Listening: A Strategy and Change Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

Noted green business journalist Joel Makower caused quite a stir when he published this article in May: “Green Marketing Is Over. Let’s Move On.” What Makower fails to do, as comments pointed out, is define what he means by “green marketing.”  This makes the article somewhat confusing because many of the things he points to as working are also marketing issues. Turns out that he’s describing green marketing communications, not the full marketing discipline. With this clarification, this article provides substance to the position we’ve taken on green marketing for several years.

I welcome the demise of obsession with green marketing communications.   No one is ever going to scale sustainability by trying to get people to buy green for green’s sake.  As I’ve discussed in previous articles, the people who will buy green for green’s sake are the innovator’s and early adopters of the industry. Everyone else buys for other reasons, primarily the utility of the product or service.

It’s my hope that as people recognize the limitations of so-called “green marketing,” they will rediscover the other 3-4 “P”s of marketing (depending on how you count them), will discover the value of strategy as a place to embed sustainability values into the core business rather than bolting them on through features-benefits descriptions.  According to Makower’s article, this *is* what’s working.  Let’s get to it!

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Following a recent Special Report by the Wall Street Journal, commentators had a field day with columnist Dr. Aneel Karnani’s assertion that the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is fundamentally flawed.  Many of the comments pointed out that not only was his analysis fundamentally flawed, it was the “same ole, same ole” whateverness we’ve been hearing from free market idealogs for the last 15-20 years.

Karnani, who is Professor of Strategy at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M Ross School of Business, asserts that all CSR initiatives have to “pencil out” financially before they are embraced by CEOs. “Pleas for corporate social responsibility will be truly embraced only by those executives who are smart enough to see that doing the right thing is a byproduct of their pursuit of profit. And that renders such pleas pointless.” See the article here.

Based on the interviews that Pat Hughes and I did for her study: “The Leadership of Sustainability,” and my work with clients, my perspective is that engagement with CSR or sustainability evolves.  Some leaders we spoke with started with a “because it’s the right thing to do” mentality. They kept their experiments small to see if they would hurt or help them financially. If it didn’t hurt, they kept going. In businesses where CSR or sustainability was not baked in from the beginning, it is developmental, occurring in stages.  As a result, early experiments have to be either revenue positive or at the least revenue neutral.

However, there are many firms who find that holding objectives for financial, social and environmental benefit simultaneously creates a crucible for innovation. They have broken away from the either/or thinking represented in Karnani’s article, and are now in the territory of Third Way thinking. Third Way thinking goes beyond hierarchical rankings of choices, one being the better “good” than another. Instead, it “holds the tension” between competing “goods” until a new solution appears that honors all of them. Harvard Business Review even published an entire special edition last summer about CSR and sustainability as drivers of innovation, citing breakthroughs of over 30 companies.

So, what is the Wall Street Journal’s problem? Commentators responding to the article repeatedly questioned the lack of balanced perspective, and a pattern of editorial bias against values-based management approaches. Companies every day are proving Karnani wrong with their actions. Is the Journal simply blind to the evidence? Or are the editors ignoring the firms who are doing well by  “doing good”  because they seem to be “outliers” rather than  mainstream. If they are intentionally disregarding outliers, then they do their readers a disservice because it’s in the outliers where the seeds of breakthrough innovations are sown.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Few companies argue that fostering trust with customers and other stakeholders is an important business task. Where there’s disagreement, however, is what specifically fosters trust, and the degree to which trust between customers and companies – particularly as it relates to green or sustainability claims – is suffering.

Our academic partner, Jenny Mish, PhD., assistant professor of marketing at Notre Dame, explored this and other questions in her doctoral research. Her study, which explored food standards and sustainability, resulted in insights about marketing behaviors that foster trust.

Mish interviewed a wide variety of individuals representing institutions engaged in developing or promoting the use of market-based product standards, such as Fair Trade or organic, that specify reductions in negative environmental or social impacts.  She spoke with people in large corporations like McDonald’s, in government such as the United States Department of Agriculture, and  smaller, grassroots organizations such as the Portland, OR-based Food Alliance.

The spectrum of types of trust she found span from the very impersonal and institutional, to the highly personal, local and dare we say “intimate.”  Large corporations tend to look primarily at repeat purchase behavior to evaluate the degree of trust they’ve engendered with customers. Some companies evaluate trust on the basis of their ability to fulfill key expectations of sustainability performance. Still others evaluate trust on the basis of direct, personal interactions with customers, and the degree to which they had actual contact with customers and other stakeholders.

Her findings suggest that marketers may be able to foster trust three different ways:

Preserving the Integrity of the Brand: The least personal form of trust is embodied in the brand attributes that create a predictable customer experience. This is true even when the context is not sustainability or green attributes.  This calls for organizational and channel alignment to fulfill brand promises consistently, which means full commitment to green or sustainability standards…not merely claims that show up in features and benefits.

Compliance with a Market-Based Standard: A company’s ability to merit certification such as the USDA’s organic standard or Fair Trade, creates a type of performance contract with customers that fosters trust. Marketers may encourage their organizations to qualify for certification, but ultimately this will require cross-functional collaboration to bring operations into compliance. Standards that inspire trust are those that are either objectively evaluated (by government or third-party) or that are developed and supported by a wide coalition of contributors/stakeholders.

Designing Highly Personal Forms of Contact with Customers: A company’s ability to deal directly and personally with its customers, such as “meet the farmer” programs, can foster the most personal type of trust.  These programs are common in “local” exchange relationships, such as those formed at farmer’s markets.

One implication of the study, as I see it, is that human interactions (personal) are where trust can be lost altogether, or maintained in either an impersonal or highly personal and reciprocal manner. Mish’s study was not designed to explore trust as engendered by the sales process, but we know from other experience that the quality of those interactions also impact on consumer perceptions. While they make good marketing sense, authentic interpersonal relationships are usually not driven by marketing goals. They usually reflect a sense of “this is the right thing to do regardless” in the company culture, as is the case with local relationships described above.  They manifest from the shared values of everyone in the company.

Ultimately fostering trust is not a matter of choosing between these forms. It’s bringing all types of trust-fostering practices to the marketing agenda. The assumption is that if the organization is large, then personal interaction is not possible.  If we believe, however, that it’s the right thing to do, then it becomes an opportunity for innovation. There’s the marketing challenge — creating trust-engendering relationships between human beings on both sides of the exchange process, regardless of company size.

—–

Jenny Mish’s dissertation is “Centralizing and Decentralizing Forces in the Development of Sustainable Markets: A study of Food Product Standards.” It was published in 2009, by the University of Utah.

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 Ron Benton and Kathleen Hosfeld

With a global economy in slow recovery and many businesses fighting for survival, what is the significance of sustainability thought, practices, and execution in shaping a better and more prosperous world?  A just-released comprehensive global study conducted by MIT’s Sloan Management Review and partners provides some revealing and reassuring answers including the following:

• Sustainability is continuing to have a material impact on how companies think and act
• Sustainability is surviving the downturn
• Most firms are not decisively acting on the opportunities presented by sustainability
• A small number of firms are capitalizing on the opportunities and reaping the rewards.

What do these findings mean for you and your organization?  In general, the findings affirm that thoughtful investments in sustainability will positively differentiate early adopters in their industries.  The specifics depend on the issues your organization faces and where you and your firm are in your evolution of adopting and benefiting from sustainability practices.

The study also supports our assertion that engagement in sustainability has a developmental aspect to it.  It says that those who have experience in sustainability see more clearly the business case and strategic benefits it can offer. Those with less experience don’t have a clear sense of the business case for sustainability.  This suggests that a good way to explore sustainability is through a well-designed pilot. Well-crafted sustainability strategy projects can help companies explore the potential benefits of sustainability in ways that create value over the long and short term.
Read the MIT Sloan Management Report “The Business of Sustainability.”

Hosfeld & Associates and Ron Benton & Associates work together to offer services to help companies thrive in the sustainability economy. Additional details are available here.

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.

Hosfeld & Associates Inc. and Ron Benton & Associates, Inc. have announced an alliance to deliver strategic services to accelerate the return on investment from commitments to sustainability, stakeholder partnerships and trust-based business practices.

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.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

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.