• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

I’m a fan of perspectives that make sense of seemingly conflicting points of view. This is why I love PEAK: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo From Maslow by Chip Conley.

Conley, owner of the Joie de Vivre boutique hotel chain in California, writes about his own and others’ experiences in cultivating deeply satisfying relationships with employees, customers and investors (this book is a very readable compendium of stakeholder marketing ideas). His stakeholder strategies ultimately contributed to the survival of his company in the travel industry meltdown following 9/11. He based his methods on the teachings of psychologist Abraham Maslow.

“Maslow believed that human beings seek to meet base needs for sleep, water and food (physiological)” Conley writes, and that we focus on the lowest unmet need at a time. “As those needs are partially fulfilled we move up … to higher needs for physical safety, affiliation or social connection, and esteem.” Finally, we aspire to the top of the pyramid which is self-actualization.

Conley used Maslow’s hierachy to map out how his company satisfied these needs for employees, customers and investors (his key stakeholders). His book provides a wealth of detail on how his firm did this, how others have done it and how to apply this to your own firm.

So what conflicting points of view does he brings together?  Depending on your own view of human nature, as a marketer you may find yourself believing one of the following views about how to win customers: 1) customers act from their most base needs (bottom of hierarchy) or 2) customers act (or should) from their highest motivations (top of the hierarchy) and values.  This dichotomy shows up starkly in branding and advertising models, many of which assume we make all our purchase decisions with the most primitive part of our brain. There’s a tension between these and the strategies that try to sell products based on “doing the right thing,” assuming green or social criteria will make a difference. (They can and do, but sometimes not enough).

The truth that Conley articulates so well is that good marketing and good relationships address both of these polarized views and all the needs in between.

Take customer relationships for example. The most basic need a customer has, according to Conley, is that we meet their expectations. Our products and services have to do what they expect them to do. He points out, however, that this alone rarely creates loyalty or the more-coveted evangelism.  Fostering loyalty means identifying the desires customers have, which are typically desires for social connection/belonging and esteem. Evangelism comes when we offer customers the opportunity for transformation and self-actualization – to be more fully themselves, or the self they long to be.

This is solid advice for any firm that thinks it’s not tapping the full potential of its customer relationships. Start with the basics: Are we clear about what our clients expectations are for our product or service?  Are we meeting their survival and safety needs? Second, how are our relationships and interactions – do we provide warm customer service? Do we make our clients feel important and valued? Finally, do we offer our clients an opportunity to be more than just a consumer?

At Joie de Vivre, they meet the top of the pyramid by offering what Conley calls “identity refreshment.”  You stay at a hip hotel and you feel like the hipster you want to be. Through examples such as Harley Davidson, Whole Foods, Apple Computer, the high tech service group Geek Squad, as well as his own company, Conley provides numerous creativity-sparking stories and examples.  The book is packed with tips for how to apply these ideas in your own firm.  Equally valuable are his suggestions for building strong partnerships with employees and investors.

Can companies do reasonably well at the bottom or the middle of the hierarchy? Certainly. If you aspire, however, to levels of relationship that create evangelists for your brand, and resilient companies that can withstand volatile economic cycles, says Conley, you need to deliver value at all the points along the hierarchy: survival, success and transformation.

As much as organic models of organizations may be taking root, and the industrial metaphor of “business as machine” may be dying back, the latter lives on in marketing. As a result, many companies may be missing one of the biggest opportunities of social media as a tool for growth and profitability – supporting authentic relationships.

In the industrial paradigm, marketing is a machine that makes sales. Depending upon how many resources one plugs into the machine, one can turn a crank and expect sales as an outcome. The machine pumps messages through pipelines directed at target audiences. The messages fall upon the target audiences, a portion of which respond. It’s believed that the more resources one puts into the machine, the more sales occur. The problem is that many companies feel the machine has become unreliable.  They are putting more and more resources in, and getting fewer and fewer sales as a result.

A Machine That’s Running Down

Continuing to conceptualize marketing with this metaphor is to ignore many cultural shifts that point to change. The emerging metaphor depicts marketing as a series of co-creative dialogues with stakeholders. A book published a decade ago, The Clue Train Manifesto, put this idea on the map: “Markets are conversations.” Mutually constructive dialogue builds trust, which leads to sales.

The traditional paradigm of marketing is a push model, where target audiences are passive receptors (or at times victims) of marketing campaigns. While most good marketers understand the role of dialogue, in the push model it’s a relatively small part of the overall mix.

Strengthen Your Core

In the trust paradigm, marketing starts as dialogue with a core group of stakeholders that share the company’s passion for its products or services.  This core group can be viewed as the center of an ever-widening series of relationships, depicted as concentric circles (but not nearly as neatly categorized). In the center of the circle, the relationships with the company are the strongest and are the most likely relationships of advocacy. As word of the company and its products or services travel outward through layers of connection, the marketing message is propelled by the network’s relationships with each other rather that a direct interaction with the company.

What gets lost for many companies is the importance of cultivating that inner core. One of the important tasks for companies is to determine who the key stakeholders are. Who lives in the center circle? And what do they need to be advocates for the company? Traditional marketing focuses primarily on customer prospects, but employees and other stakeholders are often part of the core.

In his book, The Gort Cloud, author Richard Seireeni notes that many of today’s successful green brands used little or no push strategies during their start-up phase. Contrast this with the start-ups of many of the dot.com companies in the ‘90s that spent millions on brand awareness and mass media (many failed). The companies in Seireeni’s book didn’t have those funds and couldn’t grow that way. Instead they cultivated a network of advocates – employees, suppliers, specialized journalists – that grew steadily until the companies reached critical mass and were able to scale.

Pushing less

What’s the role of “push” tactics – traditional advertising and promotion – in a trust-based paradigm? Increasingly such tactics focus on permission-based or “opt in” techniques like search marketing and social networking.  Even when a company is doing all it can to collaborate with its core, there may always be a role for push strategies that invite people into permission-based relationships. The degree to which this is necessary will vary by industry. The point is that push strategies and their associated costs will diminish as a percent of marketing budgets and activities.

Unfortunately, many of the organizations using social media don’t recognize this paradigm shift. They are using social media as another form of push marketing, instead of a tool for dialogue. It’s a step in the right direction to convert to permission-based or opt-in communications with prospects or customers. If that’s where social marketing ends, however, a great opportunity for relationship and mutual advocacy is lost.

Who’s Your Primary Relationship?

Using social media only as a push strategy places the emphasis on customers’ or prospects’ relationships with each other, rather than their relationship with the company. Building a sense of community around your products or services is a great thing to do – it’s what makes Harley Davidson, as one example, as successful as it is. These communities take the company’s message out through viral networks. This works best, however, when the company is an integral part of that community and strong relationships have been established at the core.

What are some ways to capture the benefit of social marketing to foster authentic relationships?

Start With Face to Face Dialogue With Core Stakeholders – Identify your core stakeholder groups. Who cares deeply and passionately about your product or service?  Design in-person, face-to-face conversations with people who are core stakeholders. This certainly will include employees, some customers or clients (but not all), suppliers, regulators, distributors, etc.  Adopt a position of mutual learning. Nurture these relationships over time.

Use Social Networking to Continue and Broaden the Conversation – After establishing key issues with your core stakeholder groups, invite more people into conversations on those issues. Include feedback options social marketing campaigns. These can take the form of polls, surveys, discussion groups, etc.

Networks That Connect Other Stakeholders – Many of the free social networking resources are more appropriate to prospective customers or customers. Remember to support ongoing dialogue with other stakeholders through online collaboration software or other technology appropriate to those audiences.

Not Everyone Uses The Web – While many people do enjoy connecting online, there are many high-value contacts that don’t. An inclusive approach that designs opportunities to connect in person in person or on the phone will ensure you do not miss important customer segments.

Don’t Spread It Too Thin – Nurture the core.  Remember Gerald Weinberg’s Law of Raspberry Jam: “The wider you spread it the thinner it gets.” Keep in mind that the mass communication doesn’t take the place of face-to-face in creating a core of committed advocates.

Many younger companies have used this model because they didn’t have the money to do it any differently. Yet for decades, companies with diverse clients – from highly affluent individuals, other businesses, athletes, foodies, and more –  all have gone to scale, and navigated numerous lifecycle transitions by cultivating relationships of trust with key stakeholders. Social media, in this context, can be a powerful tool for cultivating these relationships.

~~

This article began as a conversation with my associates Jenny Mish and Ron Benton, at the Portland State University Business and Sustainability Conference in October 2009.  It evolved in conversation with Matthew Wesley of Agility Partners. Thanks to all of you for collaborating with me.

Who Is This For?

These services are for companies that have already experimented with and seen benefit from waste and energy management practices, and that are looking for new opportunities for innovation, competitive differentiation, and strengthened customer relationships. Our stakeholder engagement services help companies tap the creative potential of relationships with customers, employees and other partners. Our rapid strategy services help clients get traction on new initiatives and design them for maximum return in value and learning.

Companies that would benefit from these services are those that seek to:

• Convene a team to develop and implement a strategic action plan quickly
• Tap the creative potential of employees, customer and other partners for breakthrough ideas and strategic insights
• Learn more quickly from experiments by measuring what matters
• Increase accountability and follow-through for strategy implementation
• Build capacity for dialogue, collaboration and partnering as they do real work (not in a classroom)

What Strategy Services are Provided?

Rapid Sustainability Strategy – We enable companies and lines of business to accelerate the development of new sustainability oriented products, services and business models. We accelerate and invigorate the planning process so that participants are emotionally and intellectually connected to your strategy and its successful implementation. As a result, you can realize returns and value from your work more quickly.

Stakeholder Experience Strategy — We enable companies to tap the significant business benefit of stakeholder loyalty and trust. We combine principles of stakeholder marketing and Total Customer Experience management to identify all the ways the company engages with stakeholders and the corresponding opportunities to create transformative partnerships with them. We engage the intellectual and emotional commitment of team members, leading to effective follow-through and acceleration of results.

Stakeholder Marketing Strategy — We work with our clients to design stakeholder marketing systems, strategies and action plans that accelerate the realization of value from stakeholder engagement. We help companies use stakeholder marketing approaches to tap tremendous potential for innovation, trust and loyalty. In the face of increasing complexity and potentially competing stakeholder needs, we help clients clarify their objectives, build their capacity to manage stakeholder dialogue, and implement strategic change quickly.

For detailed information on these services, please download our brochure here.

We live in an exciting time during which companies are questioning traditional models of marketing, and are pioneering new approaches that create better financial returns. More importantly, more companies are raising the ethical bar on their marketing and seeking to earn both the trust and loyalty of the market. Stakeholder marketing is an approach that does both. It’s something that you may hear more about in the coming months.

What is stakeholder marketing?  It’s an approach that recognizes that the “market” is not just a narrowly defined customer target (or series of customer segments). It perceives that customers are interconnected with employees, vendors, government and community, the environment and more.  It’s based on the premise that in order to effectively conduct commercial transactions companies must engage with a system of interconnected partners, known as stakeholders.

In the article Transformation of Marketing, I have identified three elements of the emerging model of marketing practiced by high-integrity companies: embracing a systems perspective, creating social good, and living the brand. Stakeholder marketing is an important part of embracing a systems perspective because it engages with the marketplace as such a dynamic system. It can also reflect the intention to create social good, depending on the degree of mutuality to which the company aspires.

The intention of those who’ve practiced stakeholder marketing is to establish, cultivate and deepen positive relationships of trust between their organization and the groups directly affected by their activities. These relationships result in cooperation that helps a company further its goals. For many who practice stakeholder marketing, their goals include service to stakeholders as an end in itself not as a means to an end. Some organizations may see the value of stakeholder relationships only in terms of how they might help the organization achieve goals for growth or profit. Research indicates that stakeholder orientation in a firm correlates to improved financial performance. However, as those who have practiced stakeholder marketing will tell you, the rewards can be far greater.

In the book Firms of Endearment, the authors assert that stakeholder marketing creates such positive relationships and perceptions with stakeholders, that those who practice it spend less to get the word out and to shape public perceptions of their brand. They benefit from significant word of mouth that is fueled by customer loyalty and advocacy.

Serving Instead of Managing

A primary characteristic of stakeholder marketing is that it is not an attempt to manage or control perceptions or behavior. Rather it expresses itself in efforts to engage stakeholders collaboratively to create value together. It incorporates a strong ethic of service not just to customers but also to other partners in the value chain. The following provides an evolving series of stances that organizations can take or have taken in response to stakeholders.

Prior to the advent of the Internet, companies with the financial resources to do so could more easily control the information that audiences received about products or services. Customers and other stakeholders had neither the time nor the money to fully investigate all the companies from whom they might purchase products or services, or with whom they might work. As a result, during this time companies assumed that marketing’s role was to create and protect perceptions of the firm and its products in order to sell.

With the advent of the Internet, all stakeholders gained considerable new information about and influence over perceptions of companies, products and services. Stakeholders were better able to communicate out their experiences of a product, service or company. Other stakeholders were able to access this information, giving them information to either confirm or undermine the company’s own messages. As companies lost some of their ability to control those perceptions, marketing became somewhat more collaborative and transparent. “Managing” perceptions and key stakeholder relationships was an evolution in marketing that acknowledged the difficulty of maintaining control while still seeing control as desirable.

Stakeholder marketing takes a leap into the void by ceding a great deal of control and shifting to an attitude of servant leadership in the exchange process. According to research on companies who practice stakeholder marketing, such companies disclose more, share their standards, ask for feedback and act on the feedback they receive. A company that adopts stakeholder marketing sees innovation potential in finding ways to align stakeholder needs with its own, and has confidence in the good will, loyalty and trust that the process will generate.

Implications for Marketing Planning

How does a stakeholder orientation change marketing planning? In a traditional environment, the company takes in information (from the sales force, from research, from analysts) and uses this to formulate its marketing strategies. In stakeholder marketing, the information gathering process broadens to employees, vendors/suppliers, distributors, communities and regulators – the stakeholder groups that the company identifies as appropriate to its situation  — and continues as a form of dialogue. Gathering information from stakeholder groups, feeding this information to the right internal audiences within the company, and formulating responses are the inhale and the exhale of stakeholder marketing. This can seem overwhelming if the company does not have a clear sense of direction and mission. This is provided by clear value propositions.

Value propositions are important ordering agents in traditional marketing planning. They are also extremely valuable in helping companies align stakeholder needs in a stakeholder marketing planning process.  The process of establishing a value proposition allows a company to define what it does best and how it contrasts with competitors or substitutes. In traditional marketing, however, the value proposition is created with only one target audience: the customer.  In stakeholder marketing, value propositions created for each stakeholder group help to fully develop and articulate both marketing goals and brand values. Creating these propositions also helps identify areas that need to be aligned or reconciled. As a result, marketing strategies become more robust, and marketing efforts more focused. (See related article on value propositions.)

Is it Marketing or is it Management?

One of the tricky things about stakeholder marketing is that it is difficult to isolate the actions of stakeholder-oriented firms that are discretely marketing focused. This, of course, depends on your definition of marketing.  In the Michael Porter Value Chain model, marketing is the function of communicating and selling that happens later in the process of supposedly “creating value.”

If, however, your definition of marketing is like Peter Drucker’s – the entire company as seen through the eyes of the customer – then you believe that all departments and functions hold pieces of the marketing function, and stakeholder marketing identifies the opportunities all along the value chain to create value for all partners – not just customers.  The transformation of marketing requires the adoption of such a systems view which breaks down the silos between strategy, management and marketing.

The Firms of Endearment authors assert that companies with a stakeholder orientation spend less money “on marketing.”  Based on the case histories of the book, which include Costco, Harley Davidson, and other recognizable names, I disagree. What may more likely be true, however, is that these companies spend less money on sales and promotional efforts – such as advertising – that seek to form or build positive awareness for their goods or services.  Why? By virtue of their organizational behavior, and fostering authentic, positive relationships with stakeholders, they have earned such positive awareness. They don’t need to buy it.

As a result, I am tempted to think of principle-based stakeholder marketing as more than an approach. It’s also a philosophy of marketing that is collectively held by all members of the firm. If all company’s decisions are focused on the question of “what creates mutual value between our firm and our partners” the decisions that have the potential to benefit profit and growth can be made virtually anywhere in the organization.

Getting started. Would you like more information on how to get started exploring or understanding how to implement stakeholder marketing? I am working on another article to describe that process. Let me know what you’d like that to cover. Please contact me with your questions and ideas.