Stanford Social Innovation Review, Anne Miltenburg. 2016. Social Good Is Always Good Branding - or Is It? [ONLINE] Available at https://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_good_is_always_good_brandingor_is_it
This article addresses how building a brand whose focus is solely on social impact is not a guarantee for success.
The first point to be explored is 'When a business's impact model comes under fire, the entire business can suffer'. Social enterprises such as TOMS simplify the transactions by the use of their One for One slogan. This clearly demonstrates to the consumer that one purchase means another product is donated to someone in need. However, it is not always as simple and companies can be at risk of losing credibility and sales. For example, TOMS have been criticised because of their products distorting the local markets and undercutting local suppliers. This resulted in TOMS developing a new impact model that addresses such issues and provides ways to overcome. - This is a negative that can be brought in against social enterprises.
The second point states that many businesses who are aiming for a positive impact put their social issue at the centre of the brand. However, this can sometimes affect the way that the audience view the product. This can cause a limited number of sales and a lack of overall popularity towards the business.
The third point is that the impact a business is working towards may be harder to achieve that originally thought. Here, the example is given of Tony's Chocolonely whose aim was to end the exploitation of slave labour in the chocolate supply chain. The original label read "100 percent slave-free" however it was then realized that this could not be a guarantee due to some products origins being unknown. The label was therefore changed to read "Working together to become slave-free" which still demonstrates their original aim. Due to the brand being open about their problems, the sales of the products have not suffered. This may not be the case for another brand. - This could be given as an example as a negative towards social enterprises. It demonstrates how a brand has adapted to be as transparent as they can, a quality of being an SE.
The final point in the article identifies the issue that more and more companies will incorporate social and environmental responsibilities in their message as this is seen to be the direction for the future. The SE's who put these responsibilities at the centre of the brand are said to be using a not failsafe strategy.
The third point is that the impact a business is working towards may be harder to achieve that originally thought. Here, the example is given of Tony's Chocolonely whose aim was to end the exploitation of slave labour in the chocolate supply chain. The original label read "100 percent slave-free" however it was then realized that this could not be a guarantee due to some products origins being unknown. The label was therefore changed to read "Working together to become slave-free" which still demonstrates their original aim. Due to the brand being open about their problems, the sales of the products have not suffered. This may not be the case for another brand. - This could be given as an example as a negative towards social enterprises. It demonstrates how a brand has adapted to be as transparent as they can, a quality of being an SE.
The final point in the article identifies the issue that more and more companies will incorporate social and environmental responsibilities in their message as this is seen to be the direction for the future. The SE's who put these responsibilities at the centre of the brand are said to be using a not failsafe strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment