real Beauty) and creating social signaling benefits (Patagonia’s
‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ jacket). But in all these cases, the commitment is normally temporary, with the
brand sitting at best as some adjunct contributor to the effort. They are also expensive, arguably
draining away valuable resources that could otherwise be used to build more immediate profits for the
business. They may contribute loosely to long-term profit optimisation, but not to profit maximisation.
Away from brands and marketing, however, there is mounting evidence that focusing on social good
5,
does lead to increased profits (and not the other way round, as is often argued) and Harvard
6
Business Review recently ran with a piece, arguing that ‘conscious capitalism is not an oxymoron’ . At
the business level, it seems both good and profit can co-flourish, and shareholders should aim for
both.
7
Consumers seem to want this, too. At the close of 2012, GlobeScan reported that 65% of consumers
8
now feel the need to buy responsible products (82% in emerging markets). Havas Media claims in
their most recent research that a whopping 85% of consumers expect business to become actively
involved in solving social and environmental problems, and that more than 50% of us would pay more
for responsible products. If we accept these numbers as solid, how can marketers capitalise on this
apparently glaring opportunity?
Well, for one there are well-established decision-making models that claim to predict how we’d
9
behave in these ‘social good’ situations . These models argue that increasing our awareness of the
need for social good will awaken our altruistic desire to do good (or certainly ameliorate in some way
the social bad). We then just need the opportunity to act, believing that our decision will have a
Admap Prize 2013 Entry Form and Guidelines www.warc.com/admapprize2013 Page 1 meaningful and positive effect on the situation. Can brands provide us with this opportunity and
assurance? If so, isn’t there a nearly limitless market to make?
BMW and Santander have tried, embedding their efforts to deliver social and environmental good into
10
the core of their brand communications . But the results have been far from ideal. Logical and
laudable from a business and operations perspective, communicating these efforts to their consumers
seems to clash with the central identity of the brands themselves. Why is BMW, with its rich heritage
in precision, focus and ruthlessly efficient engineering, now worrying about the environment? Is it
getting soft in its old age, and losing focus? With this ‘sustainability liability’, not only are these strong
brands unable to drive social good but, in trying to do so, they compromise their abilities to deliver
profits to the business. If these brands stumble, what hope is there for others?
Three conclusions can be drawn from the above. Brands are not businesses, behaviours are not
attitudes, and social good is not sustainability. And it’s in these three distinctions that a more accurate
answer to the title question may lie.
First, brands must not lose sight of their unique role as a signal for value. Corporate stakeholders
require transparency from the business, in order to effectively evaluate its performance. This
transparency creates a heavy cognitive load, but this is fine for these stakeholders – it’s their job.
Consumers, on the other hand, want to trust brands as a distinct promise of value. Consumers, in
almost all situations, have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in cognitively heavy tasks
11
when it comes to choice decisions. Which is fine, because trust provides an emotional bias shortcut ,
bypassing the hard mental work. Yet when it comes to communicating and engaging around social
good, most brands - and agencies - believe transparency is the only route to build consumer trust.
Not only does transparency increase cognitive loads and complicate choices for consumers (which
12
13
often means retreating to default options ) but as Onora O’Neill elegantly argues, transparency can
only remove the option to deceive, not the intent. For consumers then, transparency is at best an
insurance policy, not a trust-builder.
Second, if we want more social good, then we need more people doing good. We shouldn’t be
distracted with the constant trumpeting of attitudinal surveys that present socially and environmentally
constructive options in abstract contexts, and do nothing to mitigate for the myriad social desirability
biases that are inevitable in participants’ answers. These surveys will always be there, telling us what
we want to hear. We should focus on driving the right behaviour, not capturing what we think is the
right attitude.
Which leads to the third - and most important - conclusion. Maybe we can let go of this idea that all
‘social good’ behaviour can only come from ethically oriented attitudes and intentions. What if brands
can encourage us to behave in ways that deliver social good, but which are predicated as much on
selfish desire, as altruistic obligation? In other words, doing it for our selves, rather than for others.
14
The distinction between altruism and egoism is complex ,but the beauty of taking the behaviourist
position, is that it doesn't matter: it's the behaviour that counts. If we accept this, then we shift our
focus from aligning inputs (values, beliefs, attitudes), to driving outputs (pro-social behaviours and
social good). It’s the pragmatist’s position, rather than the purist’s.
Can brands use these distinctions to deliver profits and be a force for social good? I think so.
Earlier, social marketing was mentioned as a way for commercial brands to help deliver social good.
15
One example involves US carmaker Jeep . Jeep has had a commitment to the Tread Lightly initiative
in the US, which encourages people to engage more responsibly with the great US outdoors (in
Jeep’s case, responsible off-road driving). Jeep’s involvement is seen as a pure social marketing
16
play, in that it is argued there are no direct benefits for the brand in doing this . In fact, having been
exposed to the initiative, there is a real possibility consumers may think twice about owning a Jeep at
all.
But is there really no value for Jeep and its consumers here? US Jeep owners love their Jeeps, so
much so the brand organises a number of weekend gatherings for members of the Jeep community.
As well as celebrating all things Jeep, these 'JeepFests' encourage newer Jeep owners to take
Admap Prize 2013 Entry Form and Guidelines www.warc.com/admapprize2013 Page 2 advanced driving lessons, learning how to better handle their Jeep off-road. It is as part of these
advanced skills courses that the Tread Lightly initiative is introduced. Whilst overseen by Jeep, the
courses themselves are delivered by other, more experienced, Jeep users.
Social good is certainly generated here, yet when instructors and learners are interviewed, the
responses are very positive, with the commitment to the Tread Lightly initiative seen as an integral
17
and valuable part of the overall JeepFest experience . In other words, the commitment to Tread
Lightly yields considerable value for all involved (not just the environment). Nestled within the wider
brand-consistent JeepFest experience, and tucked inside this novel consumer-consumer exchange,
Jeep’s social marketing commitment to Tread Lightly allows the Jeep brand to signal another form of
value to its users.
But are Jeep users entering into these exchanges for altruistic reasons? Is this all about realising
value from delivering social (environmental) good? I don’t believe so. This behaviour is essentially
selfish. For those learning, the exchange promises value through increased self-esteem (and possibly
lower insurance premiums), and for those teaching, the exchange offers opportunities for value
through recognition and leadership. More specifically, for both learners and instructors, there is value
in becoming a member of the JeepFest group, together with the potential to become a distinctive
member of the group. In other words, this value promises to resolve – at least in part – our
fundamental tension between wanting both validation and similarity to others (on the one hand), and
uniqueness (on the other).
Recognising this unique value (we can call it ‘belonging value’), and how it drives these exchanges,
offers a key, I believe, to understanding how all brands could systematically deliver social good
alongside profits.
In this example, Jeep is effectively creating and priming a strong social category – a social frame of
reference - amongst its users. The JeepFest event itself primes this category for those who attend,
with the category laden with associations that reflect core aspects and ambitions of the brand. Once a
part of this social category JeepFest attendees then accept these characteristics, and act by them.
We know this happens (albeit away from brands and marketing) from Social Identity Theory, and
18
Social Categorisation Theory . In short, these theories propose that our self-concept is made up of
both a relatively stable personal identity, and a number of more fluid social identities. These social
identities are associated with specific social categories, and we include these identities when they
offer us clear guidance on how to think and behave in specific situations. In other words, we use
social identities to help us - and others - make sense of ourselves when navigating through complex
and fast-moving social contexts. The reason social identity theory, and the process whereby we selfcategorise and accommodate these identities, is so important in this context, is that where we selfcategorise with others, we immediately extend pro-social behaviours towards those others: we cooperate, collaborate and generally support others who we consider to be in our group. Put another
way, we start to do social good.
We do this to improve the effective functioning and social standing of our group, and to position
19
ourselves as central to that group. We're after 'positive distinctiveness' , both for our group, and for
us within our group. Could this be what drives the expert Jeep drivers to teach others at the JeepFest
- to improve the group, and to become an exemplar of the group? If so, then this selfish urge is
accidently delivering social good alongside value for Jeep.
Jeep is Jeep, though – a rich heritage brand, with a large marketing budget and armies of fans who
derive considerable symbolic value from the association. Could other brands without such deep
20
pockets achieve the same? This question led to some new experimental research , the results of
which can be shared for the first time here.
Using a fictitious fmcg brand, the research engaged a number of consumers to evaluate what they
thought were new marketing materials for the brand's launch. A number of respondents, selected at
random, were then placed in a specific sub-group for the research, based on what they believed were
their creative-thinking capabilities (as a result of what they believed to be an evaluative pre-task).
Admap Prize 2013 Entry Form and Guidelines www.warc.com/admapprize2013 Page 3 Reviewing the new materials presented plenty of opportunities for prosocial behaviours (giving time
and money to others, both in the group and beyond).
Simply by priming membership of a group that is relevant and positive for the task in question (in this
case, a creative-thinking group for a marketing task), we significantly increased the amount of money
and time these group consumers gave to those around them. By bypassing the ethical attitude
argument, and focusing solely on the behaviour, this low-involvement fictitious brand (that moments
earlier had not existed) is able to generate social good, almost at the drop of a hat. This is significant:
social good from selfish gain, all driven by the brand.
And it isn't just those within the immediate group that can benefit. With equally quick priming, the
research shows charities and other third parties are also beneficiaries of these prosocial behaviours.
Under specific conditions – again, all within the control of the brand - social good can flow beyond the
group. And profit for the brand? Well it certainly drives sales and loyalty: those in the strong group
condition are more likely to buy the brand, and spend significantly more time with the brand. They
21
also quickly become more attached to the brand .
So profit and good can flourish, not through moral or altruistic obligation, but through our desire to
belong and excel. In other words, social good through being our personal best.
22
David Vogel once asked if there is a market for virtue. His simple response can be paraphrased
here: profits will come from social good, when consumers are willing to pay for social good. Whatever
market research claims, it looks like we consumers are not yet ready to pay. Or rather, we're not yet
ready to pay for the type of social good we persist in trying to market. ‘Altruistic value’ is hard to sell to
the majority. But ‘belonging value’, it seems, is not. We all want to belong: to be within the group, and
yet distinctive within that group. Considerable profits can flow from offering this value. And when
within grasp, we behave very differently in pursuit of this value. We behave prosocially. We create
social good.
Here is one way, then, to answer the title question with optimism. More than this, it prompts us to
think more creatively about how we can use brands in this context. The purists will argue this selfish
desire is a dirty trick, and cheapens the social effect. But the purists’ position has expired. We need
results, for both business and society. If the promise of our personal best offers us the chance to
deliver profit and social good, then as pragmatists – creative pragmatists - we must seize it.
END
References
1
Bagozzi, R. (1975) ‘Marketing as Exchange’ Journal of Marketing, 39, pp. 32-39
2
See for example Sheth, J., Newman, B., Gross, B. (1991) ‘Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of
Consumption Values’ Journal of Business Research, 22, pp. 159 – 170
3
Petrova, P., Schwartz, N., Song, H. (2012) ‘Fluency and Social Influence: Lessons from Judgement
and Decision-Making’ pp. 39-49, in ‘Six Degrees of Social Influence’ Ed’ Kenrick, D., Goldstein, N,
Braver, S. Oxford University Press.
4
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J., Van den Bergh, B. (2010) ‘Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation
and Conspicuous Conservation’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 3, pp. 392 - 404
5
Eccles, R., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G. (2011) ‘The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainability on
Corporate Behaviour and Performance’ Working Paper, Harvard Business School
Admap Prize 2013 Entry Form and Guidelines www.warc.com/admapprize2013 Page 4 6
Mackey, J., Sisodia, R. (2013) ‘”Conscious Capitalism” Is Not an Oxymoron’ HBR Blog.
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/cultivating_a_higher_conscious.html. Accessed 25.1.13.
7
The Regeneration Roadmap. GlobeScan, Sustainability, BBMG (2012)
http://theregenerationroadmap.com/research/. Accessed 25.1.13
8
Meaningful Brands, Havas Media (2012) http://www.havasmedia.com/ourthinking/meaningfulbrands/meaningful-brands-global-factsheet/. Accessed 23.1.13
9
See for example, Stern, P. (2000) ‘Towards a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant
Behaviour’, Journal of Social Issues, 56, 3, pp. 407 - 424
10
Luchs, M., Walker Naylor, R., Irwin, J., Raghunathan, R. (2010) ‘The Sustainability Liability:
Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference’, Journal of Marketing, 74, pp. 18-31
11
Shiv, B. (2010), in ‘The Connected Consumer: The Changing Nature of Consumer and Business
Markets’ Ed. Wuyts, S., Dekimpe, M., Gjisbrechts, E., Pieters , F. Taylor & Francis.
12
Schwartz, B. (2004) 'The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less'. Harper Perennial, New York.
13
O’Neill, O. (2002) ‘A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002’, Cambridge University
Press.
14
See for example, Batson, D. (2011) ‘Altruism in Humans’ Oxford University Press.
15
See Bloom, P., Hussein, P., Szykman, L. (2008) ‘The Benefits of Corporate Social Marketing
Initiatives’ in ‘Social Marketing: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives’ ed. Goldberg, M., Fishbein,
M., Middlestadt, S. (2008). Routledge.
16
Ibid.
17
McAlexander, J., Schouten, J., Koenig, H. (2002) ‘Building Brand Community’, Journal of
Marketing, 66, p. 38-54.
18
For a summary, see Tajfel, H & Turner, J. (1972) & Turner, J. (1982) in ‘Rediscovering Social
Identity’ (2010) ed’ Postmes, T & Branscombe, N. Psychology Press
19
Ibid. p. 14
20
Research conducted for PhD thesis in collective decision-making and its application to strategic
marketing, Cranfield School of Management (2013).
21
We used the measure of brand attachment from Park et al (2010) 'Brand Attachment and Brand
Attitude Strength', Journal of Marketing, 74.
22
Vogel, D. (2005) ‘The Market for Virtue’, Brookings Institute Press.
Admap Prize 2013 Entry Form and Guidelines www.warc.com/admapprize2013 Page 5