Listening: A Strategy and Marketing Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

Terrific blog post at Harvard Business Review  by Umair Haque who is Director of the Havas Media Lab  saying the proof of the benefit of responsible business is in. Wait too much longer for more proof and the responsible businesses will have eaten your lunch. Statistics he cites are:

• Ethisphere Institute: In 2008, ethical leaders outperformed the growth of the S&P 500 by 40%. In 2009, again. In 2010, by 35%.
• CSR Magazine found a shareholder value performance gap of about 10% between, for example, the most and least transparent companies.
• SRI Research finds that the mean Market Value Added of the top 100 Corporate Citizens is $36 billion, more than four times the Mean Market Value Added of the remaining companies — which is less than $8 billion.
• Berkeley’s Haas School of Business: Study found that companies high in social responsibility had significantly higher profit margins, returns on equity, and returns on assets.

What type of behavior characterizes these types of companies? It’s important to note that these are self-regulated practices of companies that take responsibility for relationships with and impacts on a variety of stakeholders, and incorporate an active, conscious commitment to the public interest (versus self interest alone) in their decision-making.

For additional details see the entire blog article here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

The Journal of Public Policy and Marketing released a special issue devoted to stakeholder marketing this month, which among other things, features an article by our academic partner Jenny Mish, professor of marketing at Notre Dame, with her colleague Debra Scammon.

As the journal has limited visibility with people in business and non-profits who engage with stakeholders, I’m reporting here on some of the ideas that have the most applicability to day to day practice.

What is Stakeholder Marketing?

Stakeholder marketing is an approach to marketing that examines the impact of marketing on stakeholders other than the customer.  Our short-hand description is that it is about “marketing with rather than marketing at stakeholders.” It seeks to partner and collaborate with stakeholders in the creation of value for the company, its customers and other stakeholders. One article in the special edition, “Stakeholder Marketing and the Organizational Field,” says that research demonstrates a strong business case for responding to stakeholder issues efficiently. Among the benefits are improved financial performance, greater stakeholder identification with the firm, and stronger stakeholder support.

The ideas from this special edition, combined with my own research, leave me with two observations on the current state of stakeholder marketing:

Best Practices Not Yet Clear

First, the primary obstacle to the adoption of stakeholder marketing it that it does not lend itself to tactical considerations as easily as green marketing, social media marketing, relationship marketing or any other similar approaches. These other practices often comprise a set of tools and tactical strategies that can captured and shared. So far, stakeholder marketing has not been reduced to a checklist of best practices. These articles, rather, describe an intention. One essay suggests that stakeholder orientation is best represented in a definition of marketing management. As Jenny’s article indicates, stakeholder marketing begins with a set of principles rooted in values, which then inform the culture of the firm, which then informs marketing practice.

Jenny’s article actually goes farthest toward identifying practices that show up in a stakeholder oriented approach to marketing. Among them:

• Approaching promotion and sales from the perspective of educating consumers about their choices rather than persuading them or seeking to control their behavior in favor of the firm’s objectives.
• Engaging customers as partners in creating value for other stakeholders
• Giving away innovations and market intelligence in service of improving the overall well being of the industry or market.

Marketers alone are not organizationally empowered to implement these practices.  More so than other marketing approaches, stakeholder practices must be supported from the top and must be coordinated across functional boundaries throughout the company. This leads us back to the role of marketing management as key in implementing stakeholder marketing.

How is Stakeholder Marketing Different From Stakeholder Engagement?

The second takeaway is that this edition does not yet answer the question “How is stakeholder marketing different from stakeholder engagement?” To answer this will require comparing companies’ stakeholder engagement or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs with their marketing strategies, taking into account all aspects of the marketing mix: product/service, pricing, distribution/sales, and promotion. Where are the linkages, overlaps or gaps?

Over the last several months I have contacted a number of well-known companies that I perceive to be practicing aspects of stakeholder marketing. Unfortunately, they don’t recognize their actions as such. They are more inclined to say that their CSR programs have elements of customer engagement. Even Timberland, whose stakeholder initiatives have been integrated into aspects of marketing and promotion, declines to call what they do stakeholder marketing.

It may well be that in many companies a stakeholder orientation in marketing will come from gradual encroachment of CSR initiatives.  As long as companies reinforce short-term thinking among marketers through mandates on measurement and quarterly financial goals, marketers will understandably resist embracing stakeholder methods which are often long-term in nature and difficult to measure – even though enhanced financial performance may be the ultimate outcome.

In the following series of articles, I’ve taken some of the topics raised by the authors in this special edition and provided brief summaries of findings that I feel are the most practical for those who manage marketers or have strategic oversight on a firm’s marketing.

Evolution of the Marketing Orientation – Researchers propose that stakeholder orientation is the next evolution in what began as a product orientation and evolved next to a market orientation.

Stakeholder Practices of Triple Bottom Line Firms – What does stakeholder marketing look like? Exemplary Triple Bottom Line firms provide the most insight and examples.

Like it or Not: Dragging Companies into the Stakeholder Perspective — Market events often trigger stakeholder activism that forces companies to shift from stakeholder management to stakeholder engagement.

Social Networking Taps the Creative Potential of the Stakeholder System — Social media marketing technology gives companies ways to manage stakeholder ideas and input.

Copies of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing are available from the American Marketing Association. Purchase requires a subscription, which for individuals costs $90. The Journal publishes twice a year. Digital versions are available, but only to subscribers. Additional Information is available here .

If you are interested in integrating stakeholder strategies into your own marketing programs or strengthening stakeholder relationships in other ways, please contact us.

~~~

This series of articles is dedicated to my beloved friend Coffee, with whose help they were written.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

In an article called “The New Marketing Myopia,” authors N. Craig Smith, Minette E. Drumwright, and Mary C. Gentile suggest that a stakeholder perspective is the next step in a progression that began with “product orientation” and evolved to “market orientation.” Building on the insights of Theodore Levitt’s landmark essay “Marketing Myopia,” originally published in 1960 in Harvard Business Review, the authors say that a stakeholders orientation in marketing will help prevent companies from relying too heavily on products or services that may come under regulatory or other scrutiny, or fall out of step with mainstream values.  Another article in the Journal’s special edition, “From Market Orientation to Stakeholder Orientation,” by O.C. Ferrell, Tracy L Gonzalez-Padron, G. Tomas M. Hult, and Isabelle Maignan, further develops the this idea.

A product orientation is internally focused on selling what one can/wants to make. A market orientation shifts to an external assessment of what customers need/want, and what competitors provide. A stakeholder orientation would also be externally focused, including other voices beyond customers and competitors, those advocating for longer-term, ethical, social, environmental or cultural issues.

The New Marketing Myopia article provides examples of food manufacturers and retailers who trade on the short-term desires of children for junk and fast food, and US automakers catering to the desire for gas-guzzling SUVs while disregarding signs of increasing regulatory pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Stakeholders have lobbied both industries for years.  Automakers in particular have paid a price for ignoring stakeholder concerns.

The authors make the point that a market orientation, because it looks outward, has the potential to more easily evolve into a stakeholder perspective. The chief difference is that market orientation tends to ultimately prioritize customers and competitors over other stakeholders, whereas stakeholder orientation seeks to manage to all stakeholder interests simultaneously.

The original “Marketing Myopia” offered inspirational examples of how a market orientation expanded possibilities for long-term organizational evolution – reframing the core business from specific products which may only have a market for a decade or two to a customer need that might be reinterpreted over many decades.  It expanded trains to transportation, or silent films to film and video entertainment.

The authors suggest that stakeholder orientation can help companies “develop foresight regarding the markets of the future.” However, they provide no examples of how companies have thrived by doing so. Rather the stakeholder orientation as described here serves as a constraint – what one should not or cannot do – rather than something that broadens strategic options.  This does an injustice, I believe, to the stakeholder concept, which by way of its expanded systems view and the latent creativity present in the stakeholder system itself should similarly explode strategic options.

I wanted the authors, particularly of the New Marketing Myopia article, to cite examples of the generativity fostered by the stakeholder perspective. In some situations the stakeholder perspective might offer an expanded view of customer needs—from junk food to youth nutrition, or from SUVs to transportation solutions.  In others, it might show how companies and customers can create new benefit for other stakeholders while enhancing value creation for themselves. Or, it may simply mean meeting the same customer need but from within a business model or operational system that has been redesigned to respond to issues of ethics and sustainability.

Significant change is motivated by a compelling future.  I believe there is a compelling business case for adopting a stakeholder orientation in marketing. The authors of both these articles have not made that case.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

It’s virtually impossible to be a Triple Bottom Line business without practicing stakeholder marketing.  Adding social and environmental outcomes to the traditional financial bottom line almost invariably involves engagement with stakeholders other than customers, employees and owners.  As a result, Triple Bottom Line firms are a source of insight concerning what stakeholder marketing looks like.

Hosfeld & Associates’ academic partner, Jennifer Mish, Ph.D., a professor of marketing at Notre Dame, contributed the article “Principle Based Stakeholder Marketing: Insights from Triple Bottom Line Firms,” with co-author Debra Scammon to the special edition of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. The article is based on her doctoral research of firms who had operated with at least two bottom lines for at least 15 years and three bottom lines for at least 5 years (some had done so for more than 30 years).

Such firms inherently recognize the interconnectedness of stakeholders, what we call “taking a systems perspective.” Moreover they are committed to acting in service of the well being of the system as a whole. This translates to a commitment to transform industries and institutional norms, reinventing how business in their industry gets done, and tending to the needs of the weakest or most vulnerable members of the system.

The firms Jenny interviewed use value propositions in a unique way. In traditional settings, a value proposition is used to clarify the benefit created for a target customer.  The value propositions adopted by these Triple Bottom Line firms however define how the company and its customers together will create benefit for other stakeholders in the system (for example, offering a recycling program that helps them co-create benefit for the community and the environment).

Jenny’s article describes three elements of a Principle-Based Stakeholder Marketing Model:  1) a set of principles which support  2) the organizational culture which then in turn supports 3) specific stakeholder marketing practices.  The practices include 1) generating stakeholder-related intelligence,  2) disseminating the intelligence, and 3) responding to the intelligence.

Her article includes implications for public firms, some of which apply to many organizations – public, private or non-profit — that may be seeking to adopt a stakeholder perspective. A stakeholder orientation will increase the complexity of decision-making, may be difficult to measure, may unsettle single-bottom-line expectations, may expose the firm to reputation risks, and may challenge perceived legal constraints.

This article brought me back to another in the Special Edition, an essay by Gregory T. Gundlach and William L. Wilkie on why the term “stakeholder” was omitted from the latest iteration of the American Marketing Association’s definition of marketing in 2007. The essay makes the point that stakeholder marketing is less a set of specific tactical practices – like green marketing – and more a marketing management perspective or a marketing philosophy.   Jenny’s article may leave the practitioner hungry for answers to the question “How do I do stakeholder marketing?” Yet, it rightfully sets the context for how marketing and other executives should think about marketing from a stakeholder perspective.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

While some companies step into a stakeholder orientation by choice, others find it forced upon them by stakeholder activists.  In “Stakeholder Marketing and the Organizational Field,” by Jay M. Handelman, Peggy H. Cunningham and Maureen A. Bourass, the authors begin with the story of Starbucks’ capitulation to human rights, environmental and nongovernmental organizations’ demands to carry fair trade coffee. Rather than settling the issue, this agreement unleashed further demands from the activist community. As stakeholder dynamics accelerated, Starbucks was forced to move from a position of trying to “manage” stakeholder issues and perceptions to a stance of collaboration.  By building partnerships with activists, the authors say the company achieved a degree of legitimacy that “mitigated” further attacks.

The complexity and rapid evolution of stakeholder demands, as demonstrated in the Starbucks example, can outstrip capacity to respond through what the authors call a “strategic” and what I would call an issues-management approach. As a result companies are forced to recognize their place in a field, which the authors describe as a community of organizations and stakeholders – marketers, consumer activists, government, professional and trade associations, and special interest groups.

In order to respond to stakeholder demands, Starbucks was forced to engage with members of the field, instead of managing them. They had to act as one of several constituents in network of embedded relationships.  The authors describe similar dynamics in the food retail business during a period of high inflation, when the industry fought stakeholder influence, and compared it with the same industry’s response to challenges between 1988 to 2005 (e. coli outbreak, 9/11 and childhood obesity) in which members engaged with stakeholders. As a result of engaging, food retailers profited, and found ways to leverage events or issues into marketing opportunities (such as appeals to patriotism during the aftermath of 9/11).

The authors make the point that as market and economic forces trigger stakeholder activism, conflicts between activists and the companies they target are based in ideology. Conflict occurs when companies stand solely for their own interests, while activists and other external stakeholders advocate for those they see as vulnerable – consumers, environment, social groups, etc.  Parties that begin to see how their own interests are aligned or compatible can bring resolution to issues more efficiently.

The article concludes with recommendations to carefully monitor trigger events that lead to stakeholder activism, to monitor the firm’s own institutional (social, economic and financial) capital relative to stakeholders, and to be conscious of the ideological assumptions that inform the response to stakeholders.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Bhaskar Chakravorti, a senior lecturer at Harvard University and a partner of McKinsey & Co. writes in his article “Stakeholder Marketing 2.0” about one contribution that social media marketing can make to stakeholder commitments in marketing.  Marketing with customers rather than at them is one of the paradigm shifts that occur in the movement to a stakeholder perspective.

In a traditional setting, he writes that “the intended targets (customers) did not have the opportunity to interact with decision makers; provide feedback; and influence the product, the experience or the brand in an ongoing manner ….Consumers were downstream participants and suppliers, partners or employees played their respective roles upstream.”

What social media marketing tools allow companies to do is to create manageable forums for interaction – what Chakravorti calls “harnessing distributed intelligence.”  Specific examples of “crowd sourcing” that he cites are Dell’s Idea Storm for external stakeholders and EmployeeStorm for internal stakeholders, Starbucks’ MyStarbucksIdea.com, Mujii Awards and Staples Invention Quest.

Chakravorti describes five characteristics of desirable social network solutions for stakeholders – by which he means primarily customer and employee stakeholders. Chief among them is an emphasis on encouraging diversity of participation, making the decision-making model for the company clear in the design of the system, and preventing the potential for manipulation such as minority coalitions campaigning to create greater weight for their ideas in the system.

Chakravorti notes that research has not yet proven that utilization of these ideas results in better financial performance or enhanced stakeholder marketing outcomes. Given the overwhelming curiosity that business has in social media networking, I doubt that this caveat will deter any company of a size from investing – and perhaps considerably — in designing social media programs like Starbucks’, Dells’ and Staples’.

Noticing the gap between what consumers say and what they do.

Recently the radio industry was rocked by the results of using new listening measuring devices to monitor listener behavior. Called “People Meters,” the devices “listened” to the sound in the room of the person wearing them, and recorded what stations they picked up. Prior to the use of these devices, people kept journals of how many hours a day they listened to particular stations. What people reported was that they listened to National Public Radio stations and classical music stations. What the People Meters revealed however is they were actually tuning into easy listening , oldies and country western stations. This is something like reporting that you read National Geographic, Scientific American or Town and Country magazines, when in fact you’re actually reading People, Cosmopolitan or Seventeen.

The difference between what we know we should do and what we actually do is something that smart marketers have noticed for a long time. It’s a lesson many forgot in the dot.com bubble days when focus groups asked people to evaluate whether or not they would use a certain Web technology in the future.

The Hartmann Group, a Bellevue research firm, has explored the gap between our so-called “new thrift” and the actual purchase behavior of many consumers. We clip coupons for the grocery store, but then go out and buy an iPhone. This phenomenon helps us understand why people report that sustainability is very important to them, but their purchase behavior doesn’t necessarily confirm it.  Read more here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

By a small miracle, I took part in a recent phone survey conducted on behalf of a local grocery chain that has recently built a new store in West Seattle, where we live. I say it was a small miracle as I’m usually screened out right away because of our work.  For some reason, they didn’t ask, and I didn’t tell.

As a result, I offered what I hoped to be really helpful information for the survey. I was somewhat taken aback when the interviewer called me again minutes later to say that some of my answers “didn’t fit their categories,” and her supervisor wanted me to  please provide responses that fit their categories.

What they wanted to know is who had the 1) best bakery, 2) best produce, 3) lowest prices. The answers that I gave that didn’t fit their categories had to do with sustainability.  One of the things I told the interviewer is that I choose my grocery stores on how easily I can walk to them.   I told her that organic produce was important to me. One of the things I would also tell them – but didn’t have the chance — is that I choose my grocery store on its citizenship, its support of local farmers, and the amount of local produce it offers. None of these criteria fit their survey. Within walking distance of my home, I have three stores that offer great examples of these qualities. They have great bakeries and good produce. One has low prices.

I realize that I am what they call an “outlier” – someone not in the mainstream.  (Or maybe I am in the mainstream but no one is measuring what matters to me, so there’s no data to back this up.)The lesson for companies: listen to the outliers. Give them a chance to give you an answer you don’t expect.  By ignoring the unusual, you may be ignoring the new paradigm that will change your industry forever. You may be ignoring a chance to see where your market may be going before it’s too late.

In an interview with KUOW’s Ross Reynolds, Temple University history professor and author Bryant Simon raised an interesting question for those of us engaged with the marketing implications of a commitment to sustainability. Simon has recently authored a book titled “Everything but the Coffee,” a book about the impact of Starbucks on culture and society.

In the interview Simon said that buying a cup of coffee whose brand values include fostering a sense of community (the idea of Starbucks’ locations as a social hub or “third place”) does not mean you will actually experience community. This, no doubt, depends on how one defines community. Simon’s definition, as expressed in the interview,  includes democratic debate and dissent. Fostering civic dialogue is not a core element of the Starbuck’s store experience so for Simon it’s not creating “real” community. For many of Starbucks’ customers, however, community may be like the old TV show “Cheers,” a place where “everybody knows your name.” Being a “regular” at a particular Starbucks (or any other coffee place), where the baristas know your favorite order can lead to this type of community feeling.

As he concludes the interview, Simon raises an important issue for those of us bringing the values of sustainability into brands and marketing strategies. He says that the values to which brands try to appeal may not be values that can be realized through how we spend our money. My paraphrase of his statement from the interview is that it’s good news if people really want the values that Starbucks promotes, because the brand promotes positive social and environment change. He says, however, if we think we are creating those changes simply by buying Starbucks coffee, we’ve missed the point.

“If we judge our desires by what we buy from Starbucks – if we want a greener planet, if we want more connections, if we want social justice around the world – (these) are values that could build a more democratic order. The problem is we’re not going to get them through buying,” is my rough transcription of his comments.

Purchase decisions alone are not enough to effect the cultural and political change that we need to address society’s most pressing environmental and social needs. However, purchase decisions are not irrelevant. Does buying a sustainable product relinquish us from the responsibility to be citizens who vote and take part in civic dialogue? No. But every purchase decision is a tiny vote for the things we think are important, and a way to support those companies who are sincere in their intent to create meaningful change through their work.

Listen to the archived interview here. Reynolds interview with Simon starts at minute 34 in the Real Audio file. I’d like to know what you think.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

“Be the change we want to see in the world” is so often used, we have become somewhat immune to its message that it all starts with us. The place we make change most effectively is in our own lives.

As more of us seek to engage in creating economies and communities that work for all, it may be that hope associated with change isn’t enough to inspire us. We’re unclear about what changes are needed to create the world we want. The idea of change begs the issue of strategy. What will work? Which of the many issues I care about should I tackle first?

When such questions paralyze us into inaction, another approach is to move in the direction of what we love. What are we grateful for? What are we so grateful for that we want all to experience it?

The Sufi poet Rumi wrote about how the particular longings of our individual hearts shape our relationship with the Divine. In the process of spiritual becoming he said “A rose opens because she is the fragrance she loves.” We grow toward the beauty that most inspires us. We unfold more of ourselves, become more truly ourselves, as we release more of what we love into the world.

Bringing this sentiment to the workplace, to our relationships with clients, customers and other stakeholders involves taking time to ask: “What are we inspired to become? What is our highest aspiration for our work? What joy do I want others to experience?”

It’s not a simple process to bring such thoughts into practical application, and integrate them into our daily lives. But it’s an important process for this time. It means to live a life of faith. Faith in what? Faith in love. In beauty. In hope. In the basic ability of human beings to  work together to create a world that works for all of us.

In another poem, Rumi invites us to “Let the beauty we love be what we do. There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.” Many of us recognize that each person has his or her own unique gifts to give the world. Our individual lives can be a continual exploration of those gifts over time.

So, too, can we as companies and organizations act in service of the beauty we collectively love, and bring it to flower in the world for the good of all. When offered in the spirit of gratitude and generosity, our actions can truly be the change we seek.

~~~

The line “The rose opens….” Is from the poem Every Tree, translated by Coleman Barks in the book The Glance, Songs of Soul-Meeting, published in 1999 by Penguin Books.

The line “Let the beauty we love…” is published in The Essential Rumi, also translated by Coleman Barks, 1997 HarperOne.

~~~

Want a reminder to keep this sentiment alive in your life? Get the “Let the Beauty We Love” mug and we’ll send $5 to Kiva.org to support entrepreneurs around the world through microfinance loans.