Consumer Consciousness: The Third Element Redefining the Value Equation

In our last post, we outlined PERSONAL and PLANET as two recent dimensions of the value equation emerging in light of the new climate of consumer consciousness.

There's a third that most readers will have seen almost at every turn: PEOPLE.

In the era of higher standards, of greater scrutiny about what is being bought and its effects, people also want an opportunity to participate and contribute towards a greater social good. As a result, they are also expecting more of the companies they buy from, for them to do their part to improve the world we live in.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been around for decades, but it's typically been more of a PR driven initiative to generate goodwill in order to shape perceptions than a deep-rooted embrace. Tom's Shoes is a great example of a commitment on a different scale. It donates a pair of new shoes to a needy child for every pair sold. The social good is inextricably part of its business model.










An example of a more traditional approach is Tide Detergent. The "Loads of Hope" campaign is P&G's latest CSR attempt to link 'doing laundry' with 'doing good'. (Don't get us wrong, something is better than nothing: but not only is the link conceptually a weak one - in our culture 'hope' is not something we think of in terms of 'loads' - but the scale and sustainability of the impact is modest).










Overall, this strategy is an ever popular one with marketers. The basic approach is to link consumption directly with a virtuous outcome.

Starbucks says that by buying its coffee YOU are the force behind change on a massive scale...



















Volvic touts its 'Drink 1 Give 10' benefit if you buy its water (click on this recent airport commercial).



The intent of course: shape brand choice in a way that requires no additional effort by the consumer. "Keep doing what you're already doing". The act of buying is an act of giving.

Not a bad strategy (few things are inherently flawed except teapots made of chocolate). Though as Brandchannel points out: Cause Marketing Grows: but is the backlash ahead?

Mistake Culture - confirmation without even looking

It was not more than two days ago that OFD shared its perspective on the value and place that mistakes can have in learning and creativity. We lamented how closed our society is to making mistakes, how ingrained it is in our cultural mindset that making mistakes is singular a 'bad' thing.

The folks at OFD could not prevent ourselves smiling at the irony of having this confirmed the next day in two separate parts of the same paper, the print version of the LA Times on Thursday January 24th, 2008.

The first is courtesy of the Cal State System's Chancellor. His belief reinforces the popularly held misconception that mistakes should ideally occur infrequently, underscoring the idea that they are something to be avoided.

"I make a few mistakes once in a while. But I try to fix them and not make them again." Charles Reed

The second one comes from an interview with the Music Director of the New York Philharmonic who also speaks to the idea of mistakes as something to be avoided.

"The carnage brought about by conflict resulting in war is too horrendous to consider, and yet human beings are almost incapable of learning from their mistakes we made in the past, and go on repeating them." Lorin Maazel

As the context of Maazel's commentary attests, there are situations in which making mistakes are unequivocally a bad thing. There is clearly a place for a desire to avoid repetition to be attached to the concept of mistake. The issue we at OFD have however is that this currently too firmly and exclusively anchors the popularly held conception of what a 'mistake' is.

Here's how OFD envisions the dimensions of mistake. It's not meant to be definitive, just a starting point for discussion, development and, we hope, change in the perceived value of mistakes.

How much does an apology cost?

Companies could do well to employ a simple, well executed tactic when an adverse customer experience risks turning a valuable relationship sour. Say you're sorry. It may be small but this vastly over-looked gesture has the potential to help retain many customers that otherwise abandon a brand after a distasteful event.

Not all acts of apology are created equal, and the potency of a particular form lies which its significance in human relationships. Saying "I'm sorry" suggests the company understands the signficance of the error, respects that it has taken away from the life of the person and expresses regret. In short, it says a company cares.

Of course, the value of the apology lies in its perceived sincerity, both in tone and spontaneity This is not the province of a carelessly implmented corporate mandate to 'apologize by the playbook'.

It remains such a simple gesture of humility, acknowledgement and compassion that it is surprising how infrequently companies - through their employee frontline - do it.
Today's USA TODAY article highlights the appalling conditions air travelers faced recently in a recent storm-related delays when many were forced to wait up to eight hours on tarmacs within sight of the gate. Jet blue was particularly aggregious in this episode. Yet the CEO did not say he was sorry once (it's hard to imagine why the reported would have omitted it). Using language like "unacceptable" is fighting corporate speak and that's precisely the problem. Adopting a more human character would serve companies bettter.

This writer believes there are cultural factors in play that prevents company's front line representative from engaging in this simple, very human act. Beyond the obvious legal one - the fear that saying sorry admits guilt and culpabilty and therefore financial responsibility - people have been conditioned not to say sorry because it means they are wrong. Being wrong makes people feel bad, very bad indeed. This is a winning culture, a culture in which success and its trapppings are prized, in which being right is good and being wrong is bad. The motive to avoid what hurts us is classic avoidance behavior.

As a repair tool to mend damaged relationships, a heart-felt apology can be easily delivered in a way that avoids the personal cost to an employee in facing an angry individual or group: say "We're sorry". It gives the employee a way to avoid feeling 'wrong' but it is undeniably less personal, which is why care must be taken in the delivery.

Companies would do well to educate and coach customer-facing employees - including the CEO - in the simple practice of apologizing well. The benefits of doing so - retaining the lifetime value of the customer - vastly outweight the cost.