Don't forget the profit opportunities |
A few
weeks ago, flicking through my Twitter feed, I came across a retweeted contribution
from one Douglas Carswell, the newly-elected – and first – UKIP MP.
In just
147 characters, he managed to mention both “sofa government” and “citizen
consumers”.
The former
is all about government policy being made by senior ministers and a handful of
advisors.
The latter
refers to an idea that citizens, via their consumption, can ensure that
companies make ethical decisions.
It has
been done. In the 1980s, declining sales of aerosols producing CFCs forced
manufacturers to rethink the products and come up with less environmentally
damaging solutions.
But apart
from such high-profile campaigns, how much can it work?
For
instance, will enough people to make a difference boycott companies that pay
such low wages that the taxpayer has to top them up in order for workers to be
able to afford to live?
Underlying
it all is the ideology of deregulation: if the consumer makes the choices, no
government intervention would be needed. And, of course, The Market, given free
rein, will provide the ‘perfect’ results (as though the market were somehow not
entirely dependent on human intervention, including political intervention and
decisions – but that’s a different subject).
All of
which sounds lovely, but is as divorced from reality as telling people that, if
regulations are removed and those at the top were just allowed to do whatever
they want in order to make money, the increased wealth would ‘trickle down’ to
everyone else.
It also
supposes that the majority of people are, when being consumers, able to make
ethical choices that often mean spending at least a little more cash – or that
most people have the time or inclination to investigate the ethics behind every
purchase that they make, which itself often means digging quite deep behind the
façade of corporate bullshit.
Blingtastic way to remember the war dead |
In terms
of affording the ethical, the fallacy of trickle-down is a major factor in why
incomes for the majority have fallen, putting increasing numbers of people in a
position where they can less and less afford to look for those ethical options.
Research
in the US suggests that consumers (or at least some) want the companies that
they buy from to be involved with ‘causes’.
I’ve dealtwith ‘cause marketing’ on this blog previously, but this is just another take
on the same thing, spun a little differently and taking it to the level of political
ideology.
Over the
weekend, there appeared on my TV an advert from Sainsbury’s, linking that store
with the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal.
The
company offered, among other things, to recycle your poppy if you return it to
the store after use. The advert describes a commitment to the past – and the
future – with images of an elderly man (a veteran, presumably) and a young boy
(a future veteran?), while also noting that stores sell a range of poppy-related
objects (such as an umbrella), with proceeds going to the Legion.
So, is
Sainsbury’s doing all this out a genuine sense of charity/patriotism?
Well, it
might be. It is entirely possible that the company’s head honchos feel a deep
commitment to remembrance and to the wellbeing of veterans.
But on the
other hand, that’s not why it’s being advertised in such a way. It’s being
advertised to show the company in such a light that it will encourage customers
to shop there.
That is
not ethical: it is nothing other, at core, than trying to profit from war.
Oh,
Sainsbury’s might not make a penny from any poppy-related purchase or act of
education or recycling – some of these might even cost the company money. But
all that is an investment.
The
chances of someone responding to that advert just to pop this year’s used poppy
in a recycling tub (instead of in the recycling bag or box they get from the
local waste collection service), and not then doing some shopping there seems a
tad unlikely.
Will
people really decide to make an extra shopping trip just to go to Sainsbury’s –
when they do not do so usually – to buy a poppy brolly – when you can choosefrom seven different poppy umbrellas at the Royal British Legion’s own online shop – and then walk out and not pick up a few odds and ends for that midweek supper?
This is about persuading the ‘citizen consumer’ to
shop at Sainsbury’s because it shows obvious, outward support for a cause that
that shopper cares about. The adverts are deliberately placed to coincide with
the annual remembrance ceremonies and Armistice Day.
They won’t be appearing next April, with a message
that Sainsbury’s is still caring about remembrance and veterans, even when no
poppies are on sale and no commemorations are scheduled.
Poppy pizzas from Tesco |
If Sainsbury’s cared about remembrance and veterans,
and not profits, it wouldn’t spend hundreds of thousands of pounds creating
advertising campaigns on the issue. It could donate that cash to the Legion instead,
without making a hoo-ha about it that simply screams: ‘just look how good we
are by doing charidee stuff’.
This is cause marketing, aimed at the citizen consumer,
and with the prime intent of increasing footfall and, with that, profits.
Of course, Sainsbury’s is far from being alone in such
behavior. Indeed, Bill King spotted Tesco selling ‘poppy pizzas’.
A Tesco pizza is probably tasteless anyway, but this takes it to a whole new level.
And there will be be countless more companies playing the same sort of games.
A Tesco pizza is probably tasteless anyway, but this takes it to a whole new level.
And there will be be countless more companies playing the same sort of games.
So perhaps
the ‘real’ citizen consumer should, then, deliberately refuse to spend money at
companies that so blatantly exploit the war dead to make a buck.
They might
also consider that the Royal British Legion needs funds to help veterans,
because governments that send people to war rarely seem much interested in those
veterans once they return, and thus the public is left to fill the pick up the
pieces via charitable donation.
But then
again, all this would involve real and meaningful ethical or moral choices: and
that is not what the concepts of ‘citizen consumer’ and ‘cause marketing’ are
remotely about.