Category: Marketing Techniques and Philosophies

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Corporate Social Responsibility, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, poverty, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

Editor’s Note: Sometimes I like to post things to stimulate controversy, and thus I’m running this guest post by Alexis Bonari, critiquing one of the sacred cows of the sustainability movement: fair trade certification.

From my own point of view as a consumer, I look to Fair Trade certification for many products, especially chocolate. I am all-too-aware of the use of child slaves to harvest cacao, particularly in the Ivory Coast, and as a lover of chocolate, I don’t want to be a party to that. Fair Trade labeling is my assurance that the cacao was grown honestly.

I also disagree with Bonari’s two points:

First, there’s nothing, to my mind, inherently evil about mechanized farming, as long as it’s done sustainably. Many Fair Trade products are also organic, and that’s a big step in the right direction. Systemically, of course, we should be looking at how we power our tractors and all the rest of it. And we can all look for ways to increase our “locavore” quotient by consuming products (including food) created locally. But I do believe there is a place for imports in the mix, and in fact, in my book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green, the section on “Local as Green” is followed immediately by one called “Global as Green.”

And second, Far Trade (while far from perfect) certainly does provide a wedge against poverty. Farmers in Fair Trade co-ops are demonstrably better off than most who sell through conventional channels and who have no choice but to accept a pathetically low bid. Remember, too, that economic leverage varies a lot from country to country, and differences can be orders of magnitude. There are many parts of the world where an income of $25 or $50 a day puts someone in the upper half of the population, but it may only cost a few cents to cook a meal.

I’ll turn the floor over to Alexis now—but I’d love to know your thoughts. Please add your comment below.
—Shel Horowitz

Marketing Honesty: Is Fair Trade Really a Fair Deal?

By Alexis Bonari

The Fair Trade label has become a marketing boon for many companies. Soon, even Nestlé’s Kit Kat bar will be made from Fair Trade sources.

Essentially, the term Fair Trade refers to the following business model: companies pay craftsmen and farmers in developing countries an increased wage for goods that are traditionally produced in that region. These goods are produced with an eye to minimal environmental impact. Examples of Fair Trade goods are: bananas, honey, cotton, wine, handcrafts, coffee, sugar, and tea. As of 2008, the annual amount of revenue generated by Fair Trade goods amounted to approximately US$4.08 billion worldwide.

While the popularity of Fair Trade goods is almost certainly a byproduct of good intentions on the part of consumers, is there a downside to the Fair Trade industry?

The problem is twofold:

1. Unsustainable Markets
While incentivizing the production of local crops and handcrafts may temporarily short-circuit the cycle of poverty in certain communities, it does nothing to address the problem of supply and demand. First world countries lead the global economic market by producing technology and mass-produced products. India, and other developing countries experiencing economic growth, are educating their people and encouraging them to adopt mechanized means of production and farming.

Fair Trade workers are being incentivized to continue producing the very same products that are keeping them in poverty. A comprehensive solution would encourage education and new business ventures.

2. Perpetuation of a Toxic Cycle
Simply put, Fair Trade policies perpetuate a system that denies the citizens of developing countries control over their own businesses. Under the banner of Fair Trade, foreign companies are offering them pennies on the dollar that a citizen of the US or a member of the EU would make for the same service.

Fair Trade is a case of inaccurate marketing. The consumer is convinced that they’re working toward eradicating poverty in the Third World. In reality, Fair Trade could potentially hurt the very people it intends to help.

Alexis Bonari is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is a passionate blogger on the topic of education and free college scholarships. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People, poverty, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

Editor’s note: I like to say that my blog “covers the intersections of ethics, politics, media, marketing, and sustainability.” But I think this may be the first post in six years of blogging that touches on all five.

Levi’s “Go Forth” Ad

Chris Brogan’s blog brought my attention to a Levi’s ad called “Go Forth”—one of the most thought-provoking ads I’ve ever seen.

“A long time ago, things got broken here. People got sad, and left. Maybe the world breaks on purpose—so we can have work to do.” The young girl narrator says this, and a bunch of stuff about the pioneer/frontier spirit.

The ad shows a lot of images of a distressed town, Braddock, Pennsylvania—but also images and especially narration of hope and achievement. The people in the ad are not professional actors, but Braddock residents, apparently.

How I reacted

To, me this ad was about a company wanting to make a difference in a town. Yes, I noticed everyone was wearing Levi’s—but I didn’t pick up a message that I should buy its blue jeans. I got the message that it’s my job to make a difference in the world, no matter what I happen to wear.

Now, I confess—As an entrepreneur motivated more by creating social and environmental change than by making a monetary fortune, I am exactly who this ad is directed at. And I was fascinated. I took the rare step of typing in the link that was displayed on the video to find out more: Levisgoforth.com.

[Side note: In my book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green, I attack the conventional wisdom that you need seven or more touchpoints to create action. I argue instead that if you match message to market exactly, even a single impression may be enough. In this case, I took action immediately, on my first exposure.]

The Shocking Call to Action

Fully expecting a corporate rah-rah site about how Levi was helping communities, I was rather shocked to find a third-party site about the project, and one that was fairly critical of the company (click on the Go Forth and Facts pages). The site is anonymous, though there is a contact-the-site-creator link, which brings up an e-mail address for someone named Brett. Obviously, this link was added later, and not by Levi’s.

Apparently, Levi’s made a one-time million-dollar investment in the community, which is being put to good use creating artist spaces and the like. The effort has the active support of the mayor, but apparently is somewhat controversial in town. But the site attacks Levi’s for treatment of workers, shipping all its manufacturing jobs overseas, and environmental violations, as well as for trying to make the problems go away with a one-time infusion of cash. It says, “We all want to see Braddock Prosper we just have different solutions” (punctuation and capitalization are from the original).

What’s really odd to me is that this third-party intervention is the only call to action. Why didn’t Levi’s have one of its own? They get me all worked up with a feel-good surge of “I can do something,” and then utterly drop the ball.

If you’ve followed my work, you’ll know I’m not usually a fan of image-only advertising (though I’ve seen it serve some powerful purposes, even on campaigns I’ve been involved with). I believe strongly in having a call to action. That is particularly true when you use such deep emotional hooks as this ad does. Why leave people with no place to go? Why not harness that energy?

A Different Reaction

I asked my wife, novelist Dina Friedman, to view the ad. Although she teaches in a business school, she’s not an entrepreneur. But like me, she is an activist. Her reaction was quite negative: “They’re trying to tell me that their blue jeans are a way out of poverty. If they want to show corporate responsibility, why not run an ad highlighting what they’re doing for this community.”

How About You?

View the video. visit the go forth site. And tell me what you think. Please post your comment below.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Copywriting, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Note From Shel Horowitz, Owner of this Blog:

I’m posting this not because I agree with everything Jim says, but because I don’t. I’m not going to tell you which parts I agree with and which I’d argue with, at least not yet. I’d like you to have your say first, and when I return from vacation (this post is being scheduled ahead), I might choose to add to the dialogue.

I proudly call myself a marketer. The problem with doing that is that a lot of people think that marketer=scumbag. I get it. Consumers have been burned before and they blame the marketing most of the time.

But that doesn’t make it right.

There’s a big difference between good marketers and bad marketers. Good marketers want to get your attention and make you aware of their wares, whatever that might be. Bad marketers want to deceive you into buying something that you don’t need for profit.

Good marketing is good business. Too often business owners don’t want to do effective marketing because they don’t want to be lumped in with the scammers out there. Here’s a few examples.

In the online world there are people called information marketers. They sell things like membership program and eBooks, and “systems”. These often come as something like a 22-disc DVD set, or online training program. To sell these products, they use tactics like long-page sales letters. You’ve seen those pages before perhaps? Is the page that is one big single column and you have to scroll 20 times to get to the buy button at the bottom. The page is filled with testimonials and bullet points about why the product/service is so awesome, etc… Then it’s got a ton of bonus items.

Here’s the secret to those pages. Know why you see them so often? Because they work… really, really well. As a matter of fact, pages like that are often the top converting page on the Internet today. And in the Internet business, conversion is job #1. If you don’t convert well, you’re losing the battle.

Does marketing with long sales pages letters make them scammy? Not at all. It’s a tactic, and yes, some of the people who sell those types of products are out to rip you off. However, most of them have really good products to sell you. The problem is that because of the tactic they use, they get lumped in with a certain mindset of consumers who will never buy from them.

What about those annoying late-night infomercials you see online? You know what I’m talking about. The late Billy Mays selling OxyClean or Vince selling a Slapchop. Ever notice the “but wait, there’s more” at the end of every tv spot where you get a “bonus” item for ordering now? Again, it seems kind of marketing wrong, right? Actually, it’s there because it works, really, really well.

The point is this. As a business owner, it is your job to drive more sales, leads or publicity to your business. Bottom line. Good business is good marketing. Don’t leave marketing tactics on the table because you’re worried about how you’ll look. At the end of the day, you’re going to need to find a way to improve your business and beat your competition. It might be time to start looking around at new ways to do that.

For over 15-years, Jim Kukral has helped small businesses and large companies like Fedex, Sherwin Williams, Ernst & Young and Progressive Auto Insurance understand how find success on the Web. Jim is the author of the book, “Attention! This Book Will Make You Money”, as well as a professional speaker, blogger and Web business consultant. Find out more by visiting www.JimKukral.com. You can also follow Jim on Twitter @JimKukral.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, International Association of Green Marketers, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , , ,

What would be the mission of an international trade association for Green marketers? In launching the International Association of Earth-Conscious Marketers, here’s what I hope we’ll be focused on:

1. To use our skills in marketing and our commitment to ethical approaches to create messages that encourage the use of earth-friendly products and services, and the rapid spread and adoption of earth-conscious ideas into the social mainstream.

2. To identify and oppose (both publicly and privately) messages and methods that claim to be Green but are actually harmful to the environment and/or misleading to stakeholders and/or the general public. (Need an example? Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, International Association of Green Marketers, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , , ,

As noted in yesterday’s #blog30 posts, I’m using my participation in the seven-day subset of Jeannette Cates’ 30-day blog challenge to flesh out (and get feedback on) ideas for the trade association I am going to start, serving environmentally oriented marketers around the world: International Association of Earth-Conscious Marketers.

Today, I’d like to ask you what roles would be most important for members.

I’ve thought of a few possibilities—and I’d love to hear from you which you think are most important, whether I’ve left out anything crucial, whether any of them are just dumb..whatever you’d like to tell me:Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics: General, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics, propaganda, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , ,

I got a call tonight from a survey company asking me questions about my views on various candidates for Massachusetts Governor, and then about various energy alternatives, and then the obvious real purpose: questions about my views on the large-scale wood-burning biomass projects proposed around the state (including three locations fairly close to me: Russell, Greenfield, and even densely populated Springfield), and a proposed bill to count only solar, wind and hydro as Green projects, excluding nukes and biofuels.

I think this gets an “award” for the most biased survey I’ve ever taken. First, the questioner determined that I was strongly opposed to the biomass plants—which are very bad on carbon footprint, not only from the burning of wood but also the massive deforestation and the huge amount of truck traffic they will generate. Wood is, indeed, a renewable resource. But it sure isn’t a clean one!

Then he asked questions like

  • Would it change your vote if you knew that although the Sierra Club and [I think] the Massachusetts Medical Society support the bill, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and AFL-CIO oppose this bill? [Very clever of them to throw in the environmental groups on the other side; my suspicions were not yet aroused. Later, I Googled and could find no such endorsement from UCS, although their research is cited by another group, here]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that wood-biofuel plants are carbon neutral? [absolutely NOT true!]
  • Would it change your vote if you knew that Massachusetts has more forested land now than it did 100 years ago?

    • After these three biased questions that were clearly tilted toward counting me as an opponent of the bill, I stopped the guy and said I thought this was a survey, and not a blatant attempt to feed misinformation to me in an attempt to change my opinion. He said, “hey, I’m just reading the questions!” I said I understood that, but I didn’t appreciate being manipulated like this, and I ended the interview. My caller ID told me he had a 609 area code (New Jersey), incidentally.

    I am totally sure this so-called survey will be used to trumpet the citizens of Massachusetts’ supposed stance in favor of biofuels and against the proposed law. While the law’s definitions could be sharpened, I actually feel that eliminating nuclear power and large-scale wood-burning biomass plants from being counted in the progress toward a Green economy is a GOOD thing. And I’ll be directing my friends who are active in the anti-biofuel campaigns to this blog, so they can see exactly what their opponents are up to—sleazy and easily discredited “surveys” like this.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , , , , ,

    In the Great Advertising Debate, branding vs. direct response, I’ve always come down on the side of direct response. Every marketing message (not just ads) should have a call to action, a way of moving the reader/viewer/listener forward.

    With the Internet making it very easy to remove material from its original context and share it, I see a lost opportunity in this spoof ad by an environmental group attacking Royal Bank of Canada for its funding of highly polluting and environmentally destructive oil extraction from Canadian tar sands. Here is this stunning video, as flawlessly produced as anything from Madison Avenue.

    On the original page, the action is clear:

    Email RBC’s CEO Gordon Nixon and ask him to stop financing dirty tar sands oil and start funding a clean energy future.

    But inevitably, there will be versions of this video circulating by e-mail or posted on other websites. All they needed to do was have a slide at the end with the URL to take action. That chance will be lost. People will see this video, with no action step at the end, and they won’t know what to do about it. They’ll be a bit more educated on the issue, but will have no place to channel their new concern.

    Also, the letter text itself is another lost opportunity. Mired in passive language and bureaucratic tone, it takes some doing to extract (pun intentional) the actual message. Yes, there’s the opportunity to edit the letter, but the complete rewrite that’s called for will be too time consuming and most people won’t bother. I confess, I didn’t bother.

    Here’s the first paragraph; tar sands don’t even come up until paragraph 2:

    Amidst an unprecedented transformation in the banking sector, RBC clings to the outdated idea that social responsibility is separate from core banking activities. This letter is to encourage you to update its social and environmental practices to meet modern standards.

    This was probably a deliberate choice, to talk to a banker in banker’s language. But I think it’s a wrong choice. I’d have gone for a much more direct lead, like

    RBC’s continued funding of environmentally devastating tar sands oil extraction is not acceptable to stakeholders, and won’t be acceptable in the courts.

    I’m going to use the email contact on their website to send these suggestions, so the page may have been fixed by the time you see it. If so, more power to them. I think Rainforest Action Network does great work, and my goal is to educate, not to embarrass. I’m dong it publicly because I see many worthwhile messages and opportunities similarly lost in the inability to step out of the branding mindset. Next time you send out a political action message, I hope your call to action will be clear and thoroughly integrated.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Entrepreneurship, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Networking Tagged with , , ,

    I read a lot of business books, and too many of them are so dry you could use them for sawdust.

    Last year, I happened to meet Kevin Daum at a dinner party Sam Horn threw in Washington, DC (where neither of us live) and we connected quickly and personally. Kevin is a sales and marketing guy who has a similar approach to mine, and he’s also someone who can write. He’s even working on a book about Green business!

    Kevin’s latest book, Roar! Get Heard in The Sales and Marketing Jungle, is a classic business parable of the sort popularized by Ken Blanchard. I’ve read a lot of these. What’s especially interesting about this one, in addition to the quality of the writing is what he calls the “3500-year-old sales process,” rooted in, of all things, the metaphor of the Four Sons from the Passover Seder.

    And it’s impossible NOT to get the message that every company employee needs to know how to highlight the company’s strengths and points of differentiation, both in general and to specific types of buyers with specific concerns.

    As a marketer, you can learn a lot just by watching this book launch. Kevin is doing something very smart: he’s building his preorder list months in advance. And he’s built in lots of try-before-you-buy (something else I recommend). He’s even managed to find a bcouple of independent bookshops to do discount coupons. So you can go visit https://www.awesomeroar.com/index.htmand see a brief video, grab a couple of sample chapters, and read dozens of blurbs (including one from me). and of course order your advance copy, if you’re so moved. You can also read Kevin’s wonderfully transparent blog about his “Quest for the Jewish Super Bowl Ring”: to launch as a New York Times bestseller (where he’s not afraid to discuss failures in the campaign as well as successes).

    Not a big surprise either that Kevin is a master networker who’s asked a lot of important people to help out. I’m glad to be in that category, and happy to alert you to what he’s doing.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Energy & Sustainability, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , ,

    Tonight I was reviewing the PowerPoint for the talk on Green Marketing I’m giving next week in Davos, Switzerland. And I was struck yet again by the big case study in my talk: a company that has been producing products from recycled paper for 60 years, but only bothered to tell anyone within the last decade.

    What a marketing advantage they would have had, if they had made this commitment the centerpiece of their marketing–especially in the old days, when it was hard to find recycled paper goods at any price, and their pricepoint was competitive with non-recycled brands.

    Instead, they actually went bankrupt before the turnaround management team rebranded the company and emphasized saving a million trees.

    The lesson: if you’re gong to do the right thing, harness the marketing leverage it gives you! This is something I discuss extensively in my eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson), BTW.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail