Incite Kitchen

Poor Dove

It's been an interesting year for Unilever - especially its Dove brand.  First, the stories started circulating regarding the hypocrisy of its support for the Dove campaign (to raise the self-esteem in women) while simultaneously supporting Axe's campaign (which seemed to just as effectively place women in a shameful light).  This video, which, of course, is the product of a conversation I had last fall with Rye Clifton, is just one example.  Then, just a few weeks ago, Green Peace's version of Dove viral broke, actually prompting a quick and bold reaction from the soap-maker.  Unilever, the world’s largest consumer goods company and buyer of palm oil, weeks later, announced it will start using palm oil from certified sustainable sources by the end of 2008.  Now I hear that it is quite possible that Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty did have at least some retouching.  If true, this would of course be an act that contradicts the point of the entire campaign.  The Advertising Age article that made me aware of this development can be found here.

As a fellow advertising practitioner, I simply can't understand why agencies, clients, or both, continue to think they can pull a sheet over the eyes of the public.  Most people know that ads are "airbrushed."  It's expected to be "fake."  And that's ok.  But, if you're going to be a purpose brand, you simply cannot be anything short of 100% authentic in your efforts.  Agencies: you can't have that "honest conversation" you  worked so hard to sell to the client with people you're trying to fool.  Clients: your agency is dangerous if they're trying to have you live up to standards you can't inherently keep on your own. 

Nike's New Purpose?

Over the past several months, thoughts around the word "purpose" have been heard throughout the halls of St. John & Partners.  As I roughly see it, a positioning is what is created when you don't stand for something all that interesting, but you can't let the people who buy your products know that.  A purpose is what you have when you don't need a positioning to falsely augment any sense of a reason for existence beyond a profit motive.  For a long time our industry was pretty much just about the former... this isn't the case so much anymore.
With this conversation has come the inevitable question of whether a purpose has to be part of a brand's DNA from the beginning or if it is something that can be realized several years later.  Is Target really about design, or is that just their positioning because they can't compete with Wal-Mart on price?  Is Dove really for building self-esteem in girls and women everywhere, or is that just advertising to make people feel good about a big brand, owned by a big company, with a big carbon footprint, etc.?  Who knows?  The examples could go on. 
I think the answer is, "yes, purpose can be realized several years into a brand's existence."  The hard part for people like me to sometimes remember is that change doesn't happen over night and baby steps toward progress are at least progress.  For purpose to be fully-realized in a brand, everything must operate under that purpose's umbrella - not the least of which is a shared purpose by the brand's customers and fans.  Now the question is, how long do we wait for true purpose, or perhaps more appropriately, how do we measure progress toward purpose before we all throw our hands up in the air and say... "no matter how much progress brand X has made, everything they say and do is really just a positioning since they clearly aren't committed to their supposed purpose, X years later?"  This question seems trivial in a lot of ways now, but as people further find themselves defining themselves by purpose, it will be an increasingly important one for marketers to ask.  The world is only getting faster.

A few weeks ago at PSFK, Jeff Staple of Staple Design spoke of such an instance with Nike.  I'll be curious to see how else and how fast Nike continues to change their brand/operations/etc. to meet the needs of the apparent purpose they've found in making "green" shoes. 

tedBay

I love that TED is auctioning off the only remaining TED 2008 Ticket on eBay.  It's going to a good cause and is for an interesting project.  As I write this, the current bid is $33,535.00 and there are 8 days and 3 hours remaining. 

It makes me wonder, what if there was an entire conference that asked people to pay what they thought the conference was worth and/or gave a larger then expected amount to charities in context with the conference?  Could the Radiohead model work for conferences?  What are the limits of such a model?  I'm not entirely sure.  But because charities and conferences both draw interest around a common purpose, it seems to me that the idea might have some legs.  If anyone reading this is an event coordinator (or is just curious), I'd love to bat the idea around with you.  Please drop me a note.  And Jeff, if you're reading this, remember... 8 days and 3 hours.

Scenes From an Aveda School

While in Indianapolis over the weekend I had the opportunity to explore several stores that I typically wouldn't have the chance to experience.  Perhaps the most interesting was Aveda Fredric's Institute... a beauty school disguised as an upscale salon.  For $15.00 guests are treated to a five-minute back/neck/shoulder massage, shampoo/deep conditioning, mini facial, and of course, a hair cut.  Tips aren't allowed.
As with just about everything Aveda, a green theme ran through-out the building.  Plastic bins were made of recycled Tide bottles (and other plastics I presume), the floor was cork, counter tops were stainless steel and fixtures were bamboo.  Aveda's commitment to the environment is real.  Unlike the large crop of corporations jumping on the green bandwagon, the sense of purpose exhibited by Aveda is nothing shy of remarkable.  With efforts ranging from their packaging to the floors of their schools, you can't help but be curious as to what other ways they are seeking to better, or at least minimize their impact on the environment.  This is, quite frankly, the greatest proof that they are sold out to their belief and not just trying to sell us on it.
Furthermore, I had a chance to talk with several of the students, many of which already had college degrees.  The lady who cut my hair was making a career switch after ten years of working for Sony Music in Los Angeles and MTVU in New York.  The students completely shatter the image of the average "beautician."  According to Aveda's website, these are their beliefs.  I believe them.

Farewell Frisbee Founder

Few products span the generations and stand the test of time more than the ones created by Richard Knerr (who passed away this week) and his partner Arthur Melin, founders of Wham-O. The Frisbee. The Hula Hoop. Slip 'N Slide. Silly String. SuperBall. And countless others that were the result of their brainstorms, in-house inventions and suggestions from the public. Their purpose was single-minded: Make simple and inexpensive (yet hopefully profitable) gizmos for people of all ages to play with. The outcome was simply phenomenal. Most products became cultural crazes that circled the globe and continue today. All of this was borne from a love of play that the two men shared from an early age. Despite their parents attempts to redirect their energies, these two men stayed true to themselves, even during the financial failure of the Hula Hoop. As a result, they've left a legacy that will live forever.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

Notice any similarity?  Apparently, Hasbro and Mattel finally did nearly two years after two brothers from India created scrabulous when they couldn't find an online equivalent to Scrabble that was free and worthy of play. 
2.3 million users agreed with them, and now the brothers and the Facebook organization that allowed them to post their game on the popular social networking site could face legal consequences for their actions. 

There are many issues both legal and ethical at play here.  Since I'm not a legal expert, I can only comment on the latter.  And it is here that I have to find fault with the creators of scrabulous, despite my recent addiction to the game.  They copied Alfred Mosher Butts idea and sought to profit from it.  And that's wrong in my book. If they were so passionate about the game of Scrabble, why didn't they approach Hasbro and Mattel about creating an online equivalent (same name, same rules) and making it available for free (no ad revenue to either party) to people online?  If Hasbro and Mattel declined interest (I'm not sure they were even asked), why didn't the brothers take their passion and intellect and turn it into the development of a new word game? 

To me, it all comes down to purpose.  What (hopefully) started out as an altruistic desire to play and share a passion for Scrabble turned into an ad-revenue generating, social network site traffic-building mechanism that wasn't about the game at all.  I can only hope that all parties involved will find a resolution that keeps the noble purpose of getting adults and kids playing word games together alive and growing.

Brands With A Conscience

I just saw where The Medinge Group recently announced their 2008 Brands with a Conscience.  There were a  few expected brands, a few I'd never heard of, and one that while I'd heard of it, took me by surprise.  The list is below and the actual press release can be found by clicking here.

Aveda
Chocolonely
Hennes & Mauritz
Happy Computers
International Watch Co.
Pret a Manger
Dame Anita Roddick

Aveda, H&M, and Dame Anita Roddick are solid picks.  I've never heard of Chocolonely, Happy Computers, or Pret a Manger.  International Watch Company, however, really took me by surprise.  By now the strong trend of luxury brands going green is well documented.  But super-luxe brands (for lack of a better term) such as IWC going green, especially to the point of such recognition, is not only unique but probably a sign of things to come.

Not long ago, "the world's finest" and "the world's cleanest" were almost contradictory terms.  As the greening of the world continues, I'll be fascinated to see how many/what other super-luxe companies follow suit.  Even more, I'll be fascinated to see how such operational/marketing ploys play-out among the world's most discerning shoppers. 

To Protect and Serve?

I've always admired the strong sense of purpose of the many law enforcement offices around the civilized world, as well as the pride in that purpose that most of the people who work for them feel.  I've always admired law enforcement's brief: "To protect and serve."  Done.  That simple.  Around the country and perhaps around the world, this brief serves as a rallying cry to the officers who, more often than most, bravely put themselves in harms way to answer the calling of their employer.

That said, I feel obligated today to write about the irony of a situation that just occurred in the complex where I work.  While everything did turn out fine... there was indeed a bomb scare today.  Someone apparently left a backpack (I'm sure on accident) in an adjacent building lobby and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department ordered that building evacuated.  Everything went smoothly.  The backpack was determined harmless within about twenty minutes and the day continued literally without a hitch.

Shortly thereafter, the emails started circulating that the police were roaming the parking lot, writing tickets for expired tags and cars that were parked on or near parking space lines.  People from all floors in my building, while totally unphased by the bomb scare, began a mass exodus to the parking lot to see if they had already received or were about to receive a ticket.  A bomb hidden in a back pack?  Piece of cake.  Officers in the parking lot?  Sudden reaction.  Does law enforcement really fulfill their brief's purpose anymore?  Or like so many other great brands of recent, have I just realized that their motto is nothing more than a crappy positioning designed to make me feel good about what it is they're really out to do?

Purpose shouldn't be catnip

I'll admit I'm not a cat lover, but even I felt sorry for my feline friends when a colleague sent me a link to www.kittywigs.com.  I mean who thinks that dressing up their cat (or dog) is fun for the animal?  Sure, we humans may get a chuckle out of it, but at what cost to our pets?  Tune into Cesar Millan on any given day and you'll see what happens to animals who aren't treated like, well, animals. 

But that isn't the reason I decided to write about pet apparel today.  What puzzles me about Kitty Wigs is the incongruity of their product and their philanthropic philosophy.  A big part of their sales pitch is the fact that 20% of the proceeds from the sale of their wigs ($50 each) goes to the ASPCA, an organization dedicated to preventing cruelty to animals.  I find that ironic in a sad sort of way.   Now, I'm not suggesting that putting a wig on a cat is cruel or abusive; but I'm not sure that it is mutually beneficial for man and beast either.  So it begs the question of whether the donation to the ASPCA is meant to offset the questionable purpose of a pet wig seller or something else.

Even sadder is the number of brands who adopt a cause or attach themselves to one  in the mistaken belief that it will somehow elevate the purpose of their brand beyond its more base realities.  Sadder still is the fact that most people don't know the difference.  The halo effect works.  But for how long?

I think 2008 is going to be a year when the wheat gets separated from the chafe in the marketing universe.  Brands that don't measure up to the promises they make in pitching their wares won't be around to measure their sales for long.  All things being fairly equal in terms of product/service quality and value, the true differentiator will become something much higher order.  I think "purpose" will be that difference maker.  And the companies that win will be the ones sold out to a meaningful purpose in all aspects of their company.  The pretenders and the wannabes will either come clean or get washed away. I know which outcome this cat is hoping for.