Seth Godin’s view on ‘charity’, brands and bottom line

Martin Lindstrom, brand consultant and author of “Buyology – Truth and Lies About Why We Buy” interviewed Seth Godin for Advertising Age about the nature of charity for marketing and brand reputation purposes.

Best seller of management and marketing books including “All Marketers Are Liars“, Seth Godin here questions again the nature of charity and its profitability and benefits for brands.

You can chwatch the video here.

Pretty cynical about brands’ move to embrace social and environmental causes, Seth Godin shares with us his take on the topic:

1. Not every brand needs a charity plan
2. Charity has to be integrated in the brand, and make sense overall to be credible
3. Consider whether you want to join the sustainability/climate change-trend, or if you want to use your ad budget otherwise (see BP case)

Some of my thoughts:

• I agree with Seth when stating that not all brands need a ‘charity’ plan – as not all brands can meaningfully and trustfully engage their publics (i.e. consumers, and also employees, etc.) on social or environmental causes. Such involvement into causes should not be opportunistic – your consumers are not dumb and (please remember) they are extremely cynical about any CSR, Sustainability and social cause move.

Any social cause  involvement has to be deeply rooted in the brands’ DNA and overall purpose – it also has to be aligned with the company’s core values and strategic objectives. Your first word here is CREDIBILITY. The now ‘too famous’ BP trip to ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and back again to ‘British Petroleum’.. is (sadly) an example of how brands need to think twice.

• However, I believe we need to be clear with the terms we are using. Can we put ‘charity’ at the same level as Sustainability and CSR? Philanthropy is intrinsically different from cause marketing, social/environmental purpose marketing and sustainability at large (and more at an operational level). Factors at play, potential impacts and results indeed vary a lot among all these topics. And so does the ROI. We cannot put everything in the same basket.

• Furthermore, I do not think that “we will still be cheated and lied to by cynical producers” because consumers are the ones in control today. They see behind the curtains of your brands and, thanks to the transparency and the immediacy enabled by the internet, no company can hide anything from them anymore. Cynical brands can potentially be ‘rewarded’ with no increase in sales and weak corporate and brand reputation.

• In the end, if a company wants a) invest in a cause and b) engage its consumers to enhance its brand, signing a check to a NGO and getting some media coverage about it is clearly not enough. Consumers have moved from viewers to collaborators. Brands need to take advantage of this and engage consumers on issues that matter to them and that provide them with a greater purpose. The key here is to enable your consumers to become ‘change agents’

Some new and (old) rules prevail here:

• Do not consider your campaign as a mere PR (or Advertising) looking good exercise cos’ your consumers might not think you are as handsome as you may think!
• Do not not greenwash and mislead your consumers cos’ you will be breaking the ‘trust’ agreement that links you to your consumers, and also your employees, NGOs, investors, etc.
• Do not switch from one cause to another too often and support too many causes – it may give vertigo to your consumers
• Do not focus on a cause that does not resonate with your target audience, and that does not enable great social change on the ground.
• Partner differently – learn how to give up control with your customers and let them co-create change with your brand
• Converge around a powerful idea, and position yourself as it public advocate and converter.