Archive for the ‘Consumerism’ Category
A question we’re not trained to ask
What is enough?
Good question. And one businesspeople rarely consider. I asked Massachusetts-based consultant Jen Cohen why.
Because you are trained to ask ‘How do I get more?’ You are not trained to ask the question (of enough). Success in business has historically meant constant accumulation. So why would you ask ‘What is enough?’ It is a heretical question, in the frame of Wall Street or the current business model. We need a model where there is room for that question.
Cohen and her business partner Gina LaRoche co-founded Seven Stones Leadership to help businesses and individuals explore the question of enough. They base their practice on the principles of “sufficiency,” an emerging area of consulting that proves to be a natural complement to sustainability.
Jen Cohen
I’ve had the good fortune of working with Cohen and LaRoche, both as a branding consultant and a client. I’ve learned that sufficiency, like sustainability, defies easy definition. LaRoche comes at sufficiency from multiple perspectives: “It’s a practice. It’s an inquiry. It’s a way of life. A challenge, a business model.”
Author Lynne Twist inspired an ongoing conversation on sufficiency with her 2003 book, The Soul of Money. Writing from 20 years experience as a successful fundraiser for nonprofits, she lays bare the myths of scarcity that most of us tell ourselves: there’s not enough, more is better, that’s just the way it is.
Cohen sees these myths play out daily in her work.
There’s not one person who comes into my office and tells the story about how sufficient they are. Not one person. The story that every single person who comes into my office tells is how they are swinging on the pendulum between inadequacy, not having enough, and excess.
Gina LaRoche
LaRoche says businesspeople avoid the question of enough as they do many tough questions. It comes down to what LaRoche calls “the diffusion of responsibility” prevalent among organizations. We tell ourselves, LaRoche says, “That’s not my problem. There’s someone else in charge. Someone else who can make that decision.” All the way up to the CEO who defers to the board.
The scarcity in sustainability
The language of the sustainability movement is often couched in terms of scarcity and excess: not enough clean air and water, not enough forested land, too much carbon pollution, not enough political will.
It isn’t a myth to say we live on a planet with finite resources. But that’s not the whole story, according to Twist. “Abundance is a fact of nature,” she writes. “It is a fundamental law of nature, that there is enough and it is finite.”
Seeing the world as abundant and finite, we revere the earth’s limited resources and pledge to manage them in a way that does the most good for the most people. From a mindset of scarcity, businesses and individuals believe there’s not enough for everyone. And may the fittest survive.
In a self-fulfilling act, the scarcity mentality drives us to make and consume more to be among the survivors, ensuring there indeed won’t be enough for all.
Marketers routinely capitalize on the pervasive sense of scarcity: Act now, supplies won’t last! Harvard marketing professor John Quelch is one proponent: “Creating the illusion of scarcity can be a smart marketing strategy.”
Valuing depth in business
Many companies are struggling with the loss of revenue, customers and employees as the recession wears on. If scarcity is our default setting, most businesses are in default mode right now.
One way to flip the switch is to imagine what operating a business from a sense of abundance, of having enough, of being enough would be like. Cohen says it would be fundamentally different. You would no longer privilege breadth or expansion, or be ruled by the axiom “if you’re not growing, you’re dying.”
I would say in a sufficiency model where the infinity rests is in depth: depth of richness, depth of interdependence, depth of creativity, depth of serving people. You can stay in the infinite possibility of your work making a difference in the world, or your work reaching people or your work mattering or your business mattering.
The practice of sufficiency works hand-in-glove with sustainability. Those of us striving to operate our businesses sustainably will not succeed if our constant guide is the experience of fear, scarcity, not enough. Even if I’m wrong, what’s the point of joyless sustainability?
So what is enough? Twist answers, “Each of us determines that for ourselves, but very rarely do we let ourselves have that experience.”
What better time than now?
Sustainable opportunity in a ‘culture of thrift’
A “culture of thrift” may be taking hold in the US. That scares the many businesses that depend on Americans resuming their profligate ways. But if you’re a business leading the way in sustainability, this consumer shift could be just the opportunity you’ve been waiting for.
A Pew Research Center survey in April found Americans of all stripes are reconsidering the luxuries and necessities in their lives. For instance, fewer of us consider microwave ovens, TVs, air conditioners and clothes dryers necessities. In addition, 80 percent of adults have made moves to economize one way or another in this recession, such as shopping at discount stores, eschewing name brands for cheaper alternatives and opting for lower-cost cell phone and cable/satellite TV plans.
Not surprisingly, those respondents hit hardest by the recession, such as losing their jobs or their retirement savings, are more apt to have taken cost-saving steps than those less affected. Even so, Pew Research says:
(T)his distinction doesn’t apply to changing perceptions about what’s a luxury and what’s a necessity. These shifts have occurred across-the-board, among adults in all income groups and economic circumstances — perhaps suggesting that consumer reaction to the recession is being driven by specific personal economic hardships as well as by a more pervasive new creed of thrift that has taken hold both among those who’ve been personally affected and those who haven’t.
Pew doesn’t speculate on whether this new consumer ethic is a long-term shift. The New York Times, however, says we shouldn’t be looking for Americans to return to spending like drunken sailors anytime soon. “The economic downturn is forcing a return to a culture of thrift that many economists say could last well beyond the inevitable recovery,” the paper reports.
Where the New York Times cites the pain this could cause businesses reliant on consumer spending, TIME magazine finds a silver lining for individual Americans:
A consumer culture invites us to want more than we can ever have; a culture of thrift invites us to be grateful for whatever we can get. So we pass the time by tending our gardens and patching our safety nets and debating whether, years from now, this season will be remembered for what we lost, or all that we found.
And what many people are finding in this painful recession is what’s really important in thelr lives: time, family, friends, community, learning, the security of living within their means, doing meaningful work. For businesses down the road to sustainability, this is your silver lining: You’re already where many of your customers are coming to and where they will expect businesses to be in the future.
Marketing consultant Avi Dan, addressing marketing strategists in Ad Age, says the period we are in now “represents a complete social and economic reset.” He writes:
As consumers learn to live within their means and frugality replaces an abundantly wasteful consumerism, sustainability will become an essential benefit to your customers. Customers will uncompromisingly penalize products and brands that are perceived as wasteful of scarce resources and harmful to the environment, from SUVs to bottled water.
Many, perhaps most, businesses are frightened by this prospect because they have so much catching up to do. Avi Dan is speaking to them when he says, “Marketers will risk being left behind if they don’t rethink everything.”
If you’re among those firms that got serious about sustainability some time ago, you’ve not only rethought — you’ve acted. So smile. The times are now on your side.
Time to retire ‘green marketing’
With Earth Day 2009 behind us, I have a suggestion: Let’s acknowledge “green marketing” has outlived its usefulness and put our energy into redefining marketing itself.
Green marketing had a good run. It has responded to the rising green demands of customers. And it’s helped raise the environmental conscience of many others. Unfortunately, marketing as it’s most widely practiced remains the fuel for unsustainable consumption. And green marketing doesn’t go nearly far enough to change that.
The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines green marketing three ways:
- (retailing definition) The marketing of products that are presumed to be environmentally safe.
- (social marketing definition) The development and marketing of products designed to minimize negative effects on the physical environment or to improve its quality.
- (environments definition) The efforts by organizations to produce, promote, package, and reclaim products in a manner that is sensitive or responsive to ecological concerns.
I added the emphasis to products to underscore the limitation of green marketing. Absolutely, we must develop and promote products that are ecologically sensitive and safe. And green marketing has encouraged more eco-friendly product consumption. However, it utterly fails to address two unsustainable conditions:
- Too much consumption by rich people and countries: According to the World Wildlife Foundation, the ecological footprint* of the United States in 2005 was 9.4 (global hectares per person); the world average was 2.7. For high-income countries it was 6.4; for low-income countries 1.0.
- Too little consumption by poor people and countries: Although progress has been made on reducing extreme poverty in recent decades, the World Bank estimates that 1.4 billion people still lived on less than US $1.25 a day in 2005.
Over consumption and inequitable consumption explain much of what troubles our world. If marketers really want to make a difference, they’ll look far beyond green products. And focus instead on how to curb the material cravings of the affluent and narrow the rich-poor gap.
We’re seeing signs of green marketing morphing into “sustainable marketing.” That’s an improvement. It situates marketing in a larger triple-bottom-line context: people, planet, profit. Sustainable marketing, however, implies there is something known as “unsustainable marketing” — which of course there is, most anywhere you look.
We need sustainability embedded in marketing. In other words, marketing — by definition — must be sustainable. There is no green marketing or sustainable marketing. There’s only marketing. And it’s sustainable. Or at least that’s the idea.
What does sustainability mean? I rely on the widely used definition from the Brundtland Commission**: “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The AMA, meanwhile, defines marketing (inelegantly) as “an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.”
So marketing newly defined could appear something like this:
Delivering value to customers and managing customer relationships in ways that meet the needs of the organization and its stakeholders without compromising the ability of all humans, present and future, to meet their own needs.
Still doesn’t roll of the tongue, I know. But this alternative concept of marketing is profoundly different. No longer will it be enough to satisfy our customers for their benefit and that of our organization and stakeholders (especially shareholders). This business-as-usual approach to marketing has created too few winners and too many losers.
The world could look very different if marketers accept responsibility for ensuring their organizations (or clients) are not jeopardizing the ability of others to meet their needs. In other words, doing our jobs can’t mean satisfying customers, shareholders or bosses at a cost to the health of individuals, communities and environments now and for generations to come. How we avoid that won’t always be obvious. The point is to acknowledge there can be broad social and ecological consequences to our actions and lines we don’t knowingly cross.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the AMA and academia to get behind a new vision of marketing. They’ll follow the real practices of real marketers. Let’s show them the way.
*According to the World Wildlife Federation, “A country’s footprint is the sum of all the cropland, grazing land, forest and fishing grounds required to produce the food, fibre and timber it consumes, to absorb the wastes emitted when it uses energy, and to provide space for its infrastructure.” WWF also says, “If our demands on the planet continue at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we will need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles.”
** Friend Brian Setzler at TriLibrium informs me two key concepts are usually excluded or overlooked when referring to the Brundtland definition: “the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”
The endless lengths marketers go to get us to buy
Recession be damned. If there’s a way to get people to part with their money, by God, marketers are going to discover and use it. Today’s example? Neuromarketing.
Apparently there’s no recession in Martin Lindstrom’s business, Buyology, Inc. His firm takes its name from his book “Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy.” Consumer products companies are flying him around the world to learn what he knows about what Marketing News calls “the last frontier of marketing research: the consumer’s subconscious mind.”
Lindstrom’s book, published in 2008, sets him up nicely as an expert on neuromarketing, which he says “is to use the latest brain science to understand the consumer’s behavior.” Or as his book title says, “Why We Buy.” (I confess I haven’t read it.)
Nobel Peace Prize winner and neuroscientist Eric Kandel has said the ultimate remaining challenge of the biological sciences is to “understand the biological basis of consciousness and the mental processes by which we perceive, act, learn, and remember.” In the last five years or so, this pursuit has spawned neuromarketing.
Just as marketers teamed with psychologists after World War II to create the field of consumer psychology, the largest brands are now looking to harness the methods and technology of neuroscience to study our brain responses to marketing stimuli. Neuromarketing is just the latest chapter in a long history of marketers learning to produce better and better-targeted marketing messages that will lead us to buy.
What struck me most about Lindstrom’s interview in the latest issue of Marketing News (no article link available yet) is this comment:
“My intention was to write a book so, hopefully, the whole world could engage in a debate and say: ‘Are we going too far? And if we’re going too far, should we have regulations around this?’ Now, here’s the bad news on this one. The ethical debate has not appeared so far.”
Lindstrom is right. There’s been no debate. But he’s not going to be the one to spark it, given he claims to work with 17 of the world’s largest brands, 12 of which are using neuromarketing. His vested interest is in seeing this new field flourish, not in drawing attention to its questionable reason for existence.
I would love to see a thorough debate of neuromarketing. Just as I’d welcome a public debate on the ethics of word of mouth marketing. But my concern is less with neuromarketing itself than with what it says about the marketing industry: Will there ever be an end to the lengths marketers will go to get us to buy? After neuromarketing, what’s next? Cloning loyal consumers of our brand? If you want some answers read journalist Lucas Conley’s superb book, “Obsessive Branding Disorder.” Or if you’re intrigued by neuromarketing, read the blog.
If humans hope to have a sustainable future, they must consume less. A lot less. A recession is one way to put a stop to buying. A better way is for the choice to be voluntary. What the world really needs is to understand how to trigger or train the subconscious mind to reject the marketing stimuli that entice us to buy more crap we don’t need and can’t afford.
Here’s a book waiting to be written: “DoNotBuyology: Truth and Lies about Why We Shouldn’t Buy.” If you write it, I’ll buy it. No MRI required.
Greenwashing is just the tip of the marketing iceberg
Greenwashing is a regrettable practice across the business world today. And I applaud initiatives such as the Greenwashing Index to prevent the practice from spreading.
I’m concerned, however, that greenwashing may be distracting marketing executives and educators from an even more distressing matter: The vast number of companies, large and small, that even today don’t give lip service to green or sustainable products or practices. They don’t pretend to be sustainable, don’t promise to become sustainable, don’t understand what it means to be sustainable and, frankly, don’t appear to care.
The marketing and advertising of these companies remain what they’ve always been: attempts to promote and sell products and services, without a hint of green gloss. They stress the usual customer benefits: greater value, quality, innovation, convenience, luxury, responsiveness, ROI and the like. But they make no claims to be more earth-friendly, socially responsible or otherwise green or sustainable. These businesses continue to do what they’ve always done, with no obvious regard or accountability for the environmental or social impact of their actions now or across future generations, except perhaps as required by law, rule or regulation.
I don’t know what percentage of businesses are making concerted efforts to become far more sustainable. I’d wager it’s a small minority. One reason the media features companies that embrace sustainability is they are the exceptions. If every company was going green, there would be no story. And one reason businesses tout the “greenness” of their products or practices (sometimes resorting to greenwashing) is they see a competitive or “first mover” advantage. Again, if all companies produced sustainable goods or services, that advantage disappears.
The point is too few businesses are serious about sustainability today. And that should have brand managers, PR counselors, ad execs, social media mavens and all other marketers up in arms.
I don’t want to minimize the seriousness of greenwashing — no company should be allowed an advantage through false or deceptive marketing. But who should worry us more:
- The few unethical companies (and their marketers) trying to pull the green wool over our eyes? Or…
- The many businesses making truthful, “non-green” claims that contribute to excessive or inequitable consumption and their inevitable byproducts: natural resource depletion, ecological damage, climate change, poverty?
Marketers committed to sustainability have a perfect opportunity in this worsening recession to drive home a critical point among their not-so-green peers: It’s time to examine the very role of marketers in fueling unsustainable economies and ways of living. Or stated more positively, how marketers can get on the right side of sustainability.
Ridding the world of greenwashing would be welcomed progress. Harnessing the creative and persuasive talents of every marketer on behalf of a sustainable world would be nothing short of awesome.
The crisis of identity in business
An owner of a popular gourmet restaurant in Portland, Ore., recently told the local daily, “This year is about survival. Not making money, just surviving.” I suspect that sentiment is shared by vast numbers of owners and executives of businesses large and small right now. GM and Chrysler, anyone?
What began as a financial system meltdown is now a full-blown economic crisis that is worsening by the day. For those businesses able to survive this period, there may be a new crisis looming. I’ll call it the identity crisis.
We feel this individually when we’re suffering confusion about who we are, why we exist, what our role or purpose in life is. Psychologist Erik Erikson, who is said to have coined the term, observed that adolescents were especially prone to an identity crisis. Others speak of it as a condition anyone may confront in a period of great change.
Businesses are not immune to this experience, especially when revenues drop precipitously or leadership loses its focus or exuberance. They may not call it an identity crisis, but the existential questions are the same we ask as individuals: What is our role? Who do we serve? What do they need? What do we offer that matters? How are we different? Why should anyone care?
If companies aren’t dealing with doubts like these today, they probably will be soon. Why? Well, look no farther than the headlines that assault us by the hour. Massive bank bailouts and economic stimulus packages, layoffs by the tens of thousands, huge budget shortfalls in state and local governments, warnings of escalating climate change — and widespread perception that things will only get worse.
No one knows what lies ahead. But one thing seems certain. There will be no going back to the way things were. The days of easy credit, unrestrained consumer spending, unregulated markets, cheap non-renewable energy — the basis for our economic “success” and environmental mess — are behind us. The sooner businesspeople accept that, the sooner we can begin the soul-searching work of determining our reasons for being in today’s new world.
According to one reporter, “Researchers have found that those (individuals) who have made a strong commitment to an identity tend to be happier and healthier than those who have not.”
I believe the same applies to businesses. Firms whose success rests on the old order of things — and that means most of us — strike me as most vulnerable to a crisis of identity. Happier prospects await those who create and commit to a mission and organizational identity consistent with the financial and environmental realities that will be with us for years to come.
In my work helping organizations bridge their mission into their brand identity, I see the benefits of clarity, focus and meaning this effort brings.
If you’re among those struggling with the purpose of your firm’s existence, here are two questions worth considering:
How can we become part of the solution to this economic and environmental crisis? The world and its inhabitants need all the help they can get. For too long, industry has let government, social service, environmental or faith-based organizations solve social and ecological problems. There is an opportunity, not just a responsibility, for businesses to answer the call. Identify how your firm can make a difference, choose a path and watch your whole organization come alive!
What are our customers’ essential needs and how can we satisfy them? One reason we’re in this mess is business has fixated on stoking customer desires more than on satisfying fundamental needs. The result has been consumption and waste of a planet’s worth of stuff, with too little human happiness and too much economic disparity and ecological damage to show for it. As the economy tanks, businesses and individuals are getting back to basics.
If you’re wondering what constitutes basic human needs, Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef identifies nine: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom. Seems like a great starting point for giving your business renewed purpose and relevance in the months and years to come.