Posts tagged as:

consumers

“What if you could buy social justice?” or Does ‘values shopping’ really make a difference?

by cv harquail on December 15, 2008

image
Can for-profit, for-purpose organizations make a difference, if we patronize them?

Thinking about an organization’s authenticity invites us to examine simultaneously what the organization does and how it does it. When we think about organizations being authentic, we assume that organizations have their business purpose — the thing that they’re out there to "do", and their identity — the values displayed by the ways in which the organization goes about doing its thing.

Consumers can benefit from an Organization’s Authenticity

When an organization is authentic, it can contribute to the world not only by what it does but by the ways that it does what it does . Through the activities of production, an authentic organization can put its values into practice. By practicing its values the authentic organization makes not only a product but also a difference.

Related to this belief is the idea that we, as consumers and members, can choose to support organizations that demonstrate values we approve of, while withholding our support from organizations of whose values we disapprove.

One way to withhold support is, obviously, the boycott. The opposite of a boycott is "values shopping", the practice of intentionally giving our custom to organizations of whose values we approve.

We are surrounded by ratings systems, trust labels, and corporate social responsibility campaigns designed to tap into our desire to put out money/patronage where our values are.

Alonovo , GoodGuide (about whom I’ve posted before) , The Human Rights Campaign (and their Buying for Equality Guide) and other organizations that try to establish and evaluate the values demonstrated by various organizations exist to help us decide which organizations to support. Some organizations even legally define and construct themselves to align their values and their modes of production (such as B Corporations) .

They all take for a given the idea that we can change the world by shopping wisely — but can we?

Does any of this ‘values shopping’ really make a difference?
And, if values shopping does make a difference, is values shopping really doing what we want?

I was delighted to discover that two of my favorite feminist bloggers, Professor, What if and Womanist Musings , are pooling their readership for a series of posts by Professor, What if that will address these very questions from another perspective. Here’s a little clip:

image-3
image-2

(read the rest at Womanist Musings… .).

The next 9 parts in this series, which will be posted approximately every other day, will include:

Part 2: The One True Religion: Consumerism (already up!)

Part 3: The Temple of Wal-Mart

Part 4: The Church of Disney

Part 5: The Mall as a Place of Worship

Part 6: Wearing Justice: T-shirts, Bracelets, and Ribbons, Oh my!

Part 7: Driving Your Way to Eco-Freedom: The ‘Go Green’ Message on Auto-drive

Part 8: Saving the world Oprah style: I’ll give you a million dollars to save the world…

Part 9: Think Pink: Cancer Profiteering

Part 10: Avoiding the ATM: Breaking the Consumerist Mindset

Looks pretty interesting, don’t you think?

image-4

image-5

I’m delighted when there is an explicit overlap between conversations in the feminist blogosphere and conversations in the ‘organizations and markets’  blogosphere .

Most of the time the link between these domains is apparent (at least to me) but is two or three layers below the surface, and needs to be called out to the average organizations scholar (not you all…) or business person. I’m pleased to have the chance to make the connections salient.

Plus, I read these two blogs religiously. The quality and content of what they address strengthens both the mind and the heart. And, for bonus learning, the comments on both blogs rock.

No doubt, this series of posts will be provocative and worth reading.

Of course, it would be easier to shop our values — if organizations were authentic, and were transparent about what values they prioritized and acted upon. We’ll think more about that, too.

Thanks for joining us. If these posts intrigue you, why not subscribe to AuthenticOrganizations and get posts by email? Add your email to the blue box on the upper right sidebar, and you're all set!

{ 0 comments }

Suspicious of “Authenticity”, women challenge Dove ads – Again!

by cv harquail on May 12, 2008

The latest controversy over Dove’s "Real Women" ads shows just how suspicious we are of organizations that claim they have become authentic and honest, after showing themselves to be neither.

You may already be aware of the two previous controversies related to Unilever Corporation’s Dove "Real Women" ad campaign . [Jump to previous post for an introduction to these previous controversies.] Now, here comes another controversy— Were any of the photographs used in Dove’s "Real Women, Real Beauty" campaigns modified by a famous photo retouching-innovator, Pascal Dangin?

In an Advertising Age article published May 9 , journalist Jack Neff summaries the chronology of the controversy:

  • a New Yorker article on Pascal Dangin’s innovative methods for altering photographs,
  • subsequent claims that Dangin was misquoted,
  • attempts by Ogilvy & Mather (Dove’s ad agency) and
  • Annie Leibovitz to clarify which sets of photographs were or weren’t retouched,
  • and so on.

As the pixel dust settles, it would seem that the photographs in question were not significantly retouched, and that in fact Dove’s photographs of ‘real women’ presented the women as they more or less truly appeared. And thus, the story has turned to a question of how Dove/Unilever could have but didn’t use the controversy as a marketing opportunity.

Really, Dove/Unilever could have used this controversy as an Authenticity Opportunity.

Jonah Bloom, Executive Editor of Advertising Age has written a follow-up article on how Dove/Unilever has missed a key opportunity to interact with consumers . Thinking primarily about the emerging model of marketing that focuses on what the consumer thinks and says, Bloom reminds Dove that it needs to be ready to interact with their customers at all times and give up the idea of controlling the message. Says Bloom,

"The reaction (by Dove/Unilver, Ogilvy ) also smacked of a brand, or at least an agency, still wanting to control the message rather than genuinely welcoming a fresh twist in the debate….. But the key for two-way marketers is going to be to welcome the cut and thrust of debate, whatever it might bring."

Here’s the authenticity angle:

Marketers only have to ‘control the message’ if the message/ the image they want to present is different from who the organization really is. An organization only needs to control its image when the organization is inauthentic .

Before an organization can truly welcome a debate or even a simple conversation with consumers, the organization needs at least to be striving towards authenticity. It needs to be striving to make its identity drive its image , and forget trying create an image of (what the organization thinks) would make it popular with consumers.


  • To engage in an honest conversation with consumers, an organization must speak directly from its identity. The organization’s words cannot be controlled, filtered, adjusted or photoshopped in an effort to make the organization look better or different from who it really is.
  • Honest conversations require immediacy, or at least timeliness. Adjusting the organization’s words to fit a particular image adds a step and takes a bit of time. People distrust a time lag— time lags make it look like the organization doesn’t know what to say, or worse, isn’t paying attention to consumers. (BTW, as of May 12th there is no information about this new controversy anywhere on the Dove Real Women website.)
  • Honest conversations also require humility. Adjusting the organization’s words to fit a particular image usually includes erasing blemishes, brushing away blame, and avoiding responsibility.

Organizations can present idealized, as-yet-unrealized images of themselves, but these images only hold up as long as they are supported by visible effort of the part of the organization to move itself towards this image. Once an organization’s actions are discovered to be discordant with the organization’s image, customers and stakeholders perceive the organization to be inauthentic, and they stop trusting both the organization’s word and any of its efforts to do better.

Organizations can make mistakes and still be perceived as authentic, if they respond effectively.

The organization needs to acknowledge its mistake, show that it understands consumers’ concerns, and immediately set out to correct the mistake. (See my Glamour Magazine post on this issue.)

So far, Dove/Unilever is addressing some of the facts of the situation, by explaining that only some ads were retouched, and these only in a minimal way. While this response may address the facts of the situation, it does nothing to address the truth of the situation.

  • The truth of the situation is that Dove / Unilever doesn’t get it — it doesn’t really understand its consumers. If Dove really understood women and women’s so-called ‘beauty issues’, they would reach out and engage with consumers and other stakeholders about how the photographs of real women were manipulated so that all the photos were attractive. Dove would discuss how only photogenic ‘real women’ models were chosen, Dove would have explained how the models were posed and lit to show them at their best, Dove would have shown us the original photos, and they would explain why they chose to adjust the photos before printing them.
  • If Dove really understood its consumers, Dove would admit that even an organization that wants to accept real women’s beauty as it occurs in real life still struggles with finding a balance between reality and a what the market defines as "attractiveness" . And, by admitting that the organization itself is struggling with the very issue that real women address every day, Dove might have won over their consumers’ hearts.

As it is, Dove seems either clueless (best interpretation) or caught in the act of faking it. Whatever it it, isn’t real beauty at the organizational level.

At this moment, I’m not sure whether there is a single authenticity-related ‘take away’ from Dove’s experience:

  • Does being authentic mean rejecting perfection?
  • Does being authentic require humility?
  • Does being authentic demand a certain level- but not too much- transparency?

What’s your takeaway? Let us know by clicking on the ‘comments’ line (below the photo) and adding your opinion……

corporate shills dove ad

Graffitied subway ad courtesy of jossip.com.

{ 2 comments }