Part 4 Danks
Danks: communicating with Home!
The Home hardware stores are a large retail group competing in the very competitive
do-it-yourself/hardware market in Australia. This wholesaler-sponsored cooperative is
led by John Danks & Co, the long-established building materials supplier. They now
have to compete with the likes of Bunnings, the remaining superstore chain in the
industry, and other cooperatives such as the Mitre 10 stores and other franchised
chains.
This video centres on a corporate communications video used to inform the retail
stores of results, upcoming programs that may affect them, regulatory changes that
can impact on their operations, and upcoming developments in brand management
and new product development.
The video portrays the close communication needed so that all members of the
marketing channel work as one to achieve mutually beneficial goals and objectives. It
is a means of presenting ‘the corporate face’ to all members in the same way—and
this in itself is a means of limiting the sometimes fierce channel conflict that occurs,
even when control is effectively in the hands of a major channel partner like Danks. In
the video, Danks staff take the opportunity to thank the retailers involved in lobbying
parliamentarians to protect their industry.
Partnership is strongly emphasised in the communications on the video, and the
‘members’ are informed, cajoled, told and hopefully persuaded to perform procedures
(such as putting in correct (i.e. not overstated) backup orders) and actions to ensure
the smooth running of the marketing channel (having tailored ‘dogalogues’, Home’s
version of a catalogue, because of the dog character used in their advertising and
branding).
The video, part of a regular series of member updates, is constructive and informative,
and is a good example of how channel communications can be fostered and improved
by the use of innovative communications strategies (which don’t necessarily have to
involve the latest digital communications equipment!).
Discussion questions
1. Will the Home members’ video result in increased cooperation within the
channel, in your opinion? Were there parts of the video where the
communication was too one-sided? If so, was it necessary?
2. Is this the best way for Danks to communicate with the Home channel
members? Are there any other ways of relating all this information to the
members in ways that would further improve the relationship with the member
stores?
Video Case Notes t/a ‘Consumer Behaviour’ 4E by Neal et al.
1
Part 4 Shell Australia
Shell: environment protection in action!
Three Shell corporate advertisements made for TV make up this video clip. They have
been produced to show that the company is committed to changing its attitudes and
operations in order to protect the environment in which this huge organisation
operates around the world. While the commentary attributes the efforts to Shell
Australia, it is obvious that it is part of a worldwide campaign by Shell to redress the
often adverse publicity it receives for the environmental damage caused by its oil
exploration and processing efforts. It is trying to build environmental awareness in all
its operations.
The first two persons featured are trying to protect the local culture as well as the
local environment—that is, to protect what’s on top of the ground while extracting the
valuable resources that lie under the ground (and under the water, in the Philippines
pipeline example). They do not fight the oil companies—in fact, they are employed
by them to minimise the inevitable damage that comes with change.
The third clip shows the use of racing cars to evaluate improvements and innovations
in fuel technology. These have the aim of conserving scarce resources and
diminishing the impact of the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas.
Pressure from much of the world’s population is now being brought to bear on all
kinds of material and resource suppliers. In the long run, they must show greater
environmental and social responsibility in their strategic and operational decision
making—or the outcomes in the long term are unthinkable. This video imparts some
balance to the debate by showing what one firm is doing to fulfil its responsibilities—
but can and will the others follow the leader?
Discussion questions
1. Are Shell’s environment conservation efforts credible, in your opinion? What
more has to be done?
2. Ultimately, who pays the price for environmental protection efforts?
Video Case Notes t/a ‘Consumer Behaviour’ 4E by Neal et al.
2
Part 4 Greenpeace Australia
Greenpeace: changing the world by example and action!
Leah Tasker, the Communications and Marketing director of Greenpeace Australia,
takes centre stage in this interesting video interview on the aims, practices and
outcomes of the environmental protection organisation’s communications policies.
Her job is basically to manage the organisation’s external image.
The consumer watchdog group constantly communicates with business firms and
government organisations in an attempt to increase the acceptance of their corporate
responsibility to the environment. They push their own version of the muchdiscussed ‘Triple Bottom Line’ approach to corporate decision making. Theirs
focuses on the ‘Triple P Line’—People, the Planet and Profit.
They also communicate constantly with their 140 000 supporters in Australia, who
can nominate the level of contact they wish to have with Greenpeace. Many forms of
communication are used to retain the involvement of the volunteers and supporters,
from email newsletters to functions held so that supporters can meet not only the staff
but other supporters as well.
They hold great persuasive and coercive powers because of the size and diversity of
their supporter network, as shown in the outcomes of the brand attack they lead
against Coke in 2000 over the use of environmentally friendly cooling techniques for
their products sold at the Sydney Olympics. The Internet-based campaign was ‘funky
and cheap’—and highly successful! It may have changed not only Coca-Cola
Australia’s attitude to the use of ‘environmentally unfriendly’ materials, but also those
of Coke worldwide. There may even be a flow-on effect to the entire retail soft drinks
industry, from the market leader Coke’s change in attitude to the new technology
made available by Greenpeace.
The core values of Greenpeace are that they stay independent, and therefore only
accept donations from individuals (not from governments or business)—this ensures
their very credible image of impartiality and strengthens the level of commitment
from their supporters. They are non-violent in their expression and activities. They
also purchase what they preach and only source environmentally friendly goods and
services to support their internal and external operations—this allows them to set a
good example for the many organisations with which they communicate. (Of course,
it takes additional time and effort to do this, but the organisation’s credibility and
commitment to its principles and aims is enhanced and ensured.)
Discussion questions
1. Do you approve of all Greenpeace activities? Would you join the
organisation in any capacity (e.g. supporter)? If so, why, and to what level of
communication would you commit?
Video Case Notes t/a ‘Consumer Behaviour’ 4E by Neal et al.
3
2. Given the actions and attitudes of Coke at the Olympics (as portrayed in the
video), is your attitude to the company and their brands altered in any way
(even though they were eventually forced to change their ways)?
3. Can Greenpeace truly stay independent as increasing external (community)
and internal (supporter) pressures to perform more activities puts additional
constraints on its supporter-only funding base? If they had to accept donations
from organisations, how could they retain their independence and credibility?
Would their image of impartiality be affected, no matter how they managed
the extended sources of funds?
Video Case Notes t/a ‘Consumer Behaviour’ 4E by Neal et al.
4