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?

Psychology and anthropomorphizing to keep the pest problem down

Clearly someone at the SF Department of public works has taken some time to think about how to modify people's behavior in the interests of the public good - even when this is pursuit to keep the pigeon population down.

A notice on the window of an area restaurant delivered the following heartfelt plea from one of its kind: "Please don't feed us. You're killing us with kindness. When you feed us our population explodes. Our nests become overcrowded and our babies get sick. Help keep us healthy. Let us find our own food."

At the bottom of the page, noticeable but whose visibility is over-shadowed by the compelling picture and associated sentiment above it, is the warning "Feeding pigeons is illegal. Violators may be cited and fined."

Hats off to the author of this, a great example of well-thought out and sequenced communication to modify behavior:

1. People are unwilling to change behavior (or attitude) unless they have a reason and understand why. (The TSA posts the question "Why the plastic bag rule for carry-on liquids per passenger? at security screening points. It goes on to answer "To limit the amount of liquids each passenger can board a plane with"....which unsatisfactorily begs another question, but the approach was sound).

2. Delivering the over-population reason from the beak of the pigeon softens the likelihood of rejection and positions it as being in the best interest of the pigeon - which one presumes people feeding care enough about, at least in the (misguided) notion that it helps them).

3. An anthropomorphic tactic only makes readers more likely to be emotionally engaged. It cleverly recognizes the act of feeding as being of good intent while rebutting it (You're killing us with kindness")

4. It addresses the core motivation and diffuses concern over the consequences of discontinuing feeding behavior - that birds will starve instead, without referring to it directly: that merely the population will be kept down is the assuring alternative outcome (though without some kind of perishing somewhere it is hard to imagine how). The additional plea "Keep us healthy" provides further artillery to fully neutralize the motivation for the behavior

5. And as if that all was not enough, the poster ends with a threat, which if the reader has made it all the way through the notice to get to is probably unlikely to evoke a rebellious reaction having understood this is first and foremost in the interests of the birds themselves.

An eloquent and persuasive piece of communication.

It brings to mind a Tom Lehrer parody "Poisoning pigeons in the park". Once presumes it is an offense to either kill or try to kill pigeons already born, though adding clarification on either matter might have seemed to contradict the general spirit of the missive which is to see the reduction of their number.

A perspective with the power to change the world

It was a simple act completed countless times before. Staring at the breakfast tray resting on my knees delivered to the room moments earlier, none of the items surveyed were either unfamiliar or would give the average person grounds to pause for thought. Coffee carafe, side of milk, glass of orange juice, fruit plate. It was the danish pastry that caused the melee. It looked enticing, the jam center glistening, the pastry flaky but heavily laden with butter or shortening. But in that moment it was clear that this dessert represented an interaction of unequal proportion. While the effort involved in consuming it was negligible, the effort required to deplete the calories it had added was considerable.

Pulling back the curtain as the sun broke a distant horizon, this humble pastry was looked at in a different light. Contemplating the time, exertion and sweat on a stair master to eradicate the efforts of this consumptive act rendered the pastry no longer appetizing.

The epiphany: what if mankind could be confronted with the knowledge of the consequences of every act before the action that would precipitate it. It surely would have a dramatic effect not on intensions but on desire for follow-through. A person falling on trash thrown from a car window, the senseless violence acted out by child after being scolded too harshly by a parent, the deep angst felt by a woman cheated upon at the hands of a female co-worker.

It is the separation of an act from its consequences that prevents it from being a behavioral modifier. It becomes too easy for the protagonist to rationalize away the notion of harm or the personal responsibility for it.

If only it were as simple as connecting the consequence to an act before it is enacted. For every person and every act. We’d end up with a better world or a society of psychopaths.