Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Does Going Green Help Create Green?

For the released polling data from PSB, click here

In a recently released study by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (in conjunction with Landor and Burson Marsteller), consumers are prodded to see if a company’s green efforts make a difference in their minds and at the store. This study shows that, not surprisingly, people say they are willing to pay more for socially responsible companies or take home less pay to work for these same companies but cannot identify any companies that truly stick out.

The Marketplace:

When it comes to paying more for a ‘socially responsible product,’ 86% of respondents say they would, at least, spend $1 more on the purchase (based on a $100 purchase.) Further, over one-third is willing to pay at least 16% more to purchase a socially responsible product, quite a difference. However, when it comes to identifying socially responsible brands, there are no clear winners. Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, and Microsoft score the highest when asked; however, these companies are cited 8% of the time in Wal-Mart’s case and 4% for the others – not a stunning display of public support.

This lack of public knowledge of socially responsible companies is also shown in the lack of knowledge about which brands are the most socially responsible. Comparing respondent’s perception of brands on a CSR index compared to the CRO 100 (a comprehensive index measuring the practices of brands and companies), Apple scores rather low with consumers, at 68, but the second highest on the CRO at 206. It seems that consumers’ perceptions of brands, when it comes to CSR, are not correlated with the actual CSR efforts of the company itself, which can create a problem for those companies attempting to create a value proposition using their CSR initiatives.

The Workplace:

At the work place, 56% of respondents believe that working for ‘a company that is socially responsible’ makes some difference (21% believe it makes a significant difference.) 25-34 year old and 35-49 year olds seems to put the most stock in working for a socially responsible company, with 62% and 61%, respectfully, saying it makes a difference. Another interesting trend emerges in income segmentation. Among people making less than $35,000 a year, only 52% believe that it is important to work for a socially responsible company; meanwhile, 58% of those making over $100,000 a year believe it makes a difference – not that surprising, given the current economic climate.

In these rough economic conditions, 40% of respondents said they would be willing to take at least a 1% cut in pay to work for a socially responsible company, while 15% were willing to take at least a 6% cut in pay. This might be a growing trend with 21% of young people age 18-24 and 28% of respondents’ age 25-34 saying they would take cuts of at least 6% to work for a socially responsible company.

Side note: More and more in polling data, I have seen a disconnect between young people (18-24 or 18-29) and middle-aged people (25-34 or 29-39). While the middle aged seem more idealistic and ‘liberal’ this new generation of young people seems a bit more self-centered and ‘conservative.’ Hopefully, I will get a chance to explore this further in another post. As of right now, this is just a generic observation – hopefully to be flushed out soon.

But, while people are willing take home less pay to work for a socially responsible company, 71% cannot name any socially responsible practices of their employers. However, again we see the young-middle complex, where 70% of 18-24 year olds cannot name a practice that is socially responsible but only 64% of people aged 25-34 can’t name such a practice. Overall, though, employees are unaware of their employer is doing when it comes to social responsibility creating a disconnect between their desire to work for a socially responsible company and their current place of employment.

Communicating to Capitalize on CSR:

Companies that value CSR can clearly profit from their stance; however, if consumers do not know a brand is socially responsible, they won’t be willing to pay extra for its products. When it comes to stressing its CSR values, emphasizing fair, just, and equal treatment of employees, environmentally responsible practices, and community outreach and philanthropy top the list of what consumers are looking for in a company they consider socially responsible, at 20, 17, and 10% respectively. Furthermore, companies looking to increase sales through CSR messaging should focus on ‘honesty and trustworthiness,’ ‘treating employees fairly,’ ‘ethical leadership,’ and ‘community values and philanthropy.’ Among statements that will most likely influence consumers, these are the CSR messages that rank above average and, if a company is looking to tap into the extra profit afforded to socially responsible companies, these are the messages they need to send to their consumers.

Overall, people are interested in social responsibility when it comes to their purchases and employment, but companies need to do a better job providing the consumers and employees with the CSR they want a company to perform and communicating those types of CSR initiatives to the prospect. If a company can succeed in doing that, they may see an increase in sales and gain a better position at the bargaining table.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Guys Left Behind, by Mark J. Penn

For the full text of 'Guys Left Behind' by Mark Penn please click here

Synopsis: Penn produces yet another insightful article from his ‘microtrend’ lineup. However, this feels more like a macrotrend with dozens of micro implications. The growing disparity between women and men (women achieving and succeeding more than men) will, potentially, have an impact on education, politics, the criminal justice system, and the workplace, to name a few areas.

The article has some good news for Democrats when Penn reveals that, “Women are also the majority of those voting in our elections. They made up 53% of the electorate in the 2008 presidential election, and women's top concerns -- including health care and education -- are at the heart of swing voters' concerns. Guys, who lean more Republican, have been losing political steam; at the moment, their issues just don't seem to be at the top of the agenda.”

Overall, however, the broad policy implications seem to say a few key things:

  1. In the not too distant future, women will make up a much larger portion of the tax-base, especially in the middle and upper-middle class levels.
  2. Government sponsored programs tailored to minorities and, especially, women, will have to start creating similar programs for men
  3. This obvious clash of interest (women becoming more influential in politics and a larger part of the tax base and men needing more social services) will increasingly become an interesting debate in the political arena

And, in the corporate world, more so than ever, pushing products tailored to women and women’s needs will be an increasingly successful way to build a brand – as more and more women create a wealthy achievement based class, this segment will become especially important for marketers, more important than it already may be. They will be extremely important when it comes to higher-end new age luxury products and products to ‘make life a little easier.” If you can combine the two, a successful marketing campaign is probably on your hands.

The ultimate question is, will this newfound achievement lead to more women leading Fortune 500 companies, presiding over America’s bastions of academia, or residing in the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? For that, we will have to wait and see…