Archive for the ‘marketing’

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Bad Language: Why ‘Consumer’ Should Get the Boot

Published August 3rd, 2009 in marketing, sustainability | 3 Comments »

I like to work myself into a good froth before posting one of an occasional series of rants on words and phrases that make me want to spit nails. And I’m finally there on consumer, used to identify a person or people (as opposed to business jargon for a market sector).

In fact, I’ve stewed over this one so long others have beat me to it (see Joseph Romm in Grist). But consumer deserves a pile-on. As in, “Consumers value convenience above all else.”

Well yes, consumers would. But would citizens? Parents? Community members? Patriots? Environmentalists/sports fans/gardeners/name your identity here? The use of the word “consumers” to identify people at all times in all contexts encourages us to think of ourselves—and each other—as nothing more than engines of consumption. It frames our view on problems and solutions in a way that narrows the perspective to purely personal concerns (often amounting to unexamined habits) and positions us as passive recipients of whatever’s out there—we can accept or reject, but not direct.

A sentence like “Consumers care more about perceived effectiveness and than about exposing their household to hazardous chemicals” will be accepted as a truism. Yeah, consumers are like that. Would the sentence “Parents care more about perceived effectiveness and than about exposing their household to hazardous chemicals” seem quite as commonsensical? I’m going to say no.

I’m also going to take a vow: I will never again use the word consumer to refer to a person or people. (I admit it, I’ve done it.) And at the risk of sounding preachy, I think everyone who writes or talks about sustainability issues should do the same. The words we use to describe things affect how we see them. And even when we’re shopping—perhaps especially when we’re shopping—we need to stop seeing ourselves as simply creatures who buy things.

‘Know Your Audience’ Applies to Sustainability, Too

Published June 8th, 2009 in communications strategy, marketing, sustainability | No Comments »

In an article from Environmental Leader, IBM Global Business Services’ Corporate Sustainability leader, Jeff Hittner, likens companies’ approach to CSR to the early days of the Internet, when “People would come to us and say, ‘Wow. We need a Web site.’ We’d ask what their customers wanted in a Web site and they’d say ‘We don’t know. We only know we need a Web site.’”

Hittner and his colleague Eric Riddleberger talked to leaders at 224 companies around the world about CSR efforts, publishing their findings in a white paper, “Leading a Sustainable Enterprise.” Their surveys show that while two-thirds of companies focus on CSR as an integrated business strategy, most of them don’t know what their customers or partners expect when it comes to sustainability information. Thirty-seven percent of companies had done no research on customers’ CSR concerns, and 35 percent of them had done research for less than three years.

Most of them are in the dark when it comes to communicating about what the company is doing and engaging stakeholders, be they customers, partners, or anybody else. Hittner and Riddleberger found that a little over half (fewer than you’d think) are even trying to communicate with investors, business partners, government, and the community. It’s a bit better for employees, with 63 percent of companies engaging with them.

Not surprisingly, Hittner recommends that companies do customer research, find out who is most interested in sustainability, and develop programs that education and engage customers about sustainability.

That way, when you say, “We need a website for sustainability,” you’ll know not only what you need to communicate, but who you need to reach and what they want to hear from you.

The Thinkshift Credibility Quotient Goes Beta

Published May 14th, 2009 in branding, communications strategy, marketing, sustainability | 2 Comments »

I’m excited to report that the Thinkshift® Credibility Quotient™ is ready for public consumption: we are beta testing it now, and would love your feedback.

We’ve been working on the CQ (as we call it in-house) for some time, and it’s exciting because as far as we know, this is the first system for measuring the credibility of communications—and letting people see how they stack up against competitors.

Why credibility? It’s a huge issue for companies trying to get people to adopt clean technology or a new approach, and for any company or institution promoting sustainability initiatives. (Don’t want to be accused of greenwashing? You’d better be credible.) It’s essential to being persuasive, whether you’re trying to convince people to buy a product or service, support your endeavors, or take action on an issue. And it’s just too important to assess based solely on insider impressions.

The CQ rates the credibility of any type of communication (websites, reports, marketing collateral) on a weighted 100-point scale. The system considers 10 factors integral to credibility and scores for each, with the most important receiving the most weight. The CQ rating (or grade) is the sum of those scores.

Thinkshift can provide a Credibility Quotient for a single communications vehicle or an entire program, or benchmark an organization’s communications against others in its field.

You can download a PDF that tells you more about how the CQ works and includes sample ratings (short versions) here: http://www.thinkshiftcom.com/ThinkshiftCQ_beta.pdf.

We’d love to know what you think: Do you see the value? Is it something your organization, or one you’re familiar with, could use?

Betting on the Future

Published April 25th, 2009 in marketing | No Comments »

New Yorker financial columnist James Surowiecki tells the tale of two cereal companies’ approach to the Depression in his April 20 column (“Hanging Tough”): Post cut its ad budget, while Kellogg doubled its budget, moved into a new medium, and gave a major push to a new product (Rice Krispies). The result:

By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost thirty per cent and it had become what it remains today: the industry’s dominant player. You’d think that everyone would want to emulate Kellogg’s success, but, when hard times hit, most companies end up behaving more like Post. They hunker down, cut spending, and wait for good times to return.

Examples like Kellogg and Post (and Surowiecki gives plenty more) are why we tell people that now is the time to market like hell—you’ll position yourself well for the upturn, and you’ll give yourself the best chance to capture those who are still spending. Of course it’s in our self-interest to say that, but we are following our own advice, and spending more than feels quite comfortable on marketing and new initiatives.

As Surowiecki points out, this can be scary. There’s a good reason so many organizations choose to batten down the hatches in a downturn: a gamble on the future isn’t always successful.

But as they say at the tables, you can’t win if you don’t play.

For Whose Convenience?

Published March 1st, 2009 in communications strategy, marketing | No Comments »

“For your convenience.” Just contemplating that phrase generates a flare of irritation and bad memories. “For your convenience, we no longer offer phone support.” “For your convenience, you must now walk around the building to enter.” “For your convenience, we can offer you a four-hour appointment window.” And so on.

I assume businesses and institutions do this because they imagine that telling us something is convenient will make us believe that it is—even if that notion runs counter to our direct experience. (I assume that because the only other alternative is to assume that they want to make an annoying situation doubly annoying by presenting it as a favor.) This is delusional, bordering on moronic.

Lying to your customers—or implying that your definition of their experience trumps theirs—is never the way to get them to support, or at least accept, new practices or difficult changes. I can’t believe I feel compelled to point this out, but the phrase appears to have become a convention—and anyone who uses it should know that it will inject an odor of bad faith into the entire customer relationship.

If you need to make a change that people won’t like, be honest, and explain why you need to do it. (Even “For our convenience …” would be better, and might generate a laugh.) If it will benefit customers in the long run, say so—as long as you have a credible case. People may still be annoyed, but at least they won’t be insulted by your dishonesty to boot.

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »