So… You Want to be Ethical

Smart brands are implicitly ethical; otherwise they could not be generating trust. However, that brand trust is declining (as reported in numerous global studies) suggests that the ethical basis for brand management remains misunderstood. Brands make promises to consumers, yet rarely do their managers articulate a specific ethical framework for guiding the delivery or experience of that commitment. As a result we have marketing that aims to be more “socially responsible,” or to appeal to the “souls” of consumers, without defining the terms for brand governance, integrity and behaviour that bring authenticity and legitimacy to those relationships.

Many companies and brands are fuelling suspicion even as they acknowledge this trust deficit. As John Moore explains in his article on authenticity in the book Beyond Branding: “Our reflex response is to do more of what is not working.” This includes “shouting more loudly” to stand apart from equally frenetic competitors, or becoming more audacious in “telling the same old half-truths” about our products. The result, he notes, is “more elaborate fantasies…with ever diminishing resonance.” Moore’s insight is important: Reversing suspicion means reversing what creates it; renewing trust means recreating our basis for engagement to add value by also adding values.

Talk about it
A simple starting point is to retrieve the transforming power of conversation. We have lots of interactivity today and tons of research, but this does not mean we have increased capacities for conversation. Look at blogs. When consumers are critical of companies or brands, the response by some, such as Wal-Mart, is to start their own support communities on the web. Instead of real conversation the trust-repair strategy is paradoxically one of spin. Two things get lost: First, the brand loses a chance to learn some truth that is of value to customers who are opinion-shapers. Anyone who takes the time to blog against a brand, or start a boycott, is deeply motivated. As Nike learned (late) in its confrontation over outsourcing to sweatshops, the critics were right. Countering keeps us in denial while dialogue with those that challenge us yields important learning. The second loss is exactly to the terms and resources for authenticity that Moore stresses. In today’s reality, transparency is not an option but an imperative. Brands that invest in obsolete secrecy or one-sided self-interest suffer the inevitable double-exposure from leaks that only further alienate consumers.

Authenticity
Conversation takes real humility for brands. They must learn to listen, not as in focus groups where we try to find the consumer’s vulnerability for our brand’s positioning, but as a form of strategic collaboration and mutual creation of integrity. Nutrition is a big issue in the food industry, especially as we begin to learn about the human, social and economic costs related to diabetes, attention deficits and weight management. Many brands have reformulated and now market entries that are “fat-free.” But in most cases the authenticity is missing because what is hyped, advertised and promoted does not address the fact that calorie content is rarely reduced. Another fudge is with labelling, which sometimes obscures serving size or presents information far beyond the health literacy of consumers (especially the large number for whom English or French are not first languages). This is an ethical issue, because it involves a deception by omission and because the implications gravely impact human health. Marketing remains by monologue, advancing the interest of the brand without advancing the real understanding, concerns or questions of human beings.

Mutual conversion
Too often we are still presuming to “convert” consumers. Conversation actually involves a process of “mutual conversion” whereby the brand and the marketing changes in response, and out of respect, to the consumer. One marketer learned through such open conversations that the compelling benefit for its brand was not the personal one received by the consumer but from the “echo” for how that brand experience would be shared with family and friends. Another brand team found that trust depended not on the quality and delivery of the basic offering, but on the follow-up, which we called “double-accountability.” Rather than shout or default to half-truths, these brands are deepening relevance by taking more responsibility for the relational expectations of the consumer experience.

We do not need to reinvent marketing to renew trust. Rather, we need to do most of the usual things with a consistent ethical horizon. We want brands to stand apart. The ethical prod is to stand for something that also has meaning-that confers dignity and humanity.

Ask yourself: Have you defined the relational “purpose” of your brand beyond its functional benefit? Have you scanned the social trends, business issues or consumer expectations to proactively identify ethical risks, threats and opportunities? Have you used market research to index the state of trust, and to identify the precise attitudes, attributes and outcomes that add to or deplete it? Have you established how to add value to your brand by attending to its social, environmental and ethical obligations? Are strategies ethically justifiable? Are creative people briefed on ethical insights and expectations? And do brand performance measures include ethical criteria?

JOHN DALLA COSTA is the founding director of the Centre for Ethical Orientation in Toronto.