Aligning CSR Strategy with Brand

This is a blog I published on Cause Consulting's Blog Cause Nation a few weeks ago. I thought some of you, my lovely blog readers, might be interested to read it too. 

CSR/Sustainability and Marketing professionals have not always been the best of friends.
In fact, recently, Thomas Kolster, Creative Director and Author of Goodvertising, and Founder of Where Good Grows, posted a cartoon showing them at opposite ends of a couple’s therapy couch. However, when they do work together and see the benefits, there is potential for transformative, long-lasting social and environmental change.

So what are the requirements for a successful relationship between CSR/Sustainability and Marketing? This was the topic up for discussion at the Net Impact Boston Career Summit on Friday February 21st. Harriet Henry joined John Rooks, President, The Soap Group, Chris Mann, Vice President of Corporate Partnerships, City Year, Kyle Cahill, Senior Manager, Corporate Citizenship, Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, and Anne Erhard, SVP and NA Director, Corporate & Brand Citizenship, PurPle to discuss ‘Effective CSR Marketing: Aligning CSR Strategy with Brand Marketing Objectives.’

Here are the top five tips for effective CSR marketing discussed by the panel:

1. Start with a great strategy. An effective CSR strategy aligns closely with core business and brand objectives; the more closely aligned, the more successful it will be, and the more authentic any marketing and communications around your CSR activities will be. Take the time to develop a killer CSR strategy and engage your marketing teams in the process, as they understand your brand and target audiences better than anyone.

2. Engage your employees first. Everyone on the panel agreed that it may take time before you’re ready to communicate your CSR activities externally. Typically, your first audience is your employees; they are the people that will execute and bring the CSR strategy to life.  They are also the strongest brand ambassadors you will ever have. Only once the CSR strategy is embedded and generating wins internally should you start to think about going external.

3. Don’t try and go it alone – talk and listen to your stakeholders: It’s likely that your CSR strategy will deal with some complex social and environmental issues, and it is unlikely that you will have all the necessary expertise in-house. So go out and find subject-matter experts, nonprofits, and other stakeholders who can help you shape your plans. Even if you think you have a winning strategy, it never hurts to validate what you know and, what’s more, seeking support and guidance is respected and may win you essential allies and partners for the future.

4. Don’t preach: When you’re ready to communicate your CSR initiatives to consumers and customers, remember that they already have a long list of worries and don’t want something else to feel bad about. Make them your partners, treat them like humans and be humble. No one has all the answers and no one is perfect, so be honest and tell your consumers this. In the end, they’ll like you more for it!

5. Make it relevant and fun:  As good as it is, your CSR strategy is not what most people want to hear about. Similarly, just because you think something is important or interesting, it doesn’t mean others will. Talk to your consumers and customers, find out what they care about, and then engage them in a fun way that they will remember.

#Giving Tuesday - From Good to Great!

#GivingTuesday is the ‘antidote’ to overspending, but shouldn't we be diluting the poison?

'Lovely Bird!'

Last Thursday was my first Thanksgiving in the States. I followed advice from US friends and colleagues and spent the day eating, drinking and watching football – it’s a holiday I will be happy to adopt long term!

However, considering it’s a time of year for reflection and gratitude, it’s ironic that this is totally overshadowed by the retail advertising onslaught surrounding Black Friday and Cyber Monday. The message to consumers is not 'be thankful for what you've got,' but 'go on a spending frenzy and fill your lives with a whole lot more stuff.'

I’m not the first person to notice this. In 2012, New York’s 92nd Street YMHA, a non-profit cultural and community center, launched #GivingTuesday, a campaign to create a day of giving at the beginning of the holiday season. #GivingTuesday is a platform and a moment in time for community organizations and non-profits to raise awareness and funds for their programs and projects.

One of thousands of emails that
overtook my inbox yesterday

"The 2012 debut of #GivingTuesday saw 2,500 partners signed on and a 53% hike in charitable donations over the same day the year prior." It’s not just individuals involved; companies are also making and matching donations, and facilitating and incentivizing employee volunteering.

On the one hand, I really like the concept of #GivingTuesday; it helps non-profits maximize revenue generation in the build-up to Christmas and, as Aaron Sherinian, Vice President for Communications and Public Relations at the United Nations Foundation puts it, break through the retail noise and "offer an opening day for people to talk more loudly about what they're doing." Philanthropy is such an important part of US culture that it seems right for it to be celebrated during the holiday period. As Co-founder Henry Timms, Deputy Executive Director of New York’s 92nd Street YMHA, explains "We have two days that are good for the economy. Here's a new day good for the soul."

However, there’s a part of me that can’t help but feel like the concept of #GivingTuesday simply perpetuates the 'offset mentality' – in other words, spend now and atone for it (in a slightly removed way) later. It’s even marketed as "the antidote to overspending this holiday season".

I would also question whether #GivingTuesday really engages existing donors or reaches anyone who does not already make donations. Going to the Facebook page, you are confronted with endless petitions for support from a multitude of non-profit partners. Just like the Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals, it’s hard to work out what is worthy of your money and what isn't, so if you don’t already have an organization or cause in mind then where do you start? Is #GivingTuesday missing the opportunity to engage existing donors in a meaningful way to build long-term, sustainable relationships, as well as reaching out to those who wouldn't normally think to support a non-profit?

To take it a step further - what if #GivingTuesday was not something separate? What if, retailers donated a small percentage of every purchase made on Black Friday or Cyber Monday to support a strategic non-profit partner and make a big impact on a challenging social issue, or better yet but even more wishful, pledged to invest in making their businesses better for consumers, employees, suppliers, and the wider world. That would be something worth celebrating!

It's Complicated But It Doesn't Have to Be

Consumers need clarity to help them make the right choices and live more sustainable lifestyles

Bike schemes are now a common feature of most major cities. The front runner was Paris with its Velib; London has its Boris Bikes; Boston has its Hubway; and now New York City has Citi Bikes. The Citi Bikes first appeared in May and since then ‘NYC bikers have collectively pedaled 9.4M miles and taken over 4.7M trips’ – the scheme has been a great success. What I was interested to read is that the launch of the bike scheme coincides with a ‘12-point increase’ in the number of consumers who believe that Citi Bank is a ‘socially responsible company’. This is a huge jump considering the high level of consumer mistrust in the banking sector - poor Barclays must be kicking themselves for letting Boris Johnson get all the credit for the London scheme!

The extent to which positive perceptions of Citi Bank as a responsible citizen can be attributed to the company’s support for the bike scheme is unclear; however, it does raise questions about how consumers judge companies and brands.

Almost every week there are new survey results claiming that consumers increasingly believe that it’s important to factor social and environmental factors into their purchase decisions. Last month, BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility released the 2013 Aspirational Consumer Index. According to the results, 92% of ‘aspirational’ consumers (36.4% of consumers globally) ‘desire for responsible consumption’ and 58% ‘trust in brands to act in the best interest of society’. What’s more, a staggering 90% ‘of them are even willing to pay more for products produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way’. Bear in mind that it is very easy to make these claims in a survey without actually doing the action in real life. This aside, the question for me is how consumers feel able to make these decisions when they are surrounded by so many conflicting messages.

A recent interview with Mark Crumpacker, Chief Marketing Officer at Chipotle, highlights the predicament of the consumer trying to make informed decisions. He cites the example of a competitor restaurant that lists grilled chicken that is ‘cage-free, skinless with no hormones added’ on its menu. Sold? The reality is that boiler chickens are never raised in cages and there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved hormones for use in chickens. The important consideration when it comes to chicken is whether or not antibiotics are used but this gets no mention. The restaurant in question seems to be intentionally misleading its customers.

It is not always so intentional. Just the other week Good Morning America featured a story about a woman in the UK who claimed that drinking 6 bottles of water a day had made her look 10 years younger. I’m not going to go into the validity of the claim – let’s just say that the light was significantly more flattering in the after image! What worried me was that the presenters were telling viewers how important it was to drink plenty of water, while sipping from plastic bottles. Not once did anyone think to refer to drinking from re-usable water bottles or glasses. Why should they? The story was not about recycling or sustainability right?

My instinct is to call on companies and brands to make it easy for consumers; reward consumer trust in brands to act in the best interests of society by actually acting in the best interests of society. After all, the task of educating consumers to make the right decisions feels like a daunting prospect.

However, as Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, writes in his book Change by Design, in reality it has to be a ‘two-way process’. ‘If people do not wish companies to treat them like passive consumers, they must step up to the controls and assume their fair share of responsibility. This means that we cannot sit back and wait for new choices to emerge from the inner sanctum of corporate marketing departments, R&D labs, and design studios.’

In order to help consumers live up to their side of the contract, at the very least, there needs to be transparency so that consumers who want it, have the necessary information to make informed decisions. This is vital to help us all, as a global society, move further along the path to more sustainable consumption.

It's been emotional!

Don't worry about the tennis; it's the tears that count!

When Andy Murray broke down in tears during his runner up speech at Wimbledon in 2012, it was a turning point in his career. Not only in his tennis career – he then went on to win an Olympic Gold Medal and the U.S. Open – but in his ‘public’ career. It was the moment that he was accepted and started to be cherished by the British media and the British Public. Andy Murray has always been a fantastic tennis player, but it wasn't until he showed his human and slightly more fallible side that people started to believe in him. Emotion is very powerful.

Recently I've been thinking quite a bit about emotion and the role it plays in inspiring change. My instinct when it comes to selling in sustainable business practices has always been to move away from emotion and stick to rational arguments; after all, the struggle has always been to get leaders to see sustainability as core to the business so how would bringing emotion into it help? Of course communications to engage employees and consumers could depict human stories in a conversational and approachable way, but not the communications to Senior Leaders or Management. My view on this is starting to change.

In his book, Start With Why, Simon Sinek makes the compelling argument that “people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it” – you might remember this from my blog on 21st April. Simon argues that inspiring people with why you do what you do, appeals to the Limbic part of the brain, which is separate to the area of the brain which processes rational, analytical thought and language. The Limbic brain is “responsible for all our feelings, such as trust and loyalty…It is also responsible for all human behavior and all our decision making” (Ch.4). Based on this, the easiest way to persuade or convince your audience to make a decision or take action, is to appeal first to the heart and then to the mind. As Simon points out in his book “I can’t help but wonder if the order of the expression ‘hearts and minds’ is a coincidence…Why does no one set out to win ‘minds and hearts’?” (Ch.4)

So, we need to bring more emotion to the table. The increasing focus on a company’s purpose – the why – enables us to do this whilst remaining within the comfort zone of most business leaders. Over the past few months, I have been working with a U.S.company to help it articulate its core purpose. Last week, the purpose was unveiled to the wider leadership of the organization and, considering that the audience was predominantly made up of middle class men, it was a surprisingly emotional event; there were tears! On reflection, it isn't that surprising – a purpose makes the connection to the broader ‘why’ of the business; it demonstrates the human/social impact of the business beyond generating profits and, inevitably, provokes people to question their own values and motivations. However, it was incredible to see the energy, enthusiasm and inspiration as every member of the company’s leadership team understood the positive, human impact of what they do every day.

Ultimately, in order to influence change within the corporate world, we need to tailor the message to suit whatever type of organization or people we are dealing with. However, emotion and business, particularly as we move towards business as a force for social, environmental and economic good, are not as far apart as they first seem.

Method in the madness - brand confusion in Boston

Making the move to the States felt like it should be an easy transition to make – same language, similar
culture and standard of living…right? However, there are a couple of things that I didn’t anticipate. One, technically we speak the language but the reality is that we really don’t – trying to order tomatoes at the deli is a nightmare! Second, the disorientation from not recognizing brands. My first few trips to the supermarket were fairly time consuming outings as I tried to work out what was good/bad. Particularly as a ‘concerned consumer' who would prefer to pick products that are sustainably sourced, produced and packaged; it bought it home to me just how much you rely on brand recognition as you make your day-to-day choices.

In the UK, my go-to brand for washing detergent or cleaning products was Ecover. Not only does the brand have great sustainability credentials – it creates plastic packaging from raw sugar cane, has green roofs on its factories and introduced the first phosphate-free washing powder – but the products also work really well without the need for potentially harmful chemicals. So, on arriving in Boston, I was on the hunt for the American equivalent.

Meet Method. It first came to my attention when I read about an amazing company that was making packaging from ‘ocean plastic’, the several million tons of plastic that ends up in the oceans every year. Then I saw a video of Eric Ryan talking at the Conscious Capitalism Conference – dressed as a crazy scientist he stood out a bit – and now I find out that Method and Ecover have just merged to form the World’s largest ‘green cleaning company’.  It’s rapidly gone from being a brand I’d never heard of, to one that seems to appear everywhere!

What’s interesting is the impact that brands such as Method are having on the cleaning industry. Other companies and brands in the sector are starting to think about the impact of their products on the environment – just look at Clorox Green Works, which launched a huge new campaign this year, injecting some rare humor and attitude into its communications.

It will be interesting to see what happens following the Ecover-Method merger. In contrast to lots of the ‘good’ brands that have been bought by larger conglomerates e.g. Kraft + Green & Blacks, and Innocent + Coca Cola) this is a ‘marriage’ of equals. The merger will give both brands additional leverage in their existing and new markets and it’s unlikely that their sustainability credentials will only become more impressive.

In the meantime, I have solved my brand confusion and my house is clean – still looking for a reliable brand of chocolate though. Might take some time!

Would you buy a cup of coffee for a stranger?

A couple of blog posts ago I talked about the 'pay what you can' model that was being rolled out by Panera. Then today I came across a video on the BBC about the concept of Suspended Coffees. First started in Naples, the idea is that consumers can buy an extra or 'suspended' coffee for someone in need. Just like the 'pay what you can' model, it's a simple way to enable consumers to do something good as part of their everyday routine. It has certainly inspired Starbucks, which recently announced that it will shortly be rolling out a version of the Suspended Coffee scheme in the UK. However, whilst the original scheme was based entirely on trust - recipients of Suspended Coffees didn't need to prove that they justified the gift - Starbucks is retaining some control through partnering with the charity Oasis. For each Suspended Coffee purchased, Starbucks will make a donation to Oasis and coffees to the value donated will be distributed through the charity's community hubs around the country.

It's great that Starbucks is taking the Suspended coffee idea and using its size, scale and influence to take it to  huge numbers of people around the world. My only question is whether, by formalizing the model through a more conventional charity partnership, the idea loses some of its magic? We shall see... In the meantime, look out for Suspended Coffees in a Starbucks near you.

People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it

Back in the days when I was fundraising for a nonprofit, my communications always focused in on the 'why' – what is the need or problem and why is it important that we address it now. Of course, the funders that I was talking or writing to were interested in what we were doing to address the problem, but, ultimately, the reason that they decided to make a donation was based on the difference that they thought it would make, the positive impact that they would have on the cause in question. Learning to present the 'why' in a compelling way was fundamental.

The importance of the 'why' reaches far beyond the realms of the fundraising world. Simon Sinek, author of Start With Why, gave a great TED talk back in September 2009 that explains the importance of the 'why'. It’s a great talk and I would thoroughly recommend watching it but, in short, the key point is that what inspired leaders and inspired organizations have in common is that they focus on why they do what they do, rather than simply what they do. He uses the example of Apple which sells its products by sharing the core belief that is driving the business – as Simon Sinek puts it, they say to us, “Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make computers. Want to buy one?" It seems so obvious but it’s amazing how few companies actually do this.

However, where understanding the ‘why’ can be really powerful is in terms of understanding the broader purpose of a company – the reason it exists and what it brings to society/the world. Apple is actually an interesting example because it hasn’t done this. Whilst Apple clearly understands the ‘why’ in terms of product strategy and marketing, it has been slow to recognize, articulate or act on the social or environmental opportunities of the business. You could say that it's only identified half its purpose. In today’s world, consumers want more than that – they want to understand the ‘why’ of a company from a product/business perspective as well as a social perspective. By understanding and articulating their ‘why’ or ‘purpose’, companies are in a much stronger position to drive authentic, sustainability activity, derived from the core of the business.

Empowering consumers to do good

Back in 2007, the band Radiohead released its album In Rainbows without a price tag. This was a deliberate ploy to give fans the freedom to pay what they thought it was worth. When you went to the website to download the album, instead of a price, the words 'it's up to you' appeared in the check out box. Although, it's difficult to get a clear answer on the success of this initiative - the band's Publisher did reveal that "Radiohead made more money before In Rainbows was physically released than they made in total on the previous album Hail To the Thief". Perhaps, though, this says more about the quality of the previous album!

Nevertheless, the concept of letting the consumer decide the price is a really interesting idea, particularly when you link it to a social cause. Back in 2003, Denise Cerreta pioneered her 'pay what you can' model, setting up the One World Cafe in Salt Lake City, Utah. Her vision was "to help people see the value of food as more than a mere consumable but rather, as a glue and a catalyst for healthy people, relationships and communities". It seems to have been very successful. The idea of paying what you can to support others who are less able to pay appealed to consumers' social conscience and generosity and what's more, as Denise puts it, "because customers choose their own prices, their portions tend to be more mindful and reflect that they will actually want to eat, with the result being little or no food waste". Denise now advises cafe owners all over the world on how to put the 'pay what you can' model in place, including a recent high profile adopter, the nationwide bakery chain, Panera.

For non-U.S. readers, Panera claims to stand for so much more than simply being a place to get great soups, salads and sandwiches. You can find out more by watching its recently launched Live Consciously, Eat Deliciously commercial:

Back in 2010, Panera trialed the 'pay what can model' at a new Panera Cares Community Cafe in St Louis. It went so well that now you'll find Community Cafes in Michigan, Oregon, Chicago and Boston. Just like the One World Cafe, the company plans to cover the cost of meals for those who can't afford to pay with money collected by those who overcompensate by paying more. According to an article in the International Business Times, the cafes bring in "an estimated 70-80% of the revenue compared to stores that stick to the traditional menu prices" but Ron Shaich, founder and CEO, claims "that's still enough to make a profit". If it continues to go well, the plan is to open other community cafes, as well as to roll out a 'pay what you can' promotions across selected menu items in over 1,500 of the company's locations across North America.

Of course there will always be consumers who take advantage - a number of Radiohead's so-called fans didn't pay a cent to download the album - however, putting a social cause at the heart of it does help reduce this risk. A 2010 study conducted by Leif Nelson of the University of California supports this - it found that customers at pay-what-you-want establishments are more likely to donate when charity is involved. What I like about the initiative is its simplicity - it's such a great way for a company to 'team up' and connect with its consumers to have a meaningful social impact in a really straightforward way. It also, crucially, maintains an element of choice. Let's be honest, for most of us, it's not really a choice because our social conscience tells us what we should do, however, the appeal feels much more positive; Panera is empowering us to be generous, not appealing to us, as many organizations do, through guilt.

Embrace change - it leads to success

Nike has made huge leaps forward in addressing the social and environmental impacts of its business. Not so long ago, the company was mired in controversy over allegations of human rights abuses in the factories making its shoes and clothing around the world – there were large protests, boycotts and widespread criticism from the media. Today, it's considered a sustainability leader.

The company’s vision is to deliver innovation and inspiration to every athlete and sustainability is central to how they do that. Hannah Jones, VP of Sustainable Business and Innovation at Nike Inc., summed up the approach in a recent tweet:

The key word is ‘innovation’ and ‘opportunity’. In order to become more sustainable, businesses need to see it as an opportunity and it means change, not a few tweaks here and there, but real change. The good news, to steal Hannah Jones’s tweet style, is that change = profit.

A recent report by MIT Sloane Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group, The Innovation Bottom Line, demonstrates the link between business model change and profiting from sustainability. 50% of survey respondents (executives and managers from commercial enterprises) who had changed 3 or 4 elements of their business strategy said that they had profited from sustainability activities:

And more change = more likely profit because, as you can see, only 37% of the respondents who had changed one element of the business model said that sustainability adds profits.

The change doesn't end with the business model, as report outlines, to “hit the sustainability bull’s-eye”, there needs to be:

• Support from the top and full integration across the business
• Clear goals and effective measurement - get the numbers that people can’t ignore
• Understand what your customers think and want in terms of sustainability
• Collaborate with individuals, customers, businesses and groups outside the business

Check out the report for more details - there are some interesting statistics. 

In the words of Charles Darwin “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” 

What good can come of Horsegate?

The new arrival

There was a rather strange new arrival at Boston’s Logan Airport this weekend – a giant red cow. It was shipped in from Switzerland by the owners of family-run Massachusetts bakery Swissbäkers, who are opening up a new bakery in Boston and will be adorning the new location with this bovine statue. The best bit is that they’re running a competition to name the animal – surely, in the wake of the horse meat scandal, this is a chance to have a bit of fun - you might opt for Red Beauty, or Red Stallion or even Skydancer? Although I have a feeling this might be lost on most Americans.

Perhaps not so much in Europe where controversy about Horsegate continues to grow… Just today Ikea pulled meatballs from its UK stores as a precautionary measure and Nestlé faced further questions about its involvement with the scandal. The food industry is firmly back in the spotlight and the whole situation raises a huge number of questions about supply chain management, food sourcing, and, most of all, about trust.

Whilst child labor scandals associated with fashion brands such as GAP or H&M have led to boycotts, the food industry is in an even more precarious position because of the nature of the consumer's relationship with food. It’s linked to survival, nourishment and, even, comfort; the fact that consumers have been duped about what exactly they're eating feels like a much bigger violation than finding out the truth about how their t.shirts are made. It’s not even the fact that we’re talking about horse meat, although admittedly for some this is a real sticking point, it’s really the fact that consumers feel they've been tricked by the brands they thought they could trust.

So how is this going to play out? What can the food industry do to win back consumer trust? To be honest, it’s a bit too soon to tell as we’ve yet to understand the full extent of the problem. At the very least, this should serve as a wake-up call to companies who are not taking steps to address responsible business practices across their supply chain. There are good examples of what can be done to inspire and support supply chain partners to take a more responsible approach to the way they do business, e.g. Walmart, who selects its suppliers based on whether or not they adhere to the same social and environmental standards, rather than purely on price, and who has opened up a dialogue to “learn, connect, inspire and drive sustainability through collaboration”; or GAP, which is helping its suppliers to improve their human resource capabilities to prevent problems, such as underage workers, becoming an issue in the first place. However, there is still a way to go and many more companies that need to act.

In the longer term, perhaps this controversy will prove enough of a disruption to accelerate a number of companies – not just the food industry – to think differently about the way they do business. In Corporate Citizenship’s report, Future Business – the four mega-trends that every company needs to prepare for, which was published today, there is clear evidence that the period of choice is over. By that, I mean that the era when businesses could decide whether or not to do business in a more sustainable way is coming to a close; in the future, and as we’re already starting to see today, rapid population growth, increasingly limited resources, emerging markets becoming more powerful, as well as changing consumer demands and increased scrutiny via social media, will force private companies to adapt or risk going bust. Wouldn’t it be easier to take action now? That would be a positive outcome from Horsegate.

A Brief Coffee Update

The values are on the wall - literally!

One of my first blog posts after moving to Boston was about my frustration at being given disposal coffee cups, regardless of whether I was drinking in or taking away. I'm happy to say that I have since been shown that there are exceptions! The Thinking Cup serves you great coffee in a non-disposable cup, as does Render Coffee Bar, which also has yummy chocolate and macadamia cookies. However, en route to explore Charleston today, I discovered the Equal Exchange Cafe. This sells products from Equal Exchange, a co-op founded in New England, which has an inspiring vision: "We invite you to share in our vision of a better world — a vision that connects us more closely to the food we eat and to the farmers who grow it". Over its 20-year lifespan, the co-operative has worked tirelessly to bring consumers fairly traded coffee as well as other products such as tea, sugar, chocolate and bananas. In the beginning, the idea of more equitable relationships with farmers was written off by the specialty coffee industry as absurd; however today, Equal Exchange believes there are "400 coffee companies purchasing at least a small portion of their coffee under Fair Trade terms". A great success story, although the co-op is clear that it still has a long way to go.

The cafe near the Charleston Bridge in Boston is a place where Equal Exchange can engage consumers in the importance of fair trade and the great tasting results - and the results are good! What's more, they give you a discount if you use your own cup:

Sustainable Soda Stream Commercial Causes Controversy

So just in case you hadn't noticed (ahem), yesterday was Super Bowl Sunday; not only the climax of the football season, but apparently also the second largest day for food consumption in the USA after Thanksgiving, and the day when companies are prepared to fork out as much as $4 million for a 30 second advertising spot. With viewing figures of over 110 million in recent years, it's not surprising that the Super Bowl commercial spots command such a premium price. Getting it right can give a huge boost to a brand - think of the 'Wassup' Budweiser frogs - and getting it wrong means weeks and weeks of re-runs, media commentary and social media mentions; not ideal but not always a bad thing either...

After all the build up last week - and yes I'm still talking about the commercials rather than the football, they even air commercials for the commercials - I was expecting to see some creative advertising. Unfortunately I'd have to agree with Stuart Elliott from the New York Times that "the commercials that CBS broadcast nationally during the game were, by and large, disappointing". And, disappointingly, from a sustainability perspective, the only advert that even touched on the subject was the controversial Soda Stream creation from ad man turned consumer and social advocate Alex Bogusky. 

It was touch and go as to whether or not the Soda Stream advert would even be aired as it showed "denigration of the bottled drinks market" and would upset Pepsi and Coca Cola who are major sponsors of the game. In the end, it was agreed that a 'gentler ad' that doesn't mention any specific soft drink brands.  This is not the first time that this advert has caused controversy, in fact, it has even been banned in the UK. However, as we've seen, trying to prevent these adverts being seen can actually do more harm than good - the unaired version of the commercial has already clocked up nearly 4 million views on You Tube and counting...

I would like to say that Soda Stream's commercial is a sign of things to come - Super Bowl Commercials will start to portray meaningful, values-led messages, rather than meaningless stunts and celebrity appearances; however, I don't think we're there yet. Nevertheless, it is good to see a brand using a sustainability message to differentiate itself from its competitors.

Don't forget about business

As we're new to Boston, we're being keen beans and doing all the tourist 'must sees'. At the end of last week we went to the Harvard Museum of Natural History, which has some amazing exhibitions and a huge collection of skeletons and fossils that will excite even the most sceptical visitor. One of the exhibits, put together in collaboration with the Harvard University Center for the Environment, is about climate change: how this has affected our planet in the past and what challenges we face in the future. The best bit of this exhibition was a video outlining the actions required to slow climate change and what this means financially for each family in the USA. At points, those watching the video are asked to vote as to whether or not they're willing to take these actions. Perhaps the most testing question is whether or not individuals in the USA are prepared for the government to invest in climate change initiatives in other less-developed areas of the world i.e. individuals in the USA pay for changes in their own country as well as funding initiatives in developing countries. Not an easy question to answer by any means, especially when the financial costs are made clear...

However, it's not just individuals and the government that need to take action. What is missing from this video is the role that business plays in tackling climate change. Whilst there are actions that individuals and governments can take, there are also ways that the business community can make a huge difference through their own initiatives and through collaboration with others. Real and lasting change will happen when all these efforts combine.

In a post on the BSR blog the other week, Solitaire Townsend, Cofounder of Futerra Sustainability Communications, talks about the critical role of brands in influencing and changing consumer behavior. As she puts it: "Brands carry promises and guide our behaviors—from doing laundry to buying a new car... As consumers struggle to balance their aspirations with reality, they will look to brands for answers. Right now they are asking, but soon they will be demanding.” Of course, the way that businesses respond to these demands will be very different - it might be through a transition to a new business model and, as Fiona Bennie describes it in her blog Same Brand, Different Business Model on the Sustainable Brands Blog, "[holding] customers' hands as they transition to and adopt new ways of consuming, of lending and borrowing, and ultimately of meeting their needs". Or through the adoption of more 'durable design' so that products change over time and continue to interest and inspire their owners. These are just some of the ways that businesses can work to make their own operations and the lives of consumers more sustainable.

What's important for consumers to understand is that they're not alone. Whilst this doesn't mean we should all sit back and do nothing; we shouldn't be daunted by the action that needs to be taken because businesses, governments and individuals are all in this together!