There are many fledgling businesses that have laudable intent and shaky commercial foundations.  

This is a problem because, in an ideal world, the businesses that stand for values we share should also be able to sustain themselves as businesses. That’s the key premise underneath social entrepreneurship and conscious capitalism.

Purpose-driven organizations need compelling values, but they also need coherent business models. 

People want to buy products that support values they believe in. To meet this consumer need, some businesses now make their values visible in their products and services, and sell them to customers who share those very values. 

But what happens when the values are more popular than the products, as with Holstee and their Holstee Manifesto? What kind of business can you create then?

This problem of organizations with compelling values that can’t seem to make a business out of them came to mind when a friend shared a Washington Post article about a company called Holstee.  Holstee is experiencing a somewhat dramatic version of this problem.

Holstee has a company values statement that people are crazy about and a business model that is underwhelming.

Who is Holstee?

Holstee is a Brooklyn-based, mostly e-commerce business that sells clothing and accessories described as “products with a conscience.” These products include upcycled wallets, t-shirts, messenger bags, and similar lifestyle items.

By designing and curating with a conscience, Holstee offers a place for mindful shoppers to find meaningful products.

However, Holstee doesn’t seem to support itself by selling these lifestyle products. Instead, Holstee supports itself by selling its actual values — The Holstee Manifesto — in the form of a poster.

The Holstee Manifesto

The Holstee Manifesto is the Holstee founders’ life vision put into words.  It’s been typeset and printed on high-quality paper stock, and is sold on the Holstee website.

The Holstee Manifesto is Holstee’s most popular product.

So far, the Manifesto has been viewed over 500 million times and translated into 12 languages. There are Flickr groups, Facebook conversations, and blog post after blog post focused on how inspiring the Holstee manifesto is. Holstee sold over 11,00 posters in 2011, at $25 a pop, and posters accounted for half of Holstee’s revenue in Nov. of 2011.

Holstee “isn’t a Manifesto Company”

In an interview in Inc. magazine, the founders explain that

“We’re not a manifesto company, whatever that would be. The success of the posters helped us bootstrap, but at the end of the day, we’re about products with a unique story that are designed with a conscience.”

I’d take those words at face value, if it wasn’t for Holstee’s second most popular product.²

Holstee’s “Lifecycle” video sets the Manifesto to evocative images and music. Released only three months ago (Nov 2011), the Lifecycle video has been viewed almost 900,000 times to date, and has inspired its own Tumblr.

Clearly, Holstee is putting time, money, creative energy, and not a little bit of love into sharing their Manifesto. Why, then, aren’t they a manifesto company?

Is Holstee a Manifesto Company?

If half of your revenue, the majority of your units sold, and 99% of your public’s awareness can be attributed to the manifesto you sell, aren’t you a manifesto company?

And, given the hundreds of companies that sell ethically-sourced, free trade, biodegradable t-shirts, isn’t there something neat about being the only one also selling a Manifesto?

In the words of Holstee’s founders,

We wrote a manifesto but we never wrote a business plan.

If that’s true, what does that tell the founders about what really matters to them, as a business?

Is there a business behind the values statement?

The 50 million and 900,000 views that the Manifesto is generating are telling Holstee that there is demand for the values in their Manifesto to be articulated, shared, and made visible.

But while the millions of views are good public relations, they aren’t helping Holstee they way(s) they could be, since   these page views aren’t making Holstee any money.

I don’t know how much non-manifesto merchandise Holstee is selling, but using sales from the Manifesto to bootstrap their non-manifesto product business suggests that the products are not selling enough to sustain the business on their own.¹

• Why does Holstee see their Manifesto as a short-term way to provide start-up capital (i. e., as bootstrapping) but not as a source of ongoing, growing revenue?
• Why hasn’t Holstee “productized” and monetized the Manifesto further?
• Why can’t people buy the Manifesto on mugs and mousepads?

Holstee is leaving a lot of money on the table.

When the posters of your values statement outsell your intended product line, you’ve got a business problem and a business opportunity. 

The market is telling Holstee something.

The market is telling Holstee that their values are more desired than their current products. And, the market is telling Holstee that it’s missing an opportunity to meet consumers’ needs and to build themselves a sustainable business by promoting the values in their manifesto.

Right now, Holstee doesn’t seem to have a business model that fully supports their values. They need to rethink their busiess plan, and they need to ask themselves what kind of business they are, and what kind of business they want to be.

A Lifestyle Products Business?

If Holstee wants to be a Brooklyn-based purveyor of clothing and accessories “with a conscience”, they might focus on developing a product mix that conveys their values more prominently.

A Life Inspiration Business?

If Holstee wants to be a Brooklyn-based organization devoted to inspiring individuals’ hopes and dreams for a meaningful life, they might look for different ways to convey the actual words of their Manifesto.

Can’t Holstee capitalize on people’s desire for inspiration? Look at all the “Keep Calm and ….” merchandise — all purchased by people who want a reminder of what’s important to them.

Maybe what consumers want is the most streamlined exchange possible, where they literally buy the meaning itself, so that the item on which the words are placed is largely irrelevant.

There’s nothing wrong with mousepads and mugs with inspiring words on them. Words printed on various everyday items aren’t any less noble or less impressive than t-shirts. They can all be made “with a conscience”.

What should Holstee do to match its business model and its values?

Should Holstee develop the organization’s capacity to translate their values into products so that the products are more meaningful?

Or, is it time for Holstee to pivot, and change their business model so that they are selling the values directly through words and images?

Either way, don’t you think that Holstee should do more with their Manifesto?

¹ I’m interpreting and opining based on publicly available information. There may be important details I don’t know about that would reshape the conversation. If so, I’d love to learn about them. Email me at cvharquail at authentic organizations dot com.
² Measured by page views.
Also, I hear from mutual friends that the Holstee founders are lovely people, which you’d expect given the ideas in the manifesto. 

See also:
Why Your Company Should Have A Social Mission, by Olivia Khalili at CauseCapitalism.com
Communities of Commerce: Where the Marketplace is also the Meaning Place
Their Need or Your Ability: Why does your organization exist?
Make Distinctiveness Matter by Linking It To Organizational Purpose

Images: © Holstee and AllPosters

Hat tip: I was introduced to Holstee by @BrainPicker. I’ve been to their site to see what I could buy to support them, and I bought a poster that’s now on our refrigerator.

The Girl Scouts have been busy with their organizational re-branding efforts. With the start of the 2010 Cookie Season, they have a new branding campaign specifically designed to make Girl Scout cookies meaningful.

Back when I wrote the post Wal-Mart Knocks Off the Girl Scouts, about Walmart entering into competition with the Girls Scouts on their iconic Thin Mint cookies, I received scads of angry comments about the prices of Girl Scout cookies. I also got many snarky thank yous for letting people know that reasonably good facsimiles of Girl Scouts’ Thin Mints were available as part of Walmart’s ‘Great Value’ private label offerings.

Beyond the unnecessary anger these comments reflected, they did point out a big problem for the Girls Scouts and their cookies– people had started to treat the Girl Scouts’ Thin Mints like regular, ordinary cookies.

Girl Scout cookies, to these readers, were not something special that commanded a high price point or that made a contribution to anything but your waist measurements.

Now, the Girl Scouts themselves are taking the lead in getting their message out. The Girl Scouts have launched a cookie based branding campaign:

“Every Cookie Has a Mission:
To Help Girls Do Great Things”

The campaign includes a few terrific videos, some collateral material (for putting stories into local newspapers) and a significant effort to promote a consistent message. I have no inside information about the campaign per se, but my online searching has shown me that the message is widespread and consistent across regional and local Girl Scouts’ web & print presentations.

We can’t tell yet whether the cookie videos will really “go viral” in the true sense of the term. But, the “Every Cookie Has a Mission” videos are certainly charming, inspiring and to the point.

Take a look at this Cookie video yourself (it’s only 30 seconds long).

The Girls Scouts do need to raise their profile, (re)educate the community about the work the Girl Scouts themselves do, and enducate the community about what Girl Scouting offers to girls and to the larger community.

All of these messages should help the public understand why they should support the Girl Scouts.

Cookies + Mission = Great Branding

Attaching the “Mission” to the cookies themselves is terrific strategy. Girl Scout Cookies, and Thin Mints in particular, have their own cultural capital and celebrity. With the additional branding efforts, the Cookies that Have a Mission communication the meaning of  not only the iconic symbol of the Girl Scouts, or the chief fundraiser for the Girl Scouts, but also the meaning of the Girl Scouts themselves.

Instead of just having a Thin Mint cookie, you can have a part in the Girl Scouts’ mission to teach leadership skills, teach business skills, and help girls contribute to their communities.

An added benefit? Customers can focus on the mission of the cookies, and not their cost or their calorie counts.

Now, when customers see that the ‘real’ Thin Mints cost 25% more than the national brand ones (e.g., Keebler’s) and 35% more than the Walmart private label ones, they might understand that the price is related not just to the cookie, but to the meaning behind the cookie, to the values the cookie represents, to the activities the cookies support.

After watching this video, do you think you’ll be more inclined to buy Girl Scout cookies?

Because, you know, you wouldn’t be buying a chocolate wafer with a melty mint coating. You’d be buying a Cookie That Has a Mission.  So be prepared, and plan to buy lots of cookies.

Here’s the extended, more poignant version, “What Can A Cookie Do?” (1.25 secs)

Good news for you and your Thin Mint Addiction!

The Girl Scouts are making it easy to find out where those dang cookies are being sold!

(Now I don’t have to drive to Walmart and get the cheaper but less meaningful generic imitations!)

The Girl Scouts have an online cookie locator– just type in your zip code and (in most cases) you get all you need to know to fulfill your cookie cravings.

This is a great innovation, since it’s much easier to buy cookies when you know when and where they’ll be available, right?

But there is one interesting tweak with the Girls Scouts’ online sale program — you can’t actually “buy” the cookies with a few mouse clicks.

You can let your local Girl Scouts know that you want to but cookies, and in some areas you can place an order, but in all cases an actual Girl Scout has to deliver the cookies to you and collect your payment.

Obviously, this extra step adds ‘friction’ to the sales process, and may deter some customers from buying cookies.

Is it smart for the Girl Scouts to have this limitation on their cookie e-commerce?

Absolutely. This may be a little annoyance for the cookie buyer who wants a quick fix. BUT, this obstacle serves an important purpose.

By having the cookies delivered by actual Girl Scouts, this step in the sales process –

1. Reminds buyers that there are actual Girl Scouts connected to the cookies. These are Cookies with a Mission, sold by Girls who are doing Great Things.
2. Allows buyers to meet a few Girl Scouts in their town. Heck, they may even recognize these girls as neighbors– supporting a sense of community.
3. Allows buyers and Girl Scouts a chance to talk about Scouting, about the girls’ troop’s plans for the money and/or their activities in the community.
4. Keeps the girls themselves actively involved in the sales process, so that they keep learning the right lessons about business.

Girl Scout Cookie Sales exist for several reasons, only one of which is fundraising.

As we discovered in the responses to my posts about Girl Scout Cookies, Walmart, and social media, there is a great deal of misunderstanding, as well as general lack of understanding, about how cookie sales support the Girl Scouts. (I’ll address these issues in some upcoming posts. )

This little tweak in the online-assisted Girl Scout Cookie Sales process might look like it is limiting the number of cookies the Girl Scouts might sell — but it also makes sure that the cookie sales support the Girl Scouts’ overall brand. This may cost them a little in lost sales, but it contributes to the overall program for rebranding the Girl Scouts and reinforcing their mission.

I can’t imagine that anyone who loves authentic Thin Mints, or authentic organizations, will be deterred by a little face-to-face brandbuilding, do you?

[Fortunately or unfortunately, the specifics & ease of these online-assisted sales will vary with your Girl Scout Council (the region assigned by your zip code). Some Councils ask you to enter your email and then have a particular troop contact you. Other regions just have a landing page with basic info about the sale program. My own Council has an inert and not-very-helpful landing page. And yes, I have already sent them an email with suggestions on how to improve it quickly. We'll see how they respond.]

If products reflect an organization’s values and an organization’s identity, does Apple’s new iPad tell us something about where Apple as a company is headed?

And, if that’s where Apple is going, do we all want to go there too?

Here’s a proposition:

• Apple as an organization is changing, from an organization that’s “about” creativity to an organization that’s “about” consumption.

• Most consumers haven’t noticed this change, although the tech community is on to it.

• While many consumers won’t care, Apple’s core customers and its biggest fans will feel disappointed by this identity change. Some may even feel betrayed.

Let’s build the argument:

An organization’s products communicate that organization’s identity.

An organization’s products – their physical features, their intended uses, their manufacturing processes, and their marketing strategies — communicate an organization’s values.

When an organization creates, produces, distributes, and supports a product, that organization makes important choices. The organization places bets on what it thinks consumers want (or need), decides which possibilities it wants its products to support, and decides how it uniquely will make these come about. The organization chooses a physical design, a software platform, and a set of utilities, to support a certain kind of current use.

The organization’s choices also express, demonstrate and create the organization’s vision of the future.

Corporate values = product attributes = corporate brand = product brand

The relationship between an organization’s identity and its products’ defining attributes is like the relationship between the chicken and egg. Neither one comes first, and each depends on the other.

Consumers have an understanding of the organization’s brand (or identity) and see the brand in the organization’s products. And, consumers come to equate the qualities of the product and the attributes of the organization itself.

Nowhere is this interdependency between organizational ‘brand’ and product brand more apparent than at Apple.

Apple’s product brand: What do we think makes Apple products special?

Each Apple product is positioned as a tool to ‘think different’. Apple products emphasize sophisticated visual design, simplicity, sheer beauty, and an “alpha-underdog-ness” that suggests that everything that makes Apple products different from convention also makes them better.

Apple’s organizational brand: Who do we think Apple is?

Run down the list of attributes that you think Apple stands for. Apple will stand for something different for each of us, but for the general consumer Apple is hip, cool, cutting-edge, what the “people in the know” use, what the hip and cool people use. Apple is more creative and more sophisticated. Apple is elegance through refusal to pander.

Apple is the Alpha-underdog. Apple is the choice of creative professionals. Apple is the choice of people who like to tinker, people who like to build, people who like to create. Apple is hip, cool, forward, smarter than you. Apple is the company with not just a different way, but a better way.

Now, let’s turn to Apple’s latest product, the iPad …

What do the features that distinguish the new iPad tell us about who Apple might be becoming now?

[There are some terrific analyses of the iPad's features linking the technical choices to values that these choices might reflect. Rather than restating these here, let me direct you Peter Kirn's analysis of the "Closed Mac" at CreateDigitalMusic, and Samuel Axon at Mashable. Be sure to look at the critique of the iPad's Digital Rights Management (DRM) features by Nate Anderson. And, for thoughtful analyses of what these features mean to the tech community, go to Alex Payne’s reflections 'On the iPad' and StevenF's blog.]]

All of these tech analysts focus on three key features of the iPad:

1. The iPad runs on a closed platform and reflects a closed vision.

The iPad is a completely closed tool. All of the software for the iPad is proprietary; it is owned and/or controlled by Apple. The iPad’s hardware is also closed. These design decisions by Apple mean that the iPad cannot easily be modified, personalized, or expanded. The iPad cannot be used to create new programs using open-source software by non-Apple software designers, developers and home hacksters who like to think differently.

The iPad is closed to anyone with any idea that is too small or too personal to fit with Apple’s business plan.

2. Access to the iPad is centrally controlled by Apple, not by you.

Because the creation and distribution of apps for the iPad are controlled by Apple, the only things you can use on the iPad are tools that Apple has chosen for you.Kirn offers a concise analysis of the iPad:

“It’s a storage device you own but that someone else controls.”

Apple  controls what everyday consumers can use their iPads to enjoy. Apple also controls which other businesses can have access to consumers, and even how much access to consumers a media supplier can have.

Instead of disintermediating process by taking out the middle man, Apple is inserting itself more fully in between content creators and consumers.

This positions Apple to exert more power, more pressure and more control over both customers and suppliers.

3. Closed + Controlled => Consumption, not Creativity

The iPad’s closed platform and the centralized control of apps and content work together to create a technology product that is not so much about creating things as it is about consuming things.

Back in the day, Macs were heralded because of the way they enabled users to add on hardware & software and build up their own applications. Now, with this move to a closed platform and controlled access, owners of iPads can’t make their own little programs to run their own little stuff. They can’t generate new things. They can’t use the iPad like a ‘real’ computer. iPad users can only choose from among the set of things offered by & through Apple.

The iPad is not a tool for creativity, but instead a tool for consumption.

A creativity tool allows you to experiment and invent. A creativity tool is limited only by your imagination, taste and skill. In contrast, a consumption tool invites you to shop, to acquire. A creativity tool allows for customization through purchasing, which is itself made possible by your means, your tastes, and your disposable time.

But shopping is not quite the same as expressing. Customization is not the same as creativity.

Abandoning the Digital Creator?

What has long made Apple special and distinguished it from all other hardware & software companies has been its perceived commitment to the digital creator.

Whether you were a digital creator as a coder, a software designer or nerd with a screwdriver, Apple was there for you. Whether you were a digital creator as a graphic designer, a basement mixmaster, or a an explorer of user interface, Apple was there for you.

Apple was all about thinking different.

Now, with the shift to the values reflected in the iPad design, Apple is acting as very different kind of company. It is acting as a digital entertainment and consumption company. It is all about the digital consumer.

Instead of being an organization that wants us to “Think Different”,
it looks as though Apple wants us instead to “Buy Different”.

if you were to ask ‘What features would we need to put into our product to establish and protect ourself as a digital entertainment company?”, you would create products with:

Closed platforms. Closed hardware. Controlled, subordinated third-party development. Digital Rights management everywhere. Lots and lots of things to buy.

Oh, and don’t forget, you’d create a product that can’t be physically expanded or repaired, and that will need to be replaced with the next advance in technology. You’d create a product that had to be bought over and over again.

In short, you’d create something like the iPad.

Why would it matter if Apple was becoming:

• A company more interested in entertaining than in creating?
• A company more interested in controlling rather than enabling?
• A company more interested in centralizing than distributing and sharing?
• A company more interested in selling than in supporting creativity?

A lot of folks wouldn’t really care. Many consumers will be happy to own and use this new variety of Apple product, without a concern for what it might say about the future of computing or the fture of Apple.

But, there are two groups of consumers who will care about a change in ‘who’ Apple is.

Apple’s core group of fans will care.

The consumers, customers, and suppliers, as well as many of Apple’s own employees — will feel a significant loss as Apple moves away from its previous identity. These fans will lose the actual software and hardware support for their creativity. These fans will not longer be able to look to Apple as the Alpha-underdog defending creativity and innovation in the face of computerized consumerism.

Apple’s ‘aspirational customers’ will also care.

Aspirational customers are those who buy a company’s products and support an organization’s brand because of what it represents about who they themselves can become. These customers will lose the sense of who they can become as Apple’s identity changes.

Apple’s core customers and core fans will need to revise their understanding of who Apple is and what Apple stands for. And, these core customers will need to revise their relationship to Apple as an organization.

For me personally, while I’ve never myself written anything beyond some customizing code for my blog themes, there’s always been the potential, the promise, that I could whip up some little tool to manage my photo files, my tags, or my return address labels. There’s always been the possibility that I could be more of a digital creator with our iMacs and Macbooks. When I fire up my Macbook at Starbucks, yes, I am signaling to you that I’m some kind of digital creator. At least I could be. With my Macbook.

But now, with Apple’s new iPad and new set of corporate values, I’ll have to rethink my relationship with Apple. At the very least, I’ll need to revise my sense of who Apple is and what Apple really stands for.

I wish I could come up with some pithy metaphor or double entendre to sum this up, but I’m still processing these concerns in my mind. Then again,

Maybe I don’t need to create a conclusive statement by myself. Maybe I can shop my way to creativity? Maybe I just need an app for that?

Maybe Apple can sell me one.

See also Jaymi Heimbuch’s article “What Does Apple’s iPad Really Mean for Society?” at Treehugger, where she evaluates the iPad for its environmental impact

Images: “Come see our latest restrictions” image from Ars Technica, Apple Graphics (wallpaper) free on Designrfx

The symbols we use to represent our tools also represent the communities that use these tools.

One of my favorite corporate image experts, Susan Gunelius, has started an interesting conversation over at Corporate Eye. She wants to know which  browser has the best brand identity, and which browser’s logo reflects its identity most effectively.

Given the unveiling today of AOL’s new logo (which I think is aesthetically and conceptually barren) this is a fun conversation to have. May I encourage you to go over to Corporate Eye, take the poll, and chime in with your opinion?

In the meantime, here’s what I think:

Firefox: My personal fave of all the logos. I love how the fox (an animate being) wraps itself around the world. It’s a living thing, active, and embracing. Am I crazy, or do other people feel this too?

Internet Explorer: Bleh. This logo says ‘the world revolves around us”. That fits just too neatly into the downside of Microsoft’s overall brand identity.

Goggle Chrome: Who thought that this was pretty? It looks like a developmental toy for a toddler… we just have to find the way to make the pieces fall apart. And then put them back together.

Opera: Or is it Oprah? If it was Oprah, I’d be more excited.

Safari: A tool. Just a tool.

Netscape: Can you say 1998?

So go over to Corporate Eye, take the poll, and chime in the conversation. Then, come on back, because I’m going to rant just a little bit about …

Why Symbols on our Computers Matter

The symbols we use to represent our tools also represent the communities that use these tools.

Every time we see the symbol– and especially in the case of these browsers, every time we click on the symbol — we are literally activating that brand identity in front of us on our computers.

It’s not that the image constructs the relationship, or establishes the qualities of the brand but the qualities do get attached to the image/symbol.

We tend to underestimate the power of these ubiquitous symbols to communicate qualities and values to us, in unconscious and subliminal ways. I have argued elsewhere that this power should be used to reinforce the identity of the organization or group you are working with or trying to serve with your online activity.  (I even had a session on portal design aesthetics and organizational identity/identification in my Leading.com class in 1999…so long ago!)

Our attention is precious, and since the portals and frames on our computers constrain and embrace what we literally focus on, we should  choose wisely when we set up the images and symbols that shape our work.

Are you comfortable with having your work attention up for sale?

Sadly, before we’ve even paid attention to how to use this symbolic framing power for good, Microsoft has begun to sell ad space on it.

Yes, now for commercial purposes and with real money attached to it, the “theme personalization experience” will allow you to customize your Windows 7 “to reflect the things you are most passionate about”. The most prominent of these things to be passionate about are products– you know, things companies are trying to get you to buy.  Thank goodness there are other personalization options.

I do know an organizational identity scholar or two who will be happy to add Ducati images to their Windows…solely because it reinforces their research. As for the rest of us, can we avoid having to choose Coke or Pepsi, please?

Oh wait, I don’t even have to worry. I use Macs (whew).

Where is Wal-mart’s social media outreach?

This ongoing experience with “Thin Mint-y Gate” is raising a bunch of questions, for the audiences reading and commenting on blogs, for the Girl Scouts and their community, and for me as a blogger & management scholar. I hope I’ll get a chance to address some of these questions in future posts. Right now, let me focus on just one question.

My question is:

With all of the conversation about this story, about Wal-mart’s imputed motives and decision-making processes, and now about customers’ expressing how this competition with the Girl Scouts will affect their feelings about Wal-mart, where is Wal-mart’s social media outreach?

Wal-mart & Social Media

We read that Wal-mart is developing a sophisticated social media practice. We know that Wal-mart has a prominent program for enlisting the support of mom bloggers to burnish the organization’s reputation and attract current and future customers: the “Wal-mart 11″.

Why hasn’t somebody from Wal-mart’s social media group reached out to bloggers, either to me or to others who’ve picked up and run with this story?

You recall that late Monday night I posted a story about having sampled Wal-mart’s two new “value brand” cookie varieties, which I noted were not only quite tasty but also remarkably similar to two celebrity Girl Scout cookies, the Thin Mint and the Tag-A-Long.

In this post I raised the question of whether Wal-mart, an organization claiming to be concerned about its reputation as a good corporate citizen, should consciously or unconsciously be choosing to compete against the Girl Scouts by (1) “knocking off” two of the most iconic Girl Scout cookie styles, (2) selling them year-round and (3) at a lower price. I argued that these three decisions by Wal-mart were likely to take cookie market share from the Girl Scouts, and that doing this might not earn for Wal-mart the “good citizenship” merit badge.

The Viral Spiral of the Cookie Monster

No one was more surprised than I when my blog post was picked up by AdAge, then posted on diggit, then twittered over 2000 times, then reposted or reinterpreted or summarized on over 800 online locations (and counting). I’ve had over 20,000 more visits to my blog than in an average week, and there are so many comments here and on other sites you couldn’t read them in a day. And no one was more surprised than I when reporters from Fox News, CBS news, CNBC.com, and a dozen other outlets contacted me to get more details on “the story” of how Wal-mart had decided to compete against the Girl Scouts.

With all these other voices getting involved in the conversation, it makes the question all the more pertinent: Where is Wal-mart’s voice?

“Thin Mint-y Gate”

Hey, it’s not quite the same as “The Ranger Station Fire”, the Ford Fansite controversy that is now a “Best Practices” case study (by Ron Plouff) of outreach by Ford’s social media rep @Scott Monty, but this cookie monster accusation is a social media situation for Wal-mart. Someone even labeled it “Thin Mint-y Gate” — so I’m wondering why a representative from Wal-mart hasn’t stepped into the social media space to participate in the online conversation.

Late last night (read: four days after my post was published, and after I’d drafted this post) I got an e-mail about Fox News story, where the Fox Newscasters mention a statement made by Wal-mart.

Wal-mart’s Statement:

Our Great Value product line offers our customers familiar tastes and high quality products at affordable prices. Our Great Value Fudge Mint cookies and Fudge Covered Peanut Butter Filled cookies provide our customers with an alternative to the many fudge mint cookies and chocolate covered peanut butter cookies sold both in our stores and others under a variety of names.

Walmart supports the Girl Scouts at the grassroots level through cookie sales in front of our stores, local fundraising efforts, and donations through both the Walmart Foundation and our Good Works program. Thousands of Walmart associates are former and current Girl Scouts. Additionally thousands more have daughters in the program, while others serve the organization as volunteers.

We appreciate the leadership and life skills the Girl Scouts of the USA teach their members and share their values.

I haven’t been able to find any communication by Wal-mart on Twitter or on blogs. (There is nothing on the Walmart “Checkout” blog.) Here are some speculations (not facts not claims not accusations) about

(Maybe) Why I haven’t heard anything from Wal-mart social media representatives:

1. Wal-mart doesn’t know about the story.
2. Wal-mart doesn’t care about bad press.
3. Wal-mart doesn’t pay attention to criticisms of its business practices.
4. Wal-mart doesn’t pay attention to mommy bloggers.
5. Wal-mart just doesn’t know what to do on social media.

As as I look across these possible reasons, I can reject the first four. Wal-mart cares about the story — else they would not have issued a press release. Wal-mart does care about bad press, it does pay attention to criticisms of its business practices, and it does pay attention to mommy bloggers. Given that I actually sampled the cookies at Wal-mart’s own blogger outreach exhibit at BlogHer09, you know they were ostensibly trying to reach me, a female blogger.

This leaves #6 as a possible explanation (feel free to add more in the comments if you think of some.)

The other possibility is that Wal-mart just doesn’t know what to do.

Sure, Wal-mart has issued a press release, and it doesn’t read like Wal-mart is really listening to the story or the concerns underneath it. Instead, the press release is very “2000 and late”; it’s very old-school public relations. Where is a hint of the Web 2.0 savvy that Wal-mart is trying to develop? Could it be that Wal-mart isn’t trying, or isn’t really committed? I don’t know.

Wal-mart Social Media: Missing an opportunity?

Thin Mint-y Gate could be a social media opportunity for Wal-mart. They could be using this situation to experiment with and learn more about having an authentic conversation with their stakeholders using Web 2.0. Their own @ScottMonty (or reasonable facsimile) could set a new standard for social media practice.

Imagine what it would have been like if Wal-mart had contacted me when my post hit the news…or if they’d mentioned on Twitter that they were “looking into it”?

What if Wal-mart had engaged in conversation and listened to how this  Thin Mint-y Gate story was unfolding?

Imagine what it would’ve been like if they’d said:

• “It didn’t occur to us that our decisions might be experienced this way by consumers.”
• “It didn’t occur to us to consider whether our choices of cookie varieties would create problems for nonprofits.”
• “We didn’t realize that people might see us as choosing to compete against the Girl Scouts, at the very least for customers who like GS Thin Mints or Tag-a-longs. Maybe competing against Keebler et al. is not the same as competing against the Girl Scouts.”
• “We don’t really want to contradict ourselves by competing with the Girl Scouts while also (trying to) support them.”
• “We don’t want people to think that our intent to be better Corporate Citizens would seem false, hollow, and inauthentic because we didn’t put these claims into practice when we were making choices about our new cookie business.”

Imagine what it would have been like for Wal-mart if they’d said:

Thanks for bringing these issues up; we’ll think about them.

That kind of participation in the social media conversation might have shown Wal-mart to be:

• an organization in touch with its larger community, not only its current customers
• an organization that is learning and open to reconsidering not only the decisions it makes but also the social and reputational effects of the decision it makes
• an organization that is indeed committed to learning how to be a better corporate citizen

To be clear, I’m not expecting that Wal-mart will withdraw these cookie varieties from their “Great Value” line. I’m sure some brand managers went to a lot of trouble to get the flavor, the manufacturing, and the cost of these cookies just right. When I sampled them, I thought they were pretty good cookies. Maybe that particular cow has left the barn.

But I would expect that someone at Wal-mart might raise the questions:

• Do we really want to make cookies so much like Thin Mints and Tag-a-longs that people might- just might- buy cookies from us instead of the Girl Scouts?
• Should we compete against both Keebler and the Girl Scouts?
• If we make this choice, are we being the good citizens we claim to want to be?

Whether that conversation is happening at Wal-mart or not, I don’t know. Neither do you. And that’s the social media problem and opportunity for Wal-mart.

What I Do Know

What I do know  is that no one from Wal-mart has actively participated in a two-way, interactive conversation  with me and/or (from what I can tell) with other people writing about the story.

That’s disappointing, because if Wal-mart did join the conversation, in a public and transparent way, we would feel like Wal-mart was learning. And, we would be more willing to reconsider our assessment of who Wal-mart is and is trying to be as an organization.

When Wal-mart joins in the conversation, more transparently and more openly, we’ll be able to see what they really intend, and understand why. Until then, none of us will know whether Wal-mart is trying to be authentic or not.

Surely, that’s a missed opportunity.

(Welcome MacLeans Readers… Please join the conversation! )

Just when you think your opinion about Wal-mart might be changing…
Just when you think that maybe, just maybe, Wal-mart was learning to be a better citizen…
Wal-mart turns around and does something really … despicable.

It’s not discriminating against women, strong-arming suppliers, polluting neighborhoods or racing to the bottom of the China Price. No, this time it’s closer to home, and in my case, really close to home. This time…

Wal-Mart is knocking off the Girl Scouts.

Of course, you know the Girl Scouts, those enthusiastic girls organized into local troops, learning about leadership and being resourceful? Those sweet girls raising money selling Thin Mints, Tagalongs, Do-Si-Does and Samoas?

What could Wal-mart possibly do to harm Girl Scouts?

Wal-mart has copied the Girl Scouts’ two best selling cookie types, Thin Mints and Tagalongs.

Wal-mart is selling Fake Girl Scout Cookies.

Wal-mart has fake Girl Scout cookies in ‘beta’ distribution, on their way to a national rollout. Because the cookies are ‘reasonable facsimiles’ of the authentic Girl Scout cookies (I sampled them myself at BlogHer ’09 last week) and are being sold at an everyday low price, these cookies are poised to snatch cookie sales right out of the hands of the Girl Scouts themselves.

Thin Mints Cookies pay for Girl Scouting

Every cookie fan in the US knows that the Girl Scouts in the USA make all of the money to run their organization from their annual cookie sales. You might not know that Thin Mints, the most popular flavor, account for 25% of the Girl Scouts’ sales. Said another way, those Thin Mint cookies account for 25% of the Girl Scouts’ cookie income.

Girl Scout Cookies are a little pricier than your average cookie, but they’re worth it. The Girl Scouts are especially desirable because the cookies are (1) unique and (2) rare.

• Only the Girl Scouts sell those minty-chocolate-discs-from-heaven known as Thin Mints.

• The Girl Scouts sell these cookies only for a short time, once each year.

The cookies are so exclusively available, there’s even a website to help you anticipate when you can buy them in your region.

The exclusivity of Girl Scout cookies is what makes the cookies really sell. But now, Wal-mart is shoving itself in front of these little girls, and knocking on your door to sell you their almost-as-good fake Thin Mints and Fake Tagalongs, whenever you want them.

There goes the Girl Scouts’ exclusivity. There goes the Girl Scout cookies’ special allure, and there go the profits that fund the Girl Scouts’ programs.

I think it’s interesting that, up until now, no national cookie manufacturer/retailer has seen fit to approximate the Thin Mint or the Tagalong. For whatever reason, they’ve steered clear of the Girl Scouts’ special cookies. But not Wal-mart. [note: As mentioned in comments, there are other thin mint-chocolate wafer cookies on the market. However, no imitation Tagalongs have been spotted. 8.4.09 2:00pm]

The fact that Wal-mart has seen fit to knock off the Girl Scouts and threaten the Girl Scouts’ ability to fund their programs makes me wonder just how much- or how little- Wal-mart really cares about the communities where its stores are located. Am I suggesting that Wal-mart’s brand managers set out to steal the market from the Girl Scouts? No. I’m asking why these Wal-mart managers did not think more about the potential civic impact of their choices.

• Did anyone at Wal-mart think twice about knocking off the Girl Scouts’ best sellers?

• Did anyone at Wal-mart think about whether or not it was appropriate to compete against a non-profit, that supports children’s programs?

Personal Disclosure

I take these fake cookies, this threat to the Girl Scouts by Wal-mart, quite personally. For several years, I was the Cookie Mom for my daughters’ troop, teaching the girls how to set goals, budget their time and money, and work together to sell cookies. I’ve seen the girls’ excitement when it’s time to sell, and their pride when they get to deliver the cookies. And, I’ve slept in the damp tent on the camping trips that the cookie proceeds paid for. So yeah, this one really hits home.

Wal-mart can sell all the hunting equipment, cheap plastic gizmos and clothes made in sweatshops that it wants to sell. But why must they encroach upon the market of a non-profit? Why do they have to go after the Girl Scouts?

Authenticity in all directions?

When it comes to assessing whether an organization is authentic, whether it is trying to grow into something more or better, it is important to look at the organization’s actions in that area. We should be looking at Wal-mart’s sustainability efforts and encourage them when these efforts seem to demonstrate that Wal-mart is keeping its promises. But also, we should look at the organization’s behavior around the fringes, because it is this behavior that clues us in to whether Wal-mart’s change effort is real, or whether the change effort is fake.

Funny, the product line of the cookies is called “Great Value.” It begs the question, are Wal-mart’s purportedly improved values any less fake than their pseudoThinMints?

What kind of “Great Value” do these cookies actually represent?

[Follow up: Please note that the Girl Scouts had nothing to do with this post. It is not the Girl Scouts who are "crying wolf" or claiming to be targeted. I, the author, am raising the question of how and to what degree for profit companies like Wal-mart should compete with non-profits in the non-profits' fundraising arena. Please keep this in mind as you comment. Thanks. 8.05.09]

[ I have closed the comments, because they have reached theoretical saturation. Please read the comments here- it's likely you'll find something close to what you'd like to share.]

Comments back open. Please be thoughtful and add to the conversation.

Also see:

• Thin Mint-y Gate: Wal-mart’s Socia Media Opportunity
• Can Walmart Earn the Girl Scouts’ Good Citizenship Award?
• Wal-Mart needs a CCO (cultureby.com)
• ThinMinty Gate pits WalMart against Girl Scouts (J. Logan at the Examiner.com)

The organization itself can wear the brand — it isn’t just the employees’ who can “wear the brand”. The organization’s physical being can (and should) express its brand and purpose. When an organization expresses its purpose through the way it is physically situating itself, I like to think of it as “whereing” the brand.

From Andrew Taylor, who writes The Artful Manager blog about the business of arts and culture, comes this example of an organization whereing and wearing its brand, by expressing its purpose from the inside out.

Because Taylor recognizes the ways that museums and other arts institutions miss opportunities to expand their reach and impact, he notes with concern how

” so many cultural facilities are inward-looking behemoths (massive stone or glass facades, seemingly with their backs to the outside world)”

Thus, Taylor is intrigued by this example of of a museum playing with the relationship between its physical structure and its social surroundings.

In the photo (left) it may not look like anything out of the ordinary for a museum building, but wait until you see the video (below).

Static Authenticity

The building belonging to the Gallery of Modern Art at the Kunsthalle Hamburg is itself is an example of “modern” art/architecture. The design of the building expresses the purpose of the organization it houses. In this way, museum as an organization has turned itself outwards as well as inwards (i.e., towards external stakeholders as well as internal ones), because its external representation shows the organization’s purpose.

That’s authentic, sure, but it’s kind of a static authenticity.

Consider that, since the design and construction of the museum building (by O. M. Ungers) was completed in 1997, the building hasn’t been a dynamic, interactive, conscious expression of the organization’s purpose– until now.

Take a minute to click on this video. Watch for 10 seconds, until you see the ‘reveal’.

555 KUBIK | facade projection | from urbanscreen on Vimeo.

Enacting Organizational Purpose on the Outside

Consider for a second the aesthetic and learning experience you’re having watching and listening to this video. What do you think of the way that this organization is bringing to life its identity as a modern art museum and its purpose of bringing art to the public?

Is this organization enacting its purpose and expressing its authenticity in an engaging way, or what?

Thanks Andrew.

Walking into my office this morning, I tripped over a ‘rubber bracelet cum flash drive’ that was part of the swag I brought back with me from Chicago and the 2009 BlogHer.

That clumsy move plus a few friends’ Tweets about supposedly free swag costing them money to ship home, made me wonder about how swag and the pursuit of swag may have distracted BlogHer attendees from their larger purpose for attending the conference.

And, it made me wonder how swag and the distribution of swag may have distracted BlogHer as an organization from its larger purpose.

To understand this dynamic, you need to know that

(1) Swag is the free stuff that  organizations give away– the pens, the flash drives, the mousepads, the product samples — as a way to advertise their organization and/or product.

(2) BlogHer is the annual conference, and companion website & ad network, that has brought together a diverse community of women (and some men) bloggers.

Bloggers go to the BlogHer conference to meet each other IRL, to share writing & tech advice, and to learn how to develop their blogging skills, their online communities, and their overall purpose.

BlogHer exists as an organization  “To create opportunities for women who blog to pursue exposure, education, community, and economic empowerment.”

My experience as a member and my perceptions as an observant, organizational scholar both confirm that, overall, BlogHer is doing a really really good job creating these opportunities. So, in the big picture, the whole swag issue at BlogHer was mostly a distraction. However, it’s a distraction that could signal a trending away from BlogHer’s core purpose.

Here are just a few of the swag-related problems I saw:

• Online conversation leading up to the conference was full of references on what swag would be available, where to get it, how to get it home. Some conversation, but in my opinion not enough, addressed why the swag was going to be there in the first place.

• Not enough of the conversation addressed how to really make the most of your participation in sessions or how to find your tribe of like-minded bloggers.

• Efforts to acquire swag changed the participation patterns of many attendees. People went to exhibits instead of community keynotes to get the Walmart cookies or the Disney Ice Creams (which were, btw, very tasty).

• Parties were so loud and crowded you couldn’t hear yourself Twitter, much less talk to anyone.

• People went to and stayed at parties only until the swag bags were handed out.

• The minute it was announced that the swag was being distributed, the whole physical shape of the room would change, from clusters of women talking to a line of women waiting.

• The energy dynamic shifted from meeting & greeting other bloggers to getting & vetting the swag.   [I did have one interesting conversation with a sex blogger about the Moxie doll we both received at one party. Personally, I was turned off by the doll's dominatrix outfit, but the sex blogger saw it as a blog topic opportunity. Mileage varies. I gave my doll to the sex blogger. ]

• Swag distribution events created ‘in crowds’ and outsiders, as some bloggers were wisked Swiffer – ed away to private parties and sent back with free Nikon cameras, and other bloggers took swag bags at parties they hadn’t rsvp’d to (leaving the bag’s intended recipient empty-handed– and pissed).

I love free stuff as much as the next former graduate student. I still attend conference meetings for the free Swedish meatballs even though I can buy my own at IKEA, so I was no paragon of anti-acquisitive virtue.

But I did push myself to recognize that, after the PBS booklights and Croc sandals for my girls, and the Izzy T shirt for me, I had all the swag that I needed. I didn’t need to troll the exhibit area or stop off at another party for any more ‘free’ stuff. Unless Ann Taylor was giving away free earrings. Those I’d have left a Geek session for.

Anyway, see what I mean?

I did a mini-experiment,
trying to see how the swag giveaway process worked from the side of the giv-er. I walked down the hallway handing out 2/3rds of the chocolate and toys from the Allstate Anti-Driving While Texting Gift Basket I won in a raffle, taking deep breaths and trying to swap greediness for generosity as my dominant vibe.

But oddly, although folks were happy to take the cell phone parking pads and the Gerber babyfood samples, giving these things away didn’t create new relationships for me with other bloggers. Funny how that didn’t work.

I wonder how well it worked for BlogHer, as an organization?

Some of the swagging was from the conference sponsors, who had every reason to expect that the conference would support the distribution of their marketing messages. After all, that’s why they were sponsors. And we attendees got that. We understood that the conference was affordable (and even offered scholarships) because the sponsors paid a fee to be featured.

Former marketer that I am, I did my personal best to support the sponsors that were relevant to my blogging practice. I watched the Bing demonstration and learned how to print trifold brochures on an HP printer. I opined to the Verizon vlogger on appropriate cell phone etiquette. And, I expressed my dismay to the StoneyField yogurt marketing exec that they were discontinuing their MochaLatte flavor. This all was fairly useful interaction with sponsors.

But what wasn’t so useful, to me as a BlogHer participant, were the unofficial sponsors, like the companies behind the exclusive private parties who sapped participant attention away from the blogging practice sharing & community building interactions that the BlogHer conference is supposed to be about. If the crowds around the official swag weren’t bad enough, the distinctions created by the private swag rent the fabric of the community.

Where do you draw the line?

Sponsorship, and thus swag, makes the conference run. But too much swag perverts the conference purpose.

Me, I knew where to draw the line.

My checked luggage was 8 lbs. over weight, and since I wasn’t about to pay $50 to check an ‘overweight bag’, I unzipped my Tumi (they weren’t a BlogHer sponsor- should have been) and handed out some of my swag to airport passersby. Yes, I was the woman giving out free samples of Tide over by the American Airlines counter. But again, giving out this free stuff didn’t create any new relationships for me.

Maybe I was doing the swag thing wrong? Maybe I don’t really know how to use the swag to create or support a community?

But tell me, what does it take to do it right?

Photos by Liz Henry & I should be folding on Flickr

+ =

???

In an earlier post, I mentioned that authentic organizations might find it hard to find appropriate partner organizations, because the qualities of the company you keep are often inferred to be the qualities of your organization itself. And now, in the news , is a great example of this very problem: The Abercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center.

Just imagine it: The Abercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center: what could this organization look like? (Click on the name for  a great image at The Consumerist).

Would the surgeons, nurses and staff members of theAbercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center look something like this?

Or This? 

Like many consumers, I’ve received the messages from A&F advertising . I know what the salesclerks at A&F stores look like

and what the employees of A&F Corporate look like .

Let’s dispense with the argument that the Trauma Center’s name doesn’t matter. Of course it does. If organization names didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be an entire industry and scientific practice devoted to finding the best name for a company. If the name of this particular trauma center didn’t matter, then why would A&F have paid 10 million dollars for it?

Names matter because they are symbols of the organization itself. The name is shorthand, an abbreviation for the organization’s identity. The name symbolizes the qualities that define who the organization is and what the organization stands for. Names convey identity.

Organization names, brand names and product names convey identity. An organization’s name summarizes, distills and conveys the qualities and attributes that help to define the organization’s identity, and the name carries the image that the organization tries to project.

Without knowing the organization directly, we can surmise that the name “Columbus Children’s Hospital Emergency & Trauma Center” carries with it qualities and attributes like “professional” “helping” “skilled” “urgent” “highly reliable” “caring” and so on. Likewise, the A&F brand name carries a carefully crafted image — a set of perceptions about who the A&F brand serves, what their customers ought to be like, who organization is, what that organization stands for, and what the kind of experience outsiders will have when interacting with A&F as an organization.

The Abercrombie & Fitch organizational identity / brand identity doesn’t fit a medical organization.

We don’t need to know Abercrombie & Fitch’s actual organization identity; for our purposes as non-members we can just consider what we know about the organization in total. This includes both A & F’s brand images and their corporate reputation. As a corporation, they have a reputation (whether accurate and deserved, or not) for being somewhat racist in their hiring and staffing decisions for a a certain form of hipness, and a marketing savvy. The A&F brand is known for homoerotic and “sex drenched images” images in their advertising and in their stores.

It’s also important to note that A&F has regularly been criticized from just about every direction for the sexualized content of their marketing campaigns, and for seeming to ignore the effect that this content might have on young adults, especially girls . Questions raised by the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood about the appropriateness of attaching the Abercrombie & Fitch brand name to an organization that serves young children are completely on target.

We should also consider how A&F’s brand images might influence the way that employees perceive the Trauma Center itself. Attribute transfer: Shared names => shared associations => shared attributes The partnership between the Trauma Center and A&F creates the opportunity for “attribute transfer”, the process though which we attach the attributes of one object to another object when these objects are consistently presented together. When one organization gives, loans, rents or sells its name to a partner, they create a constant association between themselves and the partner. This association leads observers to attach the attributes of partner to the organization – it takes on some of its partner’s public image and reputation.

When the A&F brand name is applied to the trauma center, the A&F attributes are transferred from the brand to the A&F Trauma Center.

One could argue that employees are aware that the Trauma Center is not the same as Abercrombie & Fitch, and one could argue that customers and employees consciously distinguish between the two entities. Perhaps that’s true, much of the time. It’s the rest of the time where this association is a problem, because it’s the unconscious process of association that matters more.

Attribute transfer happens whether we are conscious of it or not. Moreover, this is such a robust psychological process that it’s hard to resist. Thus, despite the fact that Trauma Center employees know they’re working in a hospital and not in a shopping mall, at a subconscious level there is pressure to attach the A&F attributes to the Trauma Center itself.

Example of Attribute Transfer

+ =>

All this makes for fun graphics-but what does it create for organization members?? Organization names influence how employees think of their organization.

Organization members consciously and unconsciously use their organization’s name as a symbol for the organization’s values, qualities, and attributes. When Children’s Hospital employees think of the Trauma Center, the name symbolizes “professional”, “highly reliable” and “caring”. Every time they see the organization’s name, they are reminded of these attributes.

Now, think of the attributes that employees will be reminded of at the “Abercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center”. Every time they see the name “Abercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center” — on the front door, on the paperwork, on their id badges- employees will be reminded (1) of the attributes that A&F stands for, and that (2) these attributes are now associated with the Trauma Center. As psychological theory explains, over time the A&F Trauma Center members will come to think of these attributes when they think of the organization itself. They might come to expect the A&F Trauma Center to display these attributes. And, employees might even expect themselves and each other to display these attributes.

The Abercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center illustrates what might happen when two very dissimilar organizations form a partnership. For the organization with the new name, the name can represent a discordant mash-up of its own identity with the attributes of the other organization.

Because an organization’s name conveys who the organization is and who it wants to be, organizations need to consider the identity effects of even the simplest elements of the partnership, like new names.

It’s hard to imagine that administrators of the Children’s Hospital thought through the potential identity effects of selling their naming rights — they treated the name change as though all it would do was ‘recognize A&F’s financial support. Instead, what the new name recognizes is the inauthentic connection between A&F’s identity and what defines the Columbus Children’s Hospital.