Suzanne Vita Palazzo of Grocery Headquarters wrote an article surveying some of the leading food companies with a social mission and mentioned KIND and PeaceWorks as a pioneer "revolutionizing the business model for an ethical brand."
Here is a great blog piece on the psychology of magic - how Magicians manipulate the mind in ways that psychologists can borrow/learn from.
Another great article on on mind, magic, and con men’s marketing.
This is neat. Could be useful for a viral marketing campaign.
THE BALL
You must click on the ball to make it change colors.
Click here: http://mazzanet.id.au/ball.php
Mike Edwards questions whether the trendy concept of philantrocapitalism exemplified by Bill Gates is as effective as the uncritical buzz it is generating. And he raises questions worthy of consideration, including this one in his q&a:
…what are the actual effects of business involvement in activities that are intended to promote social change? Where is business involvement useful, where might it be damaging, and do we have the evidence to separate one from the other? Here’s a list of things that business could usefully do:
- pay your taxes
- don’t produce goods that harm people
- pay decent wages and benefits
- stop subverting politics
- obey regulations in the public interest
The problem is, philanthrocapitalism does none of these things.
Well, business actually has a pivotal role to play beyond the basic code of decency Mike Edwards lists above. As the primary force in the 21st century, the private sector can make enormous positive contributions into our lives.
I am a strong advocate of engineering market forces to achieve positive change, marrying the business model to the social mission, as we’ve endeavored to do for the last fifteen years at PeaceWorks.
And I am similarly an advocate of using entrepreneurial and creative practices commonly found in the private sector to maximize impact in civil society, as we try to do at OneVoice.
But beyond critical appraisal of "philantrocapitalism’s" effectiveness advocated in Mike’s article, what most resonates and troubles me about the unexamined noise with this and the broader concept of "corporate social responsibility" is that often it is used to mask dishonest or noxious behavior from corporations, to create bland appearances about business contributions to society while hiding under the carpet abhorrent behaviors that may be the primary driver of a business.
Certainly, a company cannot justify or sugarcoat ruthless practices, or an underlying business model that harms people just by affixing the "csr" motto to its ads. Unlike when people purchased indulgences from the medieval Church to swiftly absolve them for abominable sins, you cannot (or should not be able to) donate your way into brand heaven in the 21st century.
In sharp contrast to Mike’s provocative article, take a look at this piece in TIME Magazine where Bill Gates discovers the field of social entrepreneurship for humanity, dubbing it "creative capitalism." Gates first announced this discovery in Davos back in January, where he was given 45 minutes to share how he conceived a utilitarian servile version of social responsibility. It struck me he had just discovered and repackaged a field long in existence, just as he appropriated the netscape browser and apple’s operating system.
Social contributions should have a soul, a sentiment, and a sincerity of purpose. Corporations are driven by human beings, so hopefully they will be driven to make our world better because this too is their world. I have yet to meet a business person (or a human being) that does not care about the world. But the trouble is that sometimes some corporate business models or junctures present people with concentrated profit-maximizing opportunities that cause harm to society overall. And no amount of "CSR" should exculpate taking the wrong path - whether by lobbying the government to help a specific industry at the expense of the community or the environment, or by undermining competition, or any of the items in Mike’s list.
In the end, consumers will see through corporate efforts to manipulate causes just to make them look hip and responsible. Alas, along with the unscrupulous corporation so too will fall the credibility of this important space - the sincere intersection between doing well and doing good.
A new site just launched that analyzes food product labels for ingredients that may or may not be good for you. Too many items pose as "healthy" while containing ingredients like high fructose corn syrup which labelwatch exposes here as not healthful.
The site is not perfect yet; it’s search engine is clunky; and it still is missing KIND Fruit & Nut bars, which are the #1 Healthy Snack bar line (in terms of market share growth of entire space over each of the last 3 years, and #3 in overall size already in natural industry, according to SPINS, IRI and Nielsen). But it is a good start.
And the corollary to the earlier post is that obesity in children has reached epidemic proportions, causing Type 2 diabetes and many other health complications that stay with them beyond childhood for the rest of their lives.
There are other key health challenges to children, that the food industry needs to tackle…
A report last week from the Federal Trade Commission found that the makers of soda, fast food, cereals and other products spent $1.6 billion in 2006 on marketing aimed at children and teenagers.
…While almost $500 million a year is spent on soda advertising, only $11 million is spent on ads for fruit and vegetables.
I’ve always admired Coke’s marketing. And, like most big companies, it has been careful to be genuine when making specific claims. Yes, it is lifestyle-centered and romantic, so it gets carried away - but that is what has made it such a majestic brand. And you don’t normally have big companies make ridiculous claims they can’t stand by. They are too smart for that. Alas, Coke has now come out with the preposterous claim that its formula has "no artificial ingredients."
Say that again? The drink is a definition of artificial. Tasty. But artificial. Without getting into whatever secret ingredients that are over-processed by definition, and without getting into carbonation, you need to go no further than one of its core ingredients: High fructose corn syrup (HFCS). HFCS is a definition of a man-made chemically-created compound - no matter what lobbyist may try to dupe is into confusing us and harming our health - to the point that HFCS doesn’t even get absorbed by the liver and bypasses it, forming fat directly, and contributing to obesity.
It is embarrassing that an institution like Coca-Cola would be part of an effort to destroy the meaning of "all natural." And to contribute to America’s obesity and diabetes epidemics through misinformation.
Before you watch this, make SURE you watch the earlier post about Matt (here).
