Re-Thinking Cause Promotions
by Brian Reich | 21 Mar 2010, 1:13pm
The ‘What Do You Stand For’ blog from Cone (where I worked as the Director of New Media a few years back) posted a list of the ‘Top 10 Types of Cause Promotions,’ writing “Creative product and service tie-ins such as these are a must-have in every cause marketer’s toolkit. Cause marketing can drive short-term sales, and when sustained over time, it can also enhance consumer trust and build brand loyalty.”
Their list included:
1. The “Proud Supporter” Method
2. Donation with Purchase
3. Donation with Label or Coupon Redemption
4. Donation with Online Activation
5. Donation with Consumer Action
6. Dual Incentive Method
7. Consumer Pledge Drives
8. Buy One, Give One (BOGO) Method
9. Consumer-Directed Donation
10. Volunteerism Rally
The ‘knowledge leadership’ team at Cone (who authored the post, anonymously) is correct - these are a
must-have for brand marketers who are seeking to build awareness. And its true, “not all cause-related promotions are alike. There are as many creative cause executions as there are consumer brands, each most successful when tailored to the unique product or service and target audience.” But these promotions have been done. They are tired. Even the most creative executions are getting stale. The very concept of a cause campaign has become too formulaic. And most importantly, the cause campaigns that we are seeing, even the wildly successful ones, aren’t having the kinds of significant, measurable impact that everyone involved (I believe, and hope) actually wants and expects.
What is great about a cause promotion is that everybody involves wins… at least in the short-term. A corporation that adopts a charity or embraces a cause gets additional awareness for its brand. Consumers get a chance to feel warm/fuzzy about a big corporation that spends the rest of its time (in most cases) making choices about how it operates with the bottom line as the top priority. The media gets a good story. The nonprofit or charity gets some much-desired cash and a larger email list.
And, then the promotion ends….
Do those companies stay committed, and help to drive deeper levels of engagement, or commit to finding real solutions to the causes they championed? Some do — but most do not. Do consumers stay committed to that cause, or maintain a strong association with the brand that sponsored the promotion? Some do — but most do not. Does the media follow up, hold the participants accountable or highlight the impact that was delivered over time? Some do — but most do not. Does the non-profit take its new contacts — with the company and its employees, the consumers and their community, and media and their audience — and continue to cultivate the relationship, or explore the new opportunities the promotional campaign might have made possible? Some do — but most do not.
This is a great list… of promotional campaign-types that no brand or nonprofit should launch again. At least not right now. Not for the next year. I call for a moratorium on these types of promotional campaigns. I don’t want to see another one of these big-awareness-little-impact campaign launched for the next 12-months. I don’t want to see another new website, mobile app, ad campaign, rally/event, or special product line launched with a promise that the time spent, purchase made, or action contributed will change the world — until someone can show me that the cause promotion is anything more than, well, just another promotion. I want to see the agencies and partners helping to shape these campaigns, even the ones that are slated to roll out in the next few weeks, to scrap their plans and go back to the drawing board. I want consumers to start looking around for other ways to get involved, and support the issues they care most about, and resist the temptation to click/buy/take-action and move on to the next thing.
We can do better.
- I challenge the companies that are looking to demonstrate their commitment to a charity or cause to think more creatively about how their resources might be applied. Have you tapped into the expertise and passion of your employees to share a truly meaningful cause-related experience, one that applies the unique aspects of your work, and capabilities of your team? Is more than just your marketing budget or charitable giving account being tapped to support your project?
- I challenge the agencies and partners working to develop these campaigns (including Cone) to explore different, and better, options for creating projects that have the potential for greater impact. Is the core idea behind each effort your put together for a client different, unique to the cause the audience you are trying to reach? Are you doing everything possible to have a significant, meaningful, measurable impact on the cause you are working with, instead of measuring success for your clients in terms of impressions and list growth (even if they ask for)?
- I challenge consumers who are targeted by these campaigns to demand more from the companies and charities involved. Are you staying involved with the cause that you click to support, or changing your behavior to go the extra mile? Are you telling the people who put together these promotions what you expect from them going forward — and make it known when your expectations aren’t met?
- I challenge the nonprofits and charities who benefit most from these promotions, to put together partnerships that drive real solutions and measurable impact, not just generate attention or raise money. Do you have a plan for how to support the audience that becomes interested in your work through a promotional campaign — beyond simply putting them on an email list or pummeling them with requests for more donations? Are you challenging your corporate partners, the media that covers your effort, the people who support your work the most to help take your work to the next level?
- I challenge the media to highlight the truly ambitious and impactful projects, not the one that makes for the best visual or soundbite only. Are you actively looking for the best stories, or taking what is delivered to you by a PR flak? Are you asking the tough questions about how this promotion will transform over time, and staying committed to telling the follow-up story that holds everyone accountable?
Cause promotion campaigns are wonderful for raising awareness and generating donations for an organization. Like I said above, everyone involved benefits. But over time, we are all losing out. The cause promotions we see today, and the work that is being done to support them by even the most well-known corporations and nonprofits/charities are not enough. They aren’t creative enough. They aren’t original enough. They aren’t impactful enough. To get the full interest, engagement, participation, and ultimately commitment from the audience, and most importantly, to have a meaningful, measurable impact on the cause or issues that is being targeted, cause promotions and those who organize them, have to get out of the same old rut. We have to change the way we organize these events. We have to re-think cause promotions.
TAGS
: cause branding cause marketing Cone re-think
leave a comment
Blamestorm
by Brian Reich | 14 Mar 2010, 1:09pm
I presented at SXSW in Austin, TX this morning as a part of the technology in government Future15 series. My talk was called ‘blamestorm.’
The basic premise of the talk was this: “Technology and the internet can help drive change in the world. We can solve real problems. Address complex issues. But its not happening. Not enough is getting done. Why not? Because most people don’t understand… and they are holding us back.”
And then I launched into my blame-fest:
- I blame the media for telling the wrong story — promoting what drives attention and delivers ratings, instead of helping people to understand and take action.
- I blame politicians for making promises — but not living up to them, and sending a message that politics is more important than public service.
- I blame government for passing laws and promoting policies that don’t do enough to help people, instead of connecting and serving the needs and interests of the community.
- I blame corporations for saying they care, but not changing (enough about) how they act — when they could serve their customers, contribute to the world, and make money.
- I blame nonnprofits for not doing enough to advance their causes - for mistaking awareness for action, and tools for answers, for being afraid to try new things, when they have the greatest potential to educate, engage, and mobilize people to action of anyone.
- I blame the people who fund projects, invest in ideas and promote new ventures for maintaining the status quo and sticking to old ways of doing things, instead of making it possible for new things to happen.
- I blame our elementary schools, high schools, colleges, and graduate schools for not teaching people differently — for not adapting fast enough to changing times, and preparing the next generation of leaders, innovators and activists.
- I blame you for not using your creativity, your passion, your technology prowess, your business acumen, your experience, your insights, your vast networks, your significant influence and your bold ideas to do more, to fix the problems that exist in the world, and address the challenges that continue to challenge our society.
- I blame myself for not thinking differently and using the channels and platforms that are available to me — and emerging every day — to promote new ideas, ask tough questions, challenge assumptions, ask for help, work differently, change my behavior… and more.
You can see/download the presentation I used to guide the talk here: http://www.slideshare.net/BrianReich/sxsw-presentation-blamestorm
My hope was to come across as a little angry, cynical, frustrated, disappointed, and maybe even sort of aggressive in challenging what people are doing, and how they can do more. I think I did.
I wanted to make people uncomfortable, have them squirm, have them feel compelled to do something they might not have been willing to do before. Jury is out on that one, but I have a good feeling.
I wanted to set a tone, since I was up first (with a group of very talented folks speaking after me - including Julie Germany (Yes, Mr. Lessig, we can change government), Will Hampton from Round Rock, TX (how nerds can foster democracy), Bev Godwin from GSA (about whether the government should tweet), and more), that challenged people to think differently about how technology, information, media, the internet and such can be used to do incredible things. I think I succeed, or at least hit a nerve.
Glad I made it to Austin and had the opportunity to participate. Let the blaming continue!
TAGS
: blamestorm sxsw
4 comments
We Can End Hunger In America
by Brian Reich | 22 Feb 2010, 1:43pm
I am honored and excited to be part of a new project - WeCanEndThis - that has an ambitious, but very achievable goal of helping to end hunger in America. Here is a quick overview (this post was originally published on CauseShift.com):
#1 Thing You Need to Learn from this Post:
We can end hunger in America.
A More Detailed Exploration:
Launching March 4, WeCanEndThis.com is a yearlong initiative to spark innovation and broader engagement in the cause of ending hunger in America. Our goal is to end hunger in America — and nothing short will be considered a success.
We are working with three charity partners — Share Our Strength, Feeding America, and Capital Area Food Bank of Texas — and a number of corporate partners, including Mashable, Tyson Foods, ConAgra Foods Foundation, and PepsiCo.
March is an important month for us and we need your help.
Virtual Can Drive (March 4-18)
Over the course of 15 days, we’re challenging people in all fifty states and the District of Columbia to donate a virtual can of food. Starting March 4, you can donate your virtual can of food to the state of your choice by visiting WeCanEndThis.com and promising to take action.
At 5pm ET on March 18, the ten states with the most virtual cans will be awarded their own semi-truckload of real food courtesy of Tyson Foods. Altogether, we will deliver 1.5 million meals.
Certainly in 15 days, we can find at least 15,000 people to help.
15,000 people. 15 days. 1.5 million meals.
Much More to Come
The Virtual Can Drive is just the beginning. In the coming months, we will also follow the trucks to the ten winning states and highlight hunger champions in each community.
On March 15, we will launch The Cause Lab, a unique in-person and online experience, that will bring together some of the brightest minds in the media, technology, business, and cause sectors to create innovative solutions for the main challenges facing the hunger movement.
Of course, we have more announcements and surprises planned, but we’ll save those for a later date. Until then, let’s keep focused on the Virtual Can Drive.
What Can You Do Now?
You can be the difference for your state. Help rally your community and get head start on the March 4 launch. Learn more on the WeCanEndThis Facebook fan page. Also, be sure to followWeCanEndThis on Twitter so you can start informed of our progress.
Do You Have Questions?
We will be hosting two 30 minute conference calls on Thursday, February 25. Details will be shared early next week. Feel free to email your RSVP or send your questions in the meantime.
ThinkingAboutSports: Perfect is the enemy of… something I want to watch
by Brian Reich | 13 Feb 2010, 4:26pm
The first day of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver did not go as organizers planned.
First there was the tragic death of 21-year-old Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili, following a crash during a practice run just hours before the opening ceremonies. Within minutes of the accident, graphic images showing the unsuccessful attempts to revive the stricken athlete were available online. And almost immediately the media began focusing on the safety of the sliding center, with various conspiracy theories emerging. Then, a technical issue during the lighting of the Olympic flame caused some very tense, and somewhat awkward, moments during the big finale of the opening ceremonies, compounding criticism from fans who found the entire production underwhelming. The games hadn’t even officially begun and it seemed nothing could go quite right. Before the first medals have even been awarded Olympics organizers were on the defensive and NBC was scrambling.
Thank goodness.
The Olympics organizers have been planning for these games for years, and every painstaking detail about how the competition has been considered and carefully planned. NBC has written a very elaborate script for their Olympics coverage — they have stories they want to tell, athletes they want to highlight and results they expect to see. Both the Olympics organizers and NBC want everything to be perfect. They both want to be in control.
Well, perfect is boring. I don’t want to watch perfect.
I want to see what happens when you have to stray from the script. I want to see what happens when the plans need to change. I would never wish for an athlete to get hurt, or worse. And I don’t want to see anything bad happen. But I do want to see what creative solutions the people organizing the Olympic games can come up with when pressed. I want to see some underdogs win. I want the weather to continue to cause problems. I want to see what happens when the people NBC puts in front of the camera have to offer real-time analysis. I want to see the athletes have to answer tough questions. I want the detailed plans and pre-packaged stories to have to be scrapped.
That’s when it gets interesting. That is what I want to watch. That is what would make these games truly exciting.
TAGS
: NBC Olympics ThinkingAboutSports
1 comment
ThinkingAboutSports: The Olympics Experience I (Still) Want
by Brian Reich | 12 Feb 2010, 10:19am
The Winter Olympics have arrived!
Tonight’s opening ceremonies in Vancouver kick off a 17-days of intense competition among the world’s greatest athletes, in a variety of sports that test the physical and mental abilities of the competitors and the imagination of the spectators. You don’t even have to be a sports fan to find the Olympics engaging and inspiring. But for sports fans, myself included, the Olympics offers nothing short of a global sports orgy.
I am not able to attend the XXI Winter Games — for those keeping track that’s 16 consecutive Olympics since I was born that I haven’t managed to see in person. Some day I will go. In the meantime, I will have to rely on NBC — the official broadcast network of the OIympics here in the United States — and the media, mainstream and otherwise, to provide me with access to the pageantry and competition that the Olympics offers. Two years ago, when the Summer Olympics took place in China, I wasn’t able to attend, so I looked to the media to provide me with the most compelling Olympics experience possible (I wrote about the Olympics experience that I wanted to have at the time) — and while I certainly enjoyed the games, there were some missed opportunities.
Fast forward two years and there are many more options for accessing information about the games — thanks to the continuing growth of the internet and the reach of technology. And I have done everything I can think of to find those tools and channels and prepare my ultimate Olympics viewing experience: I have collected a half-dozen Olympics preview sections from newspapers and magazines — Sports Illustrated, the New York Times, Esquire, Time Magazine, etc. I have downloaded the broadcast schedule and programmed my TiVos to capture the key coverage that is available on TV. I have bookmarked several official Olympics-related websites, dropped the best sports and related blogs that I know of into my RSS reader, and set up news alerts for topics related to the games that I figure might not be covered through the normal channels (I’m hoping, for example, to get some good coverage from outside the United States as well). I am following a variety of people on Twitter who I think will offer compelling insights during the games and signed on as a fan of both the Olympics and NBC Olympics Facebook groups. I downloaded the official NBC Olympics iPhone app — as well as the NBC Olympics Cheer app (which allows you to simulate applause) and the Bauer Goal Light app (which allows you to set off the siren when your team scores a goal during the hockey competition). And I have signed up for a handful of different text message alerts, both official and unofficial.
The question remains, however, will the coverage of the Olympics that I am able to access through these channels — the stuff that gets pushed through the pipe if you will — meet my expectations? The early evidence would suggest the answer to that question is no — I won’t find all the coverage, or types of coverage, that I would hope to see from the Olympics. There are some obvious reasons for this:
- The ‘proven’ method of telling the story about something like the Olympics is to focus on the stories that are likely to have mass appeal. In the case of the Olympics, and US-based coverage of the Olympics for that matter, the focus tends to be on three things: the athletes who are most likely to bring home gold medals, the sexiest athletes or those who have the most interesting back-story, and the sports that garner the broadest interest. NBC, the US Olympic Committee, and much of the mainstream media have decided that the primary reasons to watch the Olympics are, in order of priority: Lindsay Vonn, Shaun White, Shani Davis, anything having to do with Figure Skating — and maybe superstars like Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin (who, of course, aren’t Americans, but do play professional hockey in the United States when not representing their home country during the Olympics). There is some coverage of the Nordic Combined and Biathalon events (because Americans may medal, which is very uncommon), Bobsled (because the US Men’s teams enters the Olympics as the top-ranked team in the world), and even luge (where Erin Hamlin, the defending World Champion, has an above-average chance of winning a medal, and because the man carrying the flag for the United States during the opening ceremonies is luger and five-time Olympian Mark Grimmette).
- Ratings and readers are the goal. NBC will make thousands of hours of Olympics coverage available - between their various network and cable channels, and the NBCOlympics.com site — but only a fraction of that will be available live, and what the majority of audiences will see is just a snapshot of the competition that is taking place. Much of the newspaper and online coverage will focus on the results of the competition. NBC wants the largest possible audience to tune in for their nightly broadcasts, which makes sense given the billions of dollars they have invested in purchasing the rights and preparing their coverage of the games. Everyone else wants to be seen as the source for the most up-to-date information about medal counts and athlete performances. Of course, lost in the effort to control the information experience of those who are interested in the games — or those curious enough to go looking for information about a particular sport or athlete — is the opportunity to deliver something that sparks an even greater interest that wasn’t anticipated. In many ways, it doesn’t matter whether the various media covering the games offer an experience that people really enjoy — it just matters that they tune in, or log on.
- I have different interests than everyone else. I like the Olympics. Period. I like the sports - the diversity of the skills on display, the high level of competition, and the powerful emotions behind every event. I am intrigued by the global political element of the Games - so many different languages and cultures on display, the pride and the patriotism athletes show as they represent their entire nation, and the ability to use sport to raise awareness and understanding of our global connectedness. I am also fascinated by the logistics - the schedule, the geography, the details of the construction of the venues (and the manufacturing of snow), the protocols for playing of all the national anthems — all the things that makes the games uniquely complex to conduct yet seemingly effortless when presented for the world to enjoy. I want to see the American team win, but I also want to see records broken, amazing tricks attempted, and spectacular performances - good and bad - unfold before my eyes. A limited number of storylines, particularly predictable ones, just aren’t enough for me.
Instead of trying to control every aspect of the information experience around the Olympics, NBC and the various media organizations who are there to report on the happenings, should focus on creating the best possible information experience for their audience, with the confidence that we will tune in, log on, seek out, or pay for the coverage wherever that experience is available. What might that look like? NBC should be syndicating its coverage to all the US networks (at least) who want to purchase a feed, offer online sites willing to embed NBC-driven players the offer to share their favorite highlights, and inviting individuals to pay a small fee to be able to access and customize extra coverage, on their terms. The media should divide and conquer, so that every sport is covered, in full and with equal intensity and insight, and the stories shared across all online channels and platforms where users might find them. Access to the athletes, the venues, and the behind-the-scenes aspects of the games, should be available to those who are interested — and from those athletes who are willing of course. And the coverage, and those doing the work to tell the stories, should be able to change, and improve, as the games proceed over the next two weeks, to make sure that the interests of the audience are met.
As I wrote in my post two years ago:
There is nothing new about the Olympic Games being broadcast on television, written about by tens-of-thousands of reporters, or even having scores and highlights posted online in real-time. In fact, as sporting events go, the Olympics offers so many storylines (the Olympics isn’t really one event - every athlete, in every event, is being covered by someone, and watched with interest by people in their home country) that no single organization or medium would suffice. But, as technology evolves, the internet expands, and the silos and borders that represent our traditional media environment break down, the challenges are many, new, and intriguing for sure.
So, what is the Olympics experience that I (still) want?
- The Long Tail of Olympics Coverage. I want to see the spirit of the games, the complexity of the events, the diversity of the athletes, and the excitement of the competition on full display. There should be media, bloggers reporting out on event event and happening taking place over the next 17-days in Vancouver — and not just what happens inside the venues, but on the streets and throughout the world where people are watching and talking about what they see. There should be real-time coverage of every sport, every event, every heat and every athlete streamed live. Every athlete should have a video camera and an open portal to share their perspective with the world. There should be explanations of each sport, the rules and technology, the training requirements and analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the competitors. The Olympics organizers, and the individual nations, should become media organizations themselves and ensure that access to, and coverage of, all the athletes and sports are given the attention they deserve - and the opportunity to attract an audience. Fans should be invited, and encouraged, to share their insights. Some of this is happening, but not enough.
- A truly Social Olympics Experience. The Olympics is the ultimate shared experience. It is a sport-centric reflection of what is happening more and more in our society. But while the Olympics reflects the diversity that exists around the world, the Olympics doesn’t truly reflect the social nature of our society. The athletes live together in a village, make connections and form friendships. Fans have a shared experience, watching the competition unfold and sharing their stories. In some cases people on the outside are now able to to connect with athletes, but mostly just as fans, as onlookers. But for the most part the worlds remain separate. The Olympics aren’t truly social yet. The Olympics don’t fully reflect the connections that exist - and the potential those connections offer - in today’s technology-enabled world. A truly social Olympics would invite conversation and collaboration, among athletes, fans and organizers. Stories would travel in both directions, to and from Vancouver. Questions would be answered. Ideas would be shared. Fans would have greater understanding of what is required for the athletes to perform at the top level, and athletes might gain insight from the experiences that the rest of the world can offer.
- A single global focus. The National Hockey League takes a break during the Olympics — because 140 players from the league will be competing — and will offer fans an “all-access” service to help keep up with what is happening. But other major sporting events are taking place. The NBA is still operating — in fact, the All-Star game will take place this weekend in Dallas. NASCAR kicks off its season with the Daytona 500 on Sunday. College basketball games are being played. The PGA will hold two big tournaments while the Games are taking place. Soccer leagues in Europe have scheduled matches. The Olympics is a big deal - one of the world’s great sporting events, an unprecedented gathering of global leaders and meshing of cultures and personalities from all over the world. The Olympics deserve our full attention. We should, as a sports community — if not as a world community as well — be able to pause, focus, and enjoy the games. We should be able to schedule around the Olympics so that we can appreciate the competition and entertainment they create, and the message they send.
The Olympics experience I want is probably unrealistic - in today’s media culture, with the competition for dollars and eyeballs more fierce than ever. It may even a little naive — with the political, religious, and cultural differences that exist around the world — to expect that people want to come together and have a shared experience around sports. But that’s a big reason I want that kind of Olympics experience. The Olympics are more than just a great sporting event. Sports has the power to entertain and inspire people, to bring us together, to teach us about ourselves, and others. Sports has a powerful impact on me every time I tune in, turn out, log on, or get out there and play myself. The Olympics experience that I want isn’t just for me - it would give anyone, or everyone — sports fan or not, athlete or not — the chance to see the excitement, importance, and inspiration that the Olympics provides. And I just think that would be pretty cool.
Let the Games begin!
Why Jamie Oliver’s TED Wish Won’t Come True
by Brian Reich | 11 Feb 2010, 9:52am
TED, the ’small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading’ awarded its annual TED Prize to Jamie Oliver, the noted British chef and global food celebrity. The $100,000 prize is being given to help advance Oliver’s efforts to transform the way we feed our children.
Jamie Oliver’s wish to transform the way we feed our children is big and inspiring. But it will fail. In fact, I am afraid that it is doomed from the start. Let me explain:
Here is what Jamie Oliver wants to do:
Set up an organization to create a popular movement that will inspire people to change the way they eat. The movement will do this by establishing a network of community kitchens; launching a travelling food theater that will teach kids practical food and cooking skills in an entertaining way and provide basic training for parents and professionals; and bringing millions of people together through an online community to drive the fight against obesity. The grassroots movement must also challenge corporate America to support meaningful programs that will change the culture of junk food.
And here is what’s wrong with it:
1) Organizations don’t create popular movements. The first part of Jamie Oliver’s plan is to “Set up an organization to create a popular movement that will inspire people to change the way they eat.” But organizations don’t create popular movements. And organizations don’t inspire people. Moreover, there are more than a million registered nonprofit organizations in the United States, and tens of thousands of new nonprofits are created every year — many of them focused on the very same challenges that Jamie Oliver is seeking to address. All those organizations are competing for the same dollars and attention, asking the same audience to commit and take action. Instead of forming another new organization, Jamie Oliver should be looking to support the organizations that are already engaged in this type of work, and providing them with the training, guidance and other support necessary to help the unique and powerful aspects of his plan become a reality.
2) Real Change Happens Offline. Another key aspect of Jamie Oliver’s plan is to bring ‘millions of people together through an online community to drive the fight against obesity.’ There are two basic problems with this part of the plan: first, there are already thousands of online communities competing for people’s attention, and some like Facebook, have successfully captured the interest of the very same people that Jamie Oliver’s campaign hopes to reach. For a new online community to be successful, not only will it have to provide, and support, all the interactions and information that people expect to find in an online community, but it will have to convince people to shift their attention from the places they already spend time, to something else. Those are big hurdles to overcome, especially when the focus is on a single issue like obesity. Second, for all the excitement that an online community might generate, real change happens offline. There are elements of Jamie Oliver’s plan that recognize the need to provide instruction and support to people where they live, and in ways that they find compelling or reflect how people learn and make choices. The cost and complexity of promoting information and connecting people online is far less than mobilizing a massive program offline, however, and promoting the online effort will almost certainly come at the expense of seeing meaningful, measurable change when equally ambitious offline efforts are not pursued. Instead of seeking to build an online community around this effort, Jamie Oliver should be looking at ways to integrate his work into the existing online communities where the target audience is spending time already. And, he should be looking for ways to use technology and the internet — their reach, as well as the critical and unique role that they play in people’s lives today, and how they are changing our behaviors — to support, sustain, enhance, and expand the reach and impact of the offline programs that are critical to the success of this effort.
3) You Don’t Change The Culture of Junk Food By Challenging Corporate America. Jamie Oliver wants the grassroots movement that forms in support of this effort to “challenge corporate America to support meaningful programs that will change the culture of junk food.” Unfortunately, that’s not how you get corporate America to change its behavior. Corporate America doesn’t respond well to threats, or even public embarrassment and shame. All the petitions and protests in the world won’t make a significant dent. Corporate America responds to market demand. If you want companies to sell healthier foods, we have to commit as a nation to buying them. We have to demonstrate, with our dollars, that we prefer fruits and vegetables to Cheetos and Oreos. Until we do, the changes that companies make to support a campaign like this will be driven more by cause marketing than good business… and that doesn’t have the kind of staying power necessary for this effort to succeed. Companies that sell junk food can, and I believe should, begin to make changes on their own, and in doing so create a market for healthy foods (that I am confident will be far larger than the market or junk food over time). Those shifts would also help to accelerate the behavioral changes that people need to make in terms of eating more healthy foods - because some of the most difficult choices will be made for them (e.g. there won’t be a choice). But it won’t happen until companies can confirm the economic opportunity that a shift would create — and until then, we shouldn’t expect any real change to occur. Instead of trying to compel corporate America to change the culture of junk food, from the outside, Jamie Oliver should be working with companies to create a marketplace for healthy foods, from the inside out.
—-
Here is the list of what Jamie Oliver has asked the TED community to provide:
- Help to establish the organization, with funding, office space and facilities.
- Find partners to equip and run the community kitchens, and food suppliers to provide the fresh ingredients.
- A partner to build and maintain a fleet of food theatre trucks.
- Education experts, graphic designers, artists and writers to develop and produce creative, fun teaching materials.
- Communications experts to create messaging for the movement.
- Web designers and developers to create and build the website.
- Establishment of a food line that generates a sustainable income for the movement.
- Corporate partners to invest in cooking and food education for their customers and champion honest food labelling.
- Your names added to the petition to challenge our leaders to make change now: www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/petition
All I can think as I look at that list is that Jamie Oliver is going to spend a lot of time, and all of his TED Prize money — not to mention the energy and resources of countless members of the TED community who respond to his call to action — building an organization that won’t help him meet his goals. You don’t need a big fancy office to launch a movement. The resources spent to develop a website could almost certainly be spent elsewhere, with greater impact. And while a petition may get you a big list of email addresses, it won’t change anything on its own. The operation that Jamie Oliver is trying to will generate some attention for this issue… and awareness certainly is important. The operation that Jamie Oliver is trying to build will motivate some people to change their behaviors… every truck and event will touch a few people directly, and no doubt have a great impact. And those stories could inspire people, or help others learn how to develop successful programs of their own. But mostly, I think the operation that he builds will build Jamie Oliver’s brand and reinforce the role that TED can play in spreading big ideas. But it won’t do enough to change how kids are fed.
Meanwhile, the First Lady launched her ‘Let’s Move‘ campaign this week with the full power of the Federal Government backing her effort to address childhood obesity. Among the elements of her project are:
- The Food & Drug Administration will work with foodmakers to make labels more “customer friendly.”
- The American Academy of Pediatrics will encourage doctors to monitor children’s body mass index, a calculation of height and weight used to measure body fat.
- The Obama administration will ask Congress to spend $10 billion over the next decade to give schools more money to serve healthier food.
- $400 million in tax breaks will be proposed to encourage grocery stores to move into “food deserts,” areas with little access to nutritious food.
- Children will be encouraged to exercise an hour a day.
I could level some of the same criticisms on the First Lady’s project that I have on Jamie Oliver’s. There is still too much reliance on media and celebrity to shift behavior. There is a flawed assumption on the part of the White House, and those who are supporting their work, that awareness will naturally result in impact. And there is an over-reliance on the web, or the mainstream media, to deliver the information in ways that people can use it effectively. But there are also incredible things that Michelle Obama can do — including help drive changes to the laws and policies that are needed to support any other change that needs to happen.
Jamie Oliver should team up with Michelle Obama (or vice versa - it doesn’t matter, the point is that they are stronger together than they are apart). Both Jamie Oliver and Michelle Obama are committed to this effort. They each have some innovative approaches to addressing this challenge and a significant platform and ability to leverage dollars and support for their campaign that few others possess. But each of them is limited. And right now they are in competition with each other. That needs to change. Unless, or until, they both shift the way they think about their campaigns, and how they engage the rest of us to help support their work, both have the potential to fall short of their goals.
TAGS
: CauseShift Jamie Oliver Lets Move Michelle Obama Obesity TED Prize
4 comments
My Theory of Change
by Brian Reich | 8 Feb 2010, 1:54pm
Beth Kanter is asking what people’s theory of change is, as a part of a program that HP is running. Here is what I wrote:
My theory of change is that everything has to change. Everything needs to be re-visited, re-considered, re-evaluated, and ultimate re-worked. Until we do that, nothing will change - at least not on the scale that we desire, and not in a way that is sustainable. So my theory of change is really focused on setting us up so all the other theories of change are even more likely to realize success.
I believe in the power of community and the marketplace, I am confident that people, especially now that we are all connected, have the ability to radically shift the way we organize, communicate, educate and act (read: behave) if given a solid platform from which to launch their efforts. But for those powers to be activated, for those forces to have their influence, we have to change the way we are structured, the very way we look at how theories of change themselves are implemented. We have to knock the meteor that is currently hurdling towards the planet (apathy, focus on activity and not impact, serving the cause instead of solving the cause) and threatening to destroy everything off course, if you will.
Thus, my theory of change is:
1) Review everything. Start by looking at every organization, plan, structure, message, tactic, and activity to understand what is working and what isn’t. There are too many legacy systems and failed approaches being used ‘because that is how we have always done it’ to expect real change to flourish. This is true as a nonprofit community, and for individual organizations. That’s step one.
2) Break the big pieces into small ones. By reviewing everything you open up the possibility of considering everything. You can break the big systems down into little pieces — each goal can be isolated, each strategy left to stand on its own, each tactic able to be considered in a very narrow, specific context. When each challenge, each opportunity and each approach is on its own two things happen: a) you can more easily prioritize and organize what you are doing, and b) you can determine what is working and what isn’t more easily.
3) Put the pieces back together. No single activity or goal, no matter how exciting, will have a significant impact on its own. Everything is connected. And each piece plays a very specific role - they compliment each other, they expand the reach and impact of whatever came before them. When we put the pieces back together, and look at the whole picture of what needs to happen and the steps required to get from start to finish, we have a chance to do some real damage. So step three is to start to re-connect the pieces, and understand the relationships that exist between individual areas of focus, goals, the roles and responsibilities of those involved, the actions we all take, and the outcome we are seeking.
4) Divide and conquer. Right now, we mostly compete - for attention, for dollars, for ownership and control. Collaboration is nice. But in reality, to realize change we have to divide and conquer. We need to distribute responsibility and ensure that the necessary talent, energy and focus is applied to each of the key pieces along the path towards change. So, rather than invite people to participate, or throw open the challenge so that everyone can meet, we need to clearly identify the specific things that need to be figured out, at all levels, and make sure someone takes responsibility for each (and is held accountable). Until we all get out of our own way, not to mention each other’s, we won’t get anywhere.
5) Evolve. The last, and perhaps most important aspect of my theory of change, is change itself. Evolution. We have to grow. We have to try things and fail, but be comfortable in getting up and trying again. We have to be willing to accept that mistakes are part of the process of change, and embrace the fear, anxiety and difficulty that comes with doing new things. We have to be patient, and self-aware (or aware with help from others) so we can apply the lessons to our work in real-time. That will allow us to improve, our work and our plans, and the whole movement can evolve.
My theory of change is that you have to start by changing everything. You have to start by looking at everything we are doing, accepting it isn’t working, and start fresh. That doesn’t mean throw everything out, it means look at the game film and find the good stuff. It means ask tough questions. It means challenge existing assumptions. It means nothing that we are doing is working exactly as we had hoped and nobody who is doing anything is without a need for change.
Until we do that, things might look different, but nothing will change. That’s my theory anyway.
What do you think? Go post your own theory on Beth’s blog (not that you need a reason, but you might win a really neat prize too).
TAGS
: Beth Kanter Department of Ideas HP Theory of Change
leave a comment
My Thoughts on the 2010 Superbowl Ads (Cross-Post)
by Brian Reich | 8 Feb 2010, 11:18am
I spent far too much time writing down my thoughts about the 2010 Superbowl advertising on my Fast Company blog. Anyway, here is my post:
I was unimpressed with most/all of the advertising during last night’s Superbowl — and I know I am not alone. There are, of course, several different lines of attack I could level against the brand and advertising community:
- The ads lacked creativity or originality — isn’t that the very thing the brand and advertising community pride themselves on most?
- The ads weren’t funny — and even if they were funny, was that the best (or only) way to attract attention and deliver a message to the audience?
- Most ads were clearly anti-women — is it really necessary to cut down a whole segment of our society, and the viewing audience, to sell your product?
- There was very little TV-to-online/mobile connection made — don’t you understand how people are watching television today, or the ways we get/share information about products and services?
But I don’t want to add to the pile of criticism that the brand and advertising community is certain to be digging out from underneath this morning. I want to try to help. I have made my share of mistakes when putting together campaigns for my clients and I know that constructive, focused feedback always helps me improve for next time.
Read the whole post here: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/brian-reich/im-media-te-impact/my-thoughts-2010-superbowl-ads?1265645619
Are We Refreshing Everything?
by Brian Reich | 6 Feb 2010, 4:34pm
The Pepsi Refresh Project (http://www.refresheverything.com) is the hot topic of the week — and for good reason. Its a big deal.
Its a big deal because Pepsi took the millions of dollars it normally devotes to advertising during the Superbowl and put it instead towards the Pepsi Refresh Project — which is focused online. That speaks volume about the potential reach and impact that the internet has to offer marketers, especially when compared to more traditional forms of advertising (including television).
Its a big deal because the Pepsi Refresh Project is committed to finding the “people, business, and non-profits with ideas that will have a positive impact” in local communities across the country. In short, the Pepsi Refresh Project one of the largest cause-related marketing campaigns to date, and Pepsi’s commitment sends a message that having a (genuine) commitment to addressing serious issues in our society is quickly becoming a requirement for brands.
Its a big deal because the Pepsi Refresh Project is inviting the public to choose where the money is spent. This isn’t the first time that a company/organization has given control over to the crowd online, far from it, but given some of the very public failures by brands when it comes to crowdsourcing (Chevy during the 2007 Superbowl, Chase in 2009/2010), Pepsi’s ambitious effort is especially notable.
The Pepsi Refresh Project is a big deal and everyone is talking about it… mainstream media (including the New York Times), the advertising community (led by AdAge), social media strategy folks (like Jeremia Owyang from the Altimeter Group), nonprofit superstars (like Beth Kanter)… and many, many others.
Pepsi absolutely deserves credit for launching the Pepsi Refresh Project. It is an exciting experiment. The size and scope of their commitment - both to the campaign, and in terms of the money they give to the community - is significant. Just by launching the campaign they have raised the bar in terms of how companies engage audiences online, how cause marketing is approached, with regard to what is possible when it comes to crowdsourcing, and more.
But, what are we really learning from the Pepsi Refresh Project? Is the Pepsi Refresh project as ambitious and exciting as the coverage suggests? Will the Pepsi Refresh Project really change the way marketing, cause branding and online engagement are conducted? Do the numbers of organizations and individuals participating serve as a measure of success, or do we need to measure more than just clicks to assess the real impact? If the project does drive big changes, are they the kind of changes we want and need? Will something really good come out of this?
I’m not sure.
- I don’t think most of the discussion about the Pepsi Refresh Project is focused correctly. The attention given to the Pepsi Refresh Project should not be compared to the attention that Pepsi might have received by advertising during the Superbowl. Whether or not Pepsi is a trending topic on Twitter during the Superbowl, when presumably other Superbowl ads will be, is not a measure of success, or the lack thereof. The number of impressions it generates is not a measure of anything other than the success of the marketing effort itself. The project will operate all year, with thousands of organizations competing for votes and dollars throughout that time, and (potentially) millions of tweets driving sustained traffic and attention throughout that time. Pepsi is pursuing a totally different strategy. And we have to find other ways to measure whether their strategy was successful, and what it means for the rest of the marketing world.
- The Pepsi Refresh Project isn’t just about social media, its further proof that all aspects of marketing and brand are being redefined. Everything is fragmented and blurred. The clear lines between how corporations operate and how they sell themselves no longer exist. Social media is not just a tactic - its a reflection of the changes that technology and the internet are driving all across society. Cause marketing is not a smart positioning strategy — a commitment to serious issues has become a critical piece of a successful company’s DNA. There are bigger changes afoot here than just the medium through which promotional messages are being delivered. Until we recognize and embrace those changes, and focus on trying to understand them — and how everything flows from them — not much will change.
- I am not yet convinced that the Pepsi Refresh Project is all that different from past marketing efforts, by Pepsi or anyone else. Pepsi is still spending millions of dollars to advertise the project (I saw a print ad - gasp! - last night) and drive traffic online. Pepsi is still using celebrity PR (Kevin Bacon and Demi Moore introduced the project this week on the Today Show) to drive awareness. There is very little conversation or direct engagement being offered by Pepsi online. Where is the personality behind the campaign? Where are the human beings helping to answer our questions and teach us how to build a community of followers? It seems a lot like a big brand, broadcast style, advertising-eque campaign is social media clothing.
- I’m not sure the structure is a good thing. First, money is being given to projects that receive the most votes online, which means organizations that have greater resources, more time to devote to promotion, celebrity support, etc. will likely come out on top. Many of the best or most deserving projects won’t get the support they need. Second, organizations competing for online support are realizing quickly that this is a number game — the more emails you send, tweets you write, or other promotional tricks you use, the most likely you are to generate votes. Social media is supposed to change the way organizations engage their audiences, how they develop relationships with people who are interested in their issues or support their mission, there is supposed to be more conversation and substance. This contest is giving organizations an invitation to find new ways to bombard people with messages, without considering the long-term implications being known.
Basically, I see the short-term, short-sighted, self-motivated things about the Pepsi Refresh Project. I see more being rehashed than refreshed with this campaign. I don’t see enough of the long-term commitment, deeper commitment, greater understanding and sense of leadership that I was hoping to see from Pepsi. Its a start, but there is much more that could and should be done.
I would have liked to see Pepsi try something significantly different, not just bigger. I would have liked to see Pepsi demonstrate a greater understanding of how social media is really changing our behavior, and our society, in how they built and promoted the project. I would have liked to see Pepsi do more to support the nonprofit community and the work that people are doing to address serious issues — beyond just giving money. And I still hope to see the project evolve, in major ways, to address these and other challenges going forward — since they have a whole year to make it even better.
And while I am at it, I would like to see the people who are watching and talking about the Pepsi Refresh Project — the media and bloggers, the experts and strategists, the organizations and individuals who are participating — ask some different questions, take a wider view, consider the broader implications of what is happening, do more than just find ways to game the system or emulate what Pepsi is doing. Pepsi can have a huge impact and drive big change, but we have to help them. We can do exciting things online, but we have to demand more of Pepsi - and other marketers - for that to happen.
I have hope. There are hints of some real discussion. There are tweets and blog posts that start to challenge the assumptions and ask the tough questions about this project, and what is happening in general around brand, marketing, cause, online communications, and more. There are new, big ideas being formed for future projects already because of the lessons we are learning here. And there is evidence that amazing things could happen because of the Pepsi Refresh Project itself.
Let’s see what happens.
TAGS
: Pepsi Refresh Project
1 comment
Department of Ideas: Revisit Everything
by Brian Reich | 31 Jan 2010, 11:21pm
I have an idea: We should revisit everything.
We spend so much time looking forward these days, its easy to forget what happened in the past — and why its important. Newspapers and magazines don’t offer much context, choosing instead to offer predictions and prognostications (that sometimes don’t even seem to be based on fact - or reality). Television news barely acknowledges that anything aside from ‘breaking news’ is even happening. Save for the death this week of noted historian and author, Howard Zinn, most people wouldn’t talk about history at all… and surely that interest will only last until someone embarrasses themselves during tonight’s live telecast of the Grammy’s.
The truth is, we don’t know much about the past. History isn’t important to most people. We don’t pay close enough attention to the events that shaped our society. And we do so at our own peril.
Personally, I’d say I know enough history to be dangerous. On a good day I can name all the US Presidents — and the major accomplishments of the most notable ones. I am pretty confident that I know when (and in some cases, where) most of the major conflicts, from the Trojan War to Operation Enduring Freedom, happened. I can sound authoritative when I explain the origins of the Israel/Palestine conflict or the factors that led up to the genocide in Darfur. And if pressed, I can hold my own during a cocktail party conversation about the various economic and cultural influences that have shaped our society.
Still, as I walked through the Lincoln and New York exhibit at the New York Historical Society earlier today it was clear I don’t know much at all. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable when it comes to Abraham Lincoln. I certainly know the highlights or our 16th President’s life — the big milestones in his rise to political power, his leadership during the Civil War, the content of his big speeches and proclamations, the events surrounding his assassination, etc. But I admit, the details are fuzzy, at best. The names of most supporting players are unfamiliar. I don’t know the exact dates of anything.
History is powerful. Knowing our history is important. But history is often overlooked, forgotten - or worse ignored. How can history compete with the present - the constant flow of information, the battles for attention, the speed and excitement of the new and shiny? With everything about the world changing quickly and constantly, do we even have time to pause and reflect on where we came from?
We do have time. We have to make time. Our survival in the future is as much dependent on our ability to understand the events of the past as our capacity to manage what is happening in the present day. That means our current situation, where history plays little or no role in our daily life, is both unsustainable, and ultimately dangerous. If we don’t pay more attention to history, take the time to consider the past, the consequences could be quite significant.
What should we do? Revisit everything.
One by one, subject by subject, we should be revisiting history. We should be reviewing what happened in the past and trying to make sense of it given our knowledge and experiences from current times. We should look at the big events, as well as the small happenings. We should pay attention to the big names, but also the people who surrounded and influenced them. Remember, new history is created every day — the studying never stops.
There should be more than one cable channel devoted to history. There should be movie studios that specialize in re-telling old stories - without ruining them. Television networks should build their programs around past events instead of ripping everything from the headlines. Publications, online and offline, should re-publish more articles from the past. For every book offering a new model or approach to conducting business online there should be a biography or historical analysis published as well. People should spend as much time looking through archives as they do on Facebook.
NBC had a great slogan when promoting their summer reruns a few years back. They said “If you haven’t seen it, its new to you.” That’s true for history also.
There is no time to waste. We should revisit everything.
Its just an idea…
