Building Sustainable Brands

Scamper was founded on the philosophy that brands are an extremely powerful business tool, and that if used to promote positive organisations, then they can encourage social and environmental improvement.

With this in mind, we have recently introduced a new slogan “building sustainable brands”, which highlights a couple of key changes to the way that we work:

1. Although we specialise in brand creation and implementation, there are other specialist organisations that can play a valuable role in ensuring the success of a brand. We will therefore be building a network ethical service providers (such as Rapid Apps and Eurydice PR) to help our clients get the most out of their brands.
2. We will be using our branding expertise in-house to develop our own ethical brands and spin-off businesses. Watch this space more information!

This blog is supported by Scamper Brand Strategy - Ethical Branding Experts.

Actions speak louder than Words

I've noticed recently that there have been a lot of companies making claims about their businesses, products and services that they cannot substantiate, particularly when it comes to environmental credentials. Here's a bit of quick advice for anyone thinking of jumping on the bandwagon.

People like to hear interesting stories - sometimes good, and sometimes bad. So if you're doing something good that will interest your target market, then by all means tell them all about it. It will gain their attention, raise their perceptions about you, and give them something positive to tell to friends, family and colleagues. There is no better way to promote yourself.

However, you should never underestimate your customer. Many companies, particularly in their marketing strategies, think that it is sufficient to simply tell the customer good stories. Big mistake! Customers may well want to hear the stories that you are telling them, but thats because they want them to be true. Therefore, if they find out that you're claims are not entirely honest then you're in trouble.

If you're not what you say you are, you'll get found out. Your story may have been good, but the story about how you misled them and others is even better! That will be the story that spreads.

Overselling yourself may well help you increase short term sales, but it will destroy your brand and your business in the long run. It will raise suspicions, generate rumors, and turn customers away.

Its quite simple. If you want a successful, sustainable business, then make sure that you can live up to your promises. If you're doing something good, then tell the world about it, but if you're not as good as your customers would want you to be, then you're better off keeping your mouth shut.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Sustainable Brands 07

This week is Sustainable Brands 07, the international conference on business sustainability. It's taking place in New Orleans from 26-28 September and many multinational brands will be in attendance. Visit http://www.sustainablelifemedia.com/events/sustainablebrands07 for more information.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Why should I buy eco?

A new brand of carbon neutral car insurance has been launched on the UK market. Ibuyeco joins the likes of CIS and Climatesure in providing car insurance policies with carbon offsets. It’s a positive sign that public interest is now sufficient to justify the creation of another brand and it will hopefully increase the demand in the category.

However, it is a shame that with their name and product offering, they are clearly still targeting their services at the environmentally conscious minority.

Look below the surface and ibuyeco is simply an online insurance broker, who find you a competitive quote from a third party provider and add on some carbon offsetting, provided by the Carbon Neutral Company.

The trouble is, that as ibuyeco is basically selling two separate things – insurance and carbon offsets, it’s not clear what their brand really offers. With no background information or product innovation, the brand has no real value in itself, other than the benefit of combining two transactions in one and allowing those who wish to claim, “I buy eco!” Personally, if I don’t buy into the organisation itself and there is no clear service benefit, I would rather shop around for the best insurance quote, and then offset the emissions from a provider of my choice as a separate transaction.

What the market really needs is for an insurance company to use carbon offsetting as an integral part of its package, included in the price, and with the benefits clearly communicated. The offering would have more integrity and appeal to a wider audience. If the difference in price between two trusted suppliers is small, and one includes carbon offsetting as standard and the other doesn’t, many customers would happily choose the carbon neutral option and feel good that they had done something positive for the environment. However, it’s unrealistic to expect many people to be interested in paying extra to offset their carbon emissions unless you can clearly show how it benefits to them.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Car rental not Abel to live up to its brand promise

We recently came across an excellent example of how businesses can erode their brand value chasing short-term profits.

Abel is Queensland’s low cost car rental company, promising great value and exceptional customer service. And they do a fairly good job at delivering their promise. On one condition - That you bring the car exactly as it was when you rented it.

When we returned our rental car recently in Brisbane, the staff found a tiny car park dent on the front wing that we had not even noticed. Well, it shouldn’t have been the end of the world because we had paid for the most comprehensive damage liability waiver, limiting our liability to $275 AUD.

But what we didn’t know was that Abel has a $330 dollar accident-processing fee written into their small print. That’s more than the liability itself!

On top of this, they charged $53 demurrage for the car being taken off the road for repair, and $277 for our liability, which is $2 more than agreed in the rental agreement.

Whether it was in their small print or not, the marketing was clearly framed to deceive the customer and when the charges were questioned, the illusion of customer service quickly evaporated. If we didn’t settle in full on the spot, they would continue charging us for the car rental until we paid. And it wasn’t just us, another customer got stung for the same thing while we were still in the store.

The core of any successful brand is telling an authentic story, and we would have happily have told others of our positive experience if Abel had lived up to their brand promise. Instead, we quickly told everyone we know in the area to avoid Abel like a plague.

We subsequently rented a couple of cars from Thrifty, who provided genuinely friendly and honest customer service, did not have any horrors in small print, and seemed to have a very reasonable attitude when assessing the cars on return. On one occasion, they didn’t even check the car telling is that as long as we haven’t crashed it, a few nicks and scratches don’t matter, and that they trust us when we say we’ve filled it with fuel. Now that’s service that we’ll recommend.

Thrifty have won themselves a long term customer by projecting a very positive brand image that cares for and trusts their customers, whereas Abel’s pursuit of short term profits has cost them more than the extra charges incurred.

The message is simple, if you want to build a valuable and sustainable brand, your service must live up to your promise. If it doesn’t, you’re digging your brand an early grave.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Virgin Blue going Virgin Green

The aviation industry is often criticised for its contribution to global warming. Increasingly low airfares encourage more air travel for both holidays and business. Concerned travelers are now taking action by offsetting their own carbon emissions through companies like Climate Care. But many are now asking whether the airlines themselves should take responsibility for their emissions rather than leaving it to the consumer to deal with.


Virgin Blue, Australia’s low cost internal airline, implied that this was going to happen in a recent campaign that renamed the airline as Virgin Green and stated that Virgin Blue is going Carbon Neutral. Closer inspection reveals that this is sadly not the case, but it is also clear that it is more than just a publicity stunt as the airline is pursuing a number of strong strategies to reduce its environmental impact.

• Virgin Blue is the first airline in Australia to offer customers the opportunity to neutralise their emissions. The money earned through this will be contributed towards projects dealing with forest activities, energy efficiency measures, waste diversion and renewable energy.

• The carbon emissions generated by the crew and the staff on business travel will be offset.

• The airline has joined 800 other companies in the Australian Greenhouse Challenge Plus Program to measure, monitor and report on overall emissions with the goal of reducing them every year.

• Virgin blue has decided to apply special “green” paint on 70 aircrafts, as part of a major new investment in environmentally friendly cleaning and maintenance technology.

• Virgin Blue also claim to have the most fuel efficient airline fleet in Australia.
  

Although not perfect, Virgin’s approach is clearly a step in the right direction and a milestone in the aviation industry. However, it is disappointing that the airlines are still not prepared to take responsibility for the carbon emissions of their aircraft by offsetting the emissions for all passengers. Considering that it only costs about AUS$1.50 to offset a passengers flight from Brisbane to Sydney, it could surely be included as part of the ticket price.

Virgin Blue have clearly recognised the growing level of public concern about environmental issues and the value that taking a lead on these issues can add to their brand, but they need to show firmer commitment to tackling carbon emissions before they can justify calling themselves Virgin Green.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Yoghurt on a Mission

A new brand of organic yoghurt has recently hit supermarket shelves in the UK. The McCracken family farm in Northern Ireland has developed a quirky and fun brand for their organic yoghurt called Stony (not to be confused with Stonyfield Farm, the US based organic yoghurt company).

Featuring a family of Stonies with the slogan 'Yoghurt on a Mission' the brand is a clever attempt to stand apart from more conventional brands like Rachel's Organic and Yeo Valley, appearing to borrow a certain amount of inspiration from popular ethical brands like Innocent Drinks.


Unfortunately, the concept of the stony characters doesn't communicate its message as clearly as it could and is in some cases a little bit freaky. However, its early days and with some careful development we hope Stony can become a successful brand and help to grow the market for organic food.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Renault Eco 2 good to be true?

Amid rising concerns about climate change, car manufacturers are starting to jump on the green bandwagon and promote their environmental credentials.

Notably Renault recently launched its Eco 2 brand, which is applied to its more efficient cars and means that they:

• Have CO2 emissions of less than 140g/km

• Are produced in an ISO14001 certified factory

• Are 95% recyclable

Its true that Renault have made some significant improvements in recent years, but schemes like Eco 2 are misleading and confusing. After all, how much is 140g/km CO2, and why does the claim of 95% recyclable include incineration as a form of recycling?

Its good that manufacturers like Renault are taking notice of public concerns about climate change, but there is a major risk that if manufacturers like Renault continue trying to portray fairly ordinary cars as environmentally friendly, they will in the long term simply fuel skepticism towards 'green' brands and towards their company's own green credentials.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

LeMans 24hour Cycle Challenge

Tom Greenwood, Scamper co-founder and Brand Strategist is taking part in the LeMans 24hour Cycle Challenge in September and will be cycling 170miles from Leatherhead, Surrey to LeMans, France to raise money for SeeAbility. To find out more and to donate to the sponsorship fund, visit:

http://www.justgiving.com/tomgreenwood

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Could logo controversy be good for the Games?

The saga over the new London 2012 Olympic brand continues with media attention over the controversy spreading worldwide and generating over 1 million visitors to the London 2012 website.

The popularity of the new design is universally low, with the ‘scrap the logo’ petition closed after receiving nearly 50,000 votes for fear that it might damage the reputation of the games, and a CNN poll showing that 89% of people do not like the new logo. This clearly conflicts with the spirit of the Olympic games and with the brand vision of 'Everyone's Games'. To make things even worse, a video clip featuring the new visual identity has been found to cause epileptic fits and has been banned from public viewing.

But could all the publicity be good for the games in the long run? Rita Clifton of Interbrand, stated that “whether people like it or not is not the point – likeability is not correlated with effectiveness in branding.”

For a public event like the Olympics though, the success of the brand is not as simple as generating revenue. Certainly the logo has attracted considerably more attention than a more popular logo would have, but is any publicity always good publicity? Time will tell, but the answer may well differ depending on whether you measure financial or cultural success.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

New London 2012 Olympic Brand

This week saw the announcement of the new London 2012 Olympic brand. The brand vision has taken on the true spirit of the Olympic games, which is to bring people together and inspire people to push boundaries and fulfill their potential. As London 2012 Olympic Chair Sebastian Coe stated, "London 2012 will be everyone’s games". This is a strong and appropriate vision for the games and the new emblem has embraced this spirit with the Olympic and Paralympic Games logos being the same for the first time in history. However, the design of the icon itself is likely to be less successful.

The Olympic committee have strived to create a brand that will attract young people to the games and so encourage their participation in the games and sport in general. This is a worthwhile ambition for the games, especially considering the rise in childhood obesity, but it seems that they have overlooked their own vision of inclusivity and created an image that the majority will struggle to connect with. So much so in fact that it has prompted an online petition for it to be scrapped, which has already received over 17,000 signatures. Responding to the huge number of complaints, the BBC has launched a competition to design an alternative logo.

Creating such a brash visual statement is a high-risk strategy not only because it may fail to communicate the spirit of the games to the majority of people, but because building a strong brand is critical in attracting private sector funding for the games and generating merchandise sales. The nature of the design also makes it likely to date very quickly. In fact, far from being forward thinking, it is viewed by many as looking like something from the 1980’s and with the games still five years away, it may look even more dated by the time the games actually arrive.

It is also interesting to note that during the bidding process, London 2012 was billed as the first 'green' Olympics. This may well be embodied in much of the infrastructure being built for the games, but there is no mention of this link between the health benefits of sport and a healthy environment in the new brand vision. This could sadly lead to the 2012 games failing to make the most of their opportunity to communicate the benefits of sustainability on a global stage and showcase London and the UK as leaders in this field.

It is intended that the new brand will be dynamic and will evolve "in the years between now and 2012", so perhaps there is still hope for the Olympic brand to recover and become something that connects with and inspires people across society, aswell as communicating a strong message about the benefits of sport.

Details of the London 2012 brand can be found on the official website:

http://main.london2012.com/en/

The ‘Change the 2012 Logo’ petition can be found at:

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/change-the-london-2012-logo.html

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy