[The following is excerpted from Ethical Marketing & The New Consumer by Chris Arnold]
Many marketing experts will tell you that one of the most significant changes over the last 10 years has been the power moving from the brands back to the consumer. People power, as many brands have discovered, is not only changing the way they market, but forcing companies to change the way they do things.
The web and social networking have made it easy for people to cluster together as a force to be reckoned with. A single lonely voice of objection can now soon mass into thousands and even millions.
Retailers, intensely worried about keeping the faith of their customers in the face of tough competition, will force brands to change their messages, packaging, ingredients or sources to avoid upsetting their customers.
Hellman's mayonnaise offers a good example: Until recently no one had asked them where they got their eggs from. But the one supermarket did and threatened to delist them if they didn't switch over to free-range. Others followed. Unilever had no choice, but still managed to turn it into an ad campaign making them look oh-so-ethical. That's ethical spin for you.
Recently the scandal of the News of the World hacking into people's phones brought a new low for the newspaper industry -- as if people didn't think bad enough of them already. But it was the power of the people, and groups like Mumsnet (with over 1.5 million members) that did the most damage as they demanded brands withdraw advertising from the paper. Brands, desperate not to upset large groups of customers and powerful social groups agreed.
"A kid with a $600 dollar laptop can bring down a six-million-dollar campaign." I've put this quote in many blogs to highlight a factor I call "Brand Terrorism." These may seem strong words but you can't underestimate the power of social networking, especially when the truth goes against the marketing message. The truth, whether it's used maliciously or just factually, can hurt. Worse, it can cost you millions and your reputation.
Fact is, we believe people mare than corporations. One survey from TNS revealed that just 17 percent of people believe ads, and only 14 percent believed ads making green claims. But almost all of us believe our friends, family and workmates. And thanks to the web, we can talk to all of them in moments.
Just take the case of Kryptonite bike locks. They made great locks that couldn't be broken. Well, that was what they claimed in their marketing, until someone posted an online video of one of their U-locks being opened with a simple Bic pen. Disaster. Word spread and the company fell into a big black hole.
"Look behind the label" was an early campaign from Marks & Spencer, but if we really looked behind many brands we wouldn't like what we saw -- even the ethical ones (sorry, the ones we think are ethical; there is a difference). It's impossible to tick all the boxes. Big corporate brands can only do so much, and it's essentially impossible to be ethically pure, especially if your main focus is delivering more profit year on year to your shareholders.

Browse
Engage
Research









Spelling, hardly a big deal,
Spelling, hardly a big deal, that's what editors are for. Please, get a life. Having worked at a publishers I can tell you many writers (I won't mention some big names) are rubbish spellers. You do know Chris is dyslexic, as was Einstein and couldn't spell at all, so do you dismiss his ideas? The important thing, if you are seriously in the green space, are the ideas. I found the piece very thought provoking. I think the term 'Brand Terrorism' is excellent as it's an emotive term, 'consumer empowerment' is so dull. Good marketing is about selling ideas, which Chris does well. And he makes you question, think and see things from another angle. The trouble with the green debate is that we use rubbish words that mean nothing like carbon footprint. What does that mean to the man in the street? Nothing. What's wrong with pollution? Now that's an emotive word. I've bought the book and it's great.
ditto on the spelling/grammar
ditto on the spelling/grammar errors-- how well thought are these ideas if they crept through (any) editing? I concur also with the overblown nature of the claims. More aptly it should be entitled "Consumer empowerment: truth strikes a blow for equity through social media". This is not "terrorism" but justice, when truth is placed out there for fresh air and daylight to test.
I was dismayed how quickly the notion that business could behave ethically or sustainably, was dismissed out of hand as impractical. Call me idealistic but that is still the goal I will be striving for.
This was a great article, but
This was a great article, but the rampant spelling errors do not make me want to run out and buy the book. Seriously, I expect more care from a published author.
Calling rapidly magnified
Calling rapidly magnified consumer power that shines a spotlight of truth on animal-torturing, Orwellian and other foul corporate misbehavior "Brand Terrorism" is brand terrorism to "Brand Terrorism." Please name this trend without "War On..." or "terrorism," it's deeply unhelpful if those names stick. eSatyagraha? "Dishonesty: From the Business of Marketing to the Third Rail of Marketing."
Thanks & Cheers,
Stephen