The Littlest Watchdog

I just noticed this recent article from the New York Times, highlighting a new generation of environmental watchdogs who are - quite literally - starting at home. This article reveals a growing trend among a new generation of kids so well versed in the environment, global warming, hybrid vehicles and the plight of cute penguins and polar bears that they're forcing their families to alter their collective behavior. "They pore over garbage bins in search of errant recyclables. They lobby for solar panels. And, in a generational about-face, they turn off the lights after their parents leave empty rooms. “Kids have really turned into the little conscience sitting in the back seat.”"

I recently started reading Thomas Friedman's new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded, wherein he reminds us that our nation has long forgotten the sacrifices, values and successes of the "Greatest Generation". Those victors of World War II were willing to make personal sacrifices toward a greater cause, 'exported' a moral vision that was aspirational for the rest of the world, and - post-war - laid the foundation for our modern economy. I often believe all things are cyclical - booms, busts, eras of great innovation and stagnation, even xenophobia seems to rear its head on a cyclical basis (at least in the US.)

While the NYT article focused on grade school aged children, prior research with all Millennials has revealed a higher level of idealism and desire to effect positive change in the world. While they may be the offspring of the Boomers, perhaps their grandparents are the real role models.

Noblesse Oblige, Piazzas...and Starbucks?

Noblesse Oblige was on my mind the other morning. I was listening to Nelson Mandela's birthday pronouncements on NPR. Mandela called on the South Africa elite to share their wealth with the impoverished within their own country. And it got me thinking about the American aristocracy, including our self-made billionaires, captains of industry, and famous families.

In the US, we've always been absent the royalty and landed gentry of Europe, among whom noblesse oblige went hand in hand with their birthright. But, what prompted early generations of American elite to feel a comparable sense of obligation to give? Why do Carnegie libraries dot small towns all across America? What led John D Rockefeller to say: "Think of giving not as a duty, but as a privilege"? Do self-made men - those who realized the American Dream - feel a greater duty to support those less fortunate? By that line of reasoning, one might expect Donald Trump - a modern day poster child for the self-made American billionaire - to be as much a philanthropist with a social mission as a real estate mogul. [Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence in his favor.]

It has to have been more than a Helper's High that made those others contribute so much to the development of their young nation. I'd argue it was a sense of shared destiny. A fundamental belief that only in the success of their nation and it's people could they themselves succeed. I think that shared destiny prompted a natural desire to invest in people and communities, where ROI is less easily quantified.

As I was reading a recent New York Times article on the hundreds of Starbucks that are closing across the country, I felt a pang of indirect nostalgia for the days when corporate moguls invested in the public domain. The article focused on one Starbucks in particular - in Newark, New Jersey- slated for closure because of lack of profibility. It's viewed by the community "as a gathering place whose very existence would have seemed impossible a decade before, a symbol of a knocked-down city’s attempts to get up." In the 8 years since it opened it's doors, it became an impromptu gathering place and community focal point. The mayor's office appealed to Starbucks to keep it open, to no avail.

Ah, but Starbucks is a corporation, right? Of COURSE they're focused on ROI, and those stores just weren't bringing in the kind of money they expect. Ok, fine, put profitability ahead of public interest. That's what we've come to expect of corporations. But wait. Hasn't Starbucks built their entire business model around being more than a coffee shop? Didn't they set out to develop rich community hubs, modern day piazzas that serve as gathering places for residents, students, and office workers? Ah, I suppose its ok to market yourself as a community asset, as long as you're making money too. No revenue, no gathering place.

Good thing public parks don't have revenue targets.

Advertisers for Good

Many ideas have been fluttering around in my head for my next post, but this was the one that made me finally get back to the ol' blog!

I was watching some of the award winners from this year's Cannes ad festival (the Academy Awards/Oscars/Grammies of the ad industry). A submission for UNICEF caught my eye. The objective was simple - provide a means of fundraising for the organization, raise awareness of World Water Day. The solution was equally simple - Tap Water. Dubbed the Tap Project, the initiative is rolling out to cities across the world, charging restaurant patrons $1 for a typically free glass of tap water. It's a powerful but simple solution.

Check out the video with the award submission. It's from an agency called DROGA5, who apparently approached UNICEF with the idea.

The incredible thing is the allure it must present to fashionable restaurants, and their patrons, who have been given an opportunity to participate in such a worthy cause. One might fault UNICEF for putting people on the spot, but in a world where water is often something we pay for it's not such a foreign notion that a particular glass of the stuff might cost a dollar for a day.

I love that it launched in New York, as New Yorkers like to imagine their public water supply is among the best in the world. It's a nice twist to have tapped into a singular point of pride. And it's fascinating that the core of the concept lived in doing what New Yorkers have done for so long - creating a brand out of tap water. It's credited with the producing the best bagels and pizza in the country, after all. Bloomberg's Finest, anyone?

NYC and Personal Agendas for the Public Good

New York. A great town that always gets me thinking. I was there these last few days for work, and had a bit of free time to spend wandering around the city. On this trip, my thoughts wandered to the public and private initiatives designed for the betterment of the city and its residents.

My flight on Saturday took me over Robert Moses beach - a well-known, free retreat for city residents seeking a break from the heat along a lovely stretch of sand. From the plane I could the vast parking lots, art deco bath houses and changing rooms, and train tracks that help deposit the throngs in the summer months. Robert Moses, the man, the legend, remains a controversial figure in New York City history, but can be credited with an extensive public parks network originally designed to serve the city's lower income neighborhoods. (Unfortunately, I missed a number of exhibits on the man and his legacies in NYC last year, reviewed in this New York Times article.)

I also strolled by the New York Public Library - a gorgeous beaux arts building that came to be as a result of the charitable donation of Samuel Tilden, a lawyer and former governor of the State of New York. Together with the resources of the Astor and Lenox libraries, already in existence (although not exactly 'free libraries'), the Public Library became the first of its kind in New York City.

Hmmm, ok, so this all makes for a good history lesson. But, what could a public park designed by a public servant, and a public library created by private wealth have in common with each other? And with corporate benevolence? Personal agendas for public good. In other words, both are really stories of a man with a plan. (I'm revealing my roots here - that's also the name of a GREAT movie about an old Vermont farmer running for office...but I digress...)

I'd love to see the day when social responsibility initiatives play such a primary role in corporate agendas. Perhaps, one day, CEOs will take over the reins of a company and define not just their fiscal and restructuring plans, but their goals for good as well.

Three Kinds of Good

Ok, so there are many more than three kinds of good. But, from a company's perspective, I think there really are just three ways to think about how they might do good in the world. This "three ways in" notion came up about a year ago, when I was doing some research for a hospitality client on new opportunities they may have to set themselves apart.

First, the obvious: Corporate initiatives. These tend to fall within the realm of a "social responsibility" agenda. This one is high on the priority list for public companies, as evidenced by Visa. Following fast on the heels of going public, Visa just announced its corporate responsibility program and three year partnership with Oxfam. (Interesting message to send: When we were private we didn't give a damn about people. But now that we're public, boy do we care! What big hearts we have!) Alternatively companies may decide to switch over to renewable energy, support car-share programs among employees, or ensure fair labor practices. In any case, it's the share price, the employees or those on the receiving end of the $$$ that tend to benefit.

Second, products. This is the most popular bandwagon, these days. GREEN! We'll go GREEN and everyone will love us! They'll flock to us! AND, our customers get to feel good about themselves. EnergyStar appliances, energy efficient light bulbs, hybrid cars, eco-friendly cleaning products, biodegradable packaging, locally-sourced goods, the list goes on. This is where greenwashing too often comes into play, as the environmental benefits of products that were never intended to be environmentally-friendly are spun and touted.

Lastly, and perhaps most difficult to pin down, you've got customer involvement. It's here that not enough innovation is emerging, but so much opportunity lies ahead. This is where you the brand help me the consumer DO something - change my behavior for the better or help me help someone else, translating my actions into some kind of benefit to others. It's cause marketing at its best. Customers become a part of positive change, and it doesn't require companies to make their products out to be something they're not. Because this area is so intangible - here are a couple examples:


i'm Initiative from Microsoft: Every time someone uses their instant messenger or email services, they'll donate a portion of their ad revenue to a social cause of your choice. They've raised almost $1.5 million, so far.

• WholeFoods gave me the option to donate the 10 cents I earned by bringing my own grocery bag to one of two local charities. My 10 cents isn't much, but it's quite a lot when combined with those of the hoards who frequent WholeFoods.

I'd like to think that a brand has the foresight to imagine that they should be doing or capable of all three. But, the truth is, the first is driven by the C-suite, the second relates to where they want and can allocate their R&D budgets, and the final way in has a lot to do with whether they've got innovative branding and marketing heads at the table.

The real money shot will be when a corporation can define a single-minded mission that drives and unites all three.

A Corporation's Warm Glow

A few different things I've read recently have me wondering about the direct and indirect consequences of doing good. Just as people experience indirect benefits from benevolence, it turns out so too can corporations.

When it comes to the personal benefits of doing good, studies have actually shown that we almost universally display a positive emotional "high" after we've made a charitable contribution. As the New York Time shares in an article on "What Makes People Give", an economic theorist referred to this as the "warm glow" theory: "In the warm-glow view of philanthropy, people aren’t giving money merely to save the whales; they’re also giving money to feel the glow that comes with being the kind of person who’s helping to save the whales." (My mother likes to call it a Helper's High. Either way, you get the idea.) Daniel Goleman points out that the emotional halo works in reverse; If I do something bad that makes me feel like a lousy person, or get yelled at by someone, I carry the icky emotional residue of that encounter around with me.

So, there's an indirect, latent effect of charitable giving. For people, it's an emotional high.

It comes as no surprise that a corporation gets to bask in it's own "warm glow", of sorts. And this positive halo effect is visible in both financial and human factors. Take 'green' corporations as an example: In theory, they sell more product ($$$) and directly benefit the environment. But, one piece of research points out that it's the human factors - the indirect benefits - that are also incredibly powerful. This study conducted by the UK-based researchers Ipsos MORI showcases that people feel even more strongly about working for a "green" company than they do about buying green products. In fact, there's a significant discrepancy between the two.

















(This comes from people saying “agree” to the questions “I would prefer to work for a company that has a good reputation for environmental responsibility” and “I would be more likely to purchase products of services from a company with a good reputation for environmental responsibility” Study: “Corporate Environmental Behavior and the Impact on Brand Values”, Tangberg and Ipsos MORI survey, October 2007; n = 16,823)

This begs the question - what other indirect benefits are there of being green? I could envision a study measuring whether people are willing to take a paycut to work for a 'greener' company. And what about looking at the reverse; Do we need a pay increase in order to work for a company that we find morally repugnant or environmentally damaging? And just how much will we sell out for?

Jan Chipchase, Nokia and Products for Good

Jan Chipchase's work was covered in depth about a week ago by the New York Times. Employed by Nokia as a field anthropologist, he studies how people use their mobile devices in daily life. The NYT notes that "by the end of 2006, 68 percent of the world’s mobile subscriptions were in developing countries", requiring frequent travel to keep Nokia abreast of new opportunities and fresh behavioral insights. His talk given at TED back in October highlights his work in a briefer format, and in his own words.



I love the idea that technology can be used to 'delegate' useful and significant tasks, like moving money and making purchases. It reminds me of work Microsoft is doing to enable farmers in India to get sugarcane prices at multiple local markets via their mobile phones. A single device can directly impact their profit margin, enabling them to anticipate where they can command the highest price. His teams have revealed the same financial upside to affordable mobile access worldwide. As the article notes: "his research team has spoken to rickshaw drivers, prostitutes, shopkeepers, day laborers and farmers, and all of them say more or less the same thing: their income gets a big boost when they have access to a cellphone."

A cynic might say that Jan's research is self-serving as it helps Nokia unearth new sales opportunities. (Or the momentarily cynical NYT reporter might question whether technology proliferation is perhaps negatively impacting the fabric and traditions of cultures.) But, if it helps the brand design a more intuitive, empathetic product that brings populations closer to new sources of revenue, information, family and friends, then I'm all for it.