Two words that are excessively misused these days are luxury and green. In 2007 green has been a really hot word, with everyone sticking the word on their products, services and companies, regardless of whether or not they had any basis for their claims, or even if it was in their interests to do so. Some companies have probably damaged their reputations in the process thanks to the growing consumer cynicism towards the word. Similarly, luxury has really lost its meaning recently, especially in the housing sector where every new block of flats has a sign outside advertising 'luxury apartments' for sale, despite the fact that they have nothing luxurious about them accept in the show flat thats fitted out with designer furniture that the target market could never afford.
Florian Gonzalez, a fellow member of the o2global sustainable design network, recently posted this statement that I couldn't agree more with:
"Luxury": Who is not sick of hearing the word luxury over and over again, from hamburgers to mass brands? Everytime you read the word "luxury" (be it in a brand name, brand motto, advertising visual, or in-store like in a famous London dpt store), be sure that the brand tries to prove too much. Real luxury does not have to scream its name. In addition, luxury is by definition exclusive, personal, emotional, irrational and subjective. So who is allowed to state what is officially luxurious? Well, brands who want to fool customers use the word a lot... with a view to giving a "bling bling" touch to their empty marketing and average products/services. Mind the gap.
"Green": The same is already happening with the word "green". It used to be perceived as a hippie concept, which has reached such a fame nowadays that it has become another buzz word, used by anyone for any purpose. Kitsch you said? Well, I would say that the word is going against the genuine and sincere interests of the actual eco-brands and eco-users... You find the word used for products that are 0% natural (even less organic), for charity campaigns (giving a % of the products sales to charity should not allow to call a product "green"), for fair trade products (treating fairly the local employees is a must but does not account for treating the environment fairly...) and on and on.
Following our presentation at the Sustainable Design conference at Boots Plc in Nottingham last week, here is a video version of our presentation on the future of brands in a sustainable world. It gives a brief introduction to brands, sustainability and the relationship between the two.
Ice Cream brand Ben and Jerry's have set up a Climate Change College, which has sent two young people committed to tackling climate change to the arctic to understand the problems better. The two people selected, Lesley Butler and Neil Jennings (pictured), will also spend the next 12months as ambassadors to spread the word about climate change.Some have criticised Ben and Jerry's saying that this programme really isn't enough, but Ben and Jerry's themselves have been honest that it is just a drop in the ocean and that its intended as just one initiative to encourage individuals to play their part in tackling climate change.
The critics' real worry is probably more due to the fact that Ben and Jerry's the company to Unilever, which has eroded some trust in the brand and has led to some assuming that whatever they do now is not in the true spirit of Ben and Jerry's, but just a cold marketing exercise. Jerry Greenfield admits that there is some regret about the sell out, but the Climate Change College is a project organised by the Ben and Jerry's foundation of which he is President. He was also honest about the role of business, suggesting that making blanket criticisms of business is not helpful. He acknowledged the importance of business ethics and said that "If you want to have a business that is based on values, you can do that and still make money". Quite right.
There's much talk these days about the massive power of national and multinational brands. At Scamper, we believe that brands are simply a tool that can be used for a variety of purposes, good or bad. When big brands abuse their power, its not because they are brands. Its the consequence of flawed economic systems that favour the interests of shareholders, coupled with highly irresponsible management.
An example of one such corporation is ExxonMobil. Its been hounded in recent years over its refusal to acknowledge or take action against climate change, but equally if not more shocking are their actions following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Now 18 years on, the local people whose economy was destroyed are still awaiting compensation, despite a number of court rulings in their favour.
How do they get away with it? Because they have immense financial power. But how is it that a small fishing town is still managing to keep the fight alive 18years on, against an organisation more wealthy than many nations? Because Exxon is a brand. No matter where we are from in the world, Exxon (or Esso) is a part of nearly all our lives. We can relate to the brand and have an interest in its behaviour. If the oil spill was caused by an anonymous corporation, chances are that public interest would have faded long ago.
Too much financial power is dangerous in the wrong hands and its worrying that some large corporations are able to get away with actions that are by any measure criminal, but we mustn't make the mistake of blaming 'brands' for these events. Brands are not the cause of such corporate atrocities, and if they have a role in these events it is to impose some degree of accountability on the organisations responsible. After all, its no coincidence that Exxon later removed the Exxon name from its shipping fleet.
