Yesterday at 11am:

Greenpeace: Here is a video we’ve made to highlight the damage to the environment you are indirectly causing. We’re also outside your building in Croydon to let your employees know.

Here is a video one guy took of Greenpeace outside Nestle in Croydon:

Greenpeace then started tweeting and blogging throughout the day updates of what was happening.

The updates however, were fuelled largely by Nestle’s activity. During the course of the day, Nestle replied on twitter tweeting a link to their CSR page with a formal response and positioning statement on their stance on using palm oil in their supply chain

Fair play. At least they responded pretty promptly although there are clear gaps in the response which Greenpeace are continuing to highlight.

However, they’d already dropped the real PR clanger earlier in the day….

Shortly after the video had been uploaded by Greenpeace, Nestle decided to ask youtube to take the video down… for alleged copyright infringement;

Oh bugger Nestle, now look what’s happened;

Y’see, Nestle were NEVER going to win that argument. Even if what they were saying had an element of legitimacy. So the story quickly morphed into “Nestle tries to stop Greenpeace viral”; the online equivalent of banner advertising for Greenpeace. “Skillz”.

Whilst Greenpeace activists are happy to put their name to a campaign and often writing in the first person (e.g. here’s Jamie who wrote many of the blog posts and tweets yesterday);

many big brands, including Nestle, continue to speak “on behalf of the brand”. Sorry, the brand is YOU Mr Corp Comms Nestle PR man. Your actions and the resulting culture that exists within the organisation which you represent is what contributes to the little fragments of product experience, commuications and actions (and indeed non-actions) that build a brand in people’s heads. This is also when the world of CSR and “consumer” branding become increasingly blurred- accelerated by the transparency that the digital world has brought.

What big companies really really need to get better at is to stop hiding ‘behind a brand’. A brand is made up by the sum of it’s parts. Those parts are people. Don’t talk on behalf of the brand- be the brand.

So now they’ve fucked up. They’ve fuelled Greenpeace’s agenda further. Someone is going to get a bollocking. What to do? What to do?

This is when video becomes quite handy. Dominoes used video quite well last year during their own crisis when some clowns in their US restaurants were gobbing in pizzas or some such misdemeanour.

I’m sure Nestle will alter their stance at some point. And rumours are surfacing they have.

So this isn’t ground breakingly creative but why not hop on a plane to Indonesia and completely uncover the reason why the supply chain manager responsible for driving out unsustainable palm oil from Nestle’s supply chain hasn’t been able to do so. Document the whole journey- from Croydon to Indonesia and then follow the ‘palm oil chain’ back to Croydon. Put somebody from Nestle who isn’t a complete berk or “media trained” and most importantly knows his palm from his olive oil, in front of a flipcam.

SHOW people the challenges as to why they haven’t been able to follow Unilever and other large companies in only using sustainable palm oil within their business. It’s much harder after all to vent your spleen at a person than a big amorphous brand. Why not even invite Jamie from Greenpeace along for the ride?

Even in the digital age, it’s better to be slow and sure than quick and wrong. Otherwise you’ll create the exact opposite of what you’re trying to achieve. Now Nestle needs to get on the front foot.

 

“How can we mean more than just [insert product here]…?” is the question that all of the greatest brands have asked and will continue to ask themselves.

More than just soap? More than just running shoes? More than just cola?

And most recently: More than just a Kenyan/American with an awkward name?”

 

Nick cited this latest campaign from Starbucks (beautiful score but that’s by the by)

Lots of brands, as he rightly point out, wrestle with this and here are two routes in my opinion to help uncover those areas where they can mean more to people than just as a vendor of a product:

- find an area where the business model already touches in some way for the company to care about. It then does not come across as contrived or awkward because the brand/business cares for a reason which will also ultimately affect profits e.g. Starbucks and coffee plantations, P&G detergents and smaller but more potent product sizes taking more delivery lorries off the road whilst shipping more units (this is a dubious one though as more concentrated detergents usually mean more chemicals). They have to be transparent in why they believe that caring works for their business too- if they can tell this story in a compelling way, they’ll win friends for just being honest and more personable.

- Find a cause for which your employees give a shit about and talk about it. Personalise the company by revealing the people who are behind delivering a product or service and tell the story of their commitment and concerns for the category/product or their environment. In an increasingly digital world, companies don’t have to be (and probably shouldn’t be) faceless anymore.

Companies need to have a relationship with consumers that extends beyond just flogging cups of grand skinny mocha choca lotta froth (hopefully a challenge that has been identified in marcomms meetings across the globe as the economy slows down and people increasingly look for reasons to switch brands).

So how about marketeers start talking to their customers on issues that matter to both of them so as not to come across insincere ? Starbucks can be more than just coffee, but the issues it adopts needs to align with the company’s core business values and contribute to the growth of the business otherwise the whole thing will just feel contrieved.

This is a brilliant idea. Tip of the cap to Dave for the spot. A submission for google’s 10tothe100 project

Seriously, how GOOD is the internet?!!! Check out how this video even came about in Simon’s blog here

“Global Head of Stakeholder relations Coca Cola” Salvatore Gabola, we salute you for attempting to open up your organisation.

You can view the details of Simon’s call with Coke here on his personal blog which is fascinating in itself as it details the unfolding story of his campaign- excellent content in itself, even more so there is now serious traction behind it!

What’s also interesting is that if Coke are in a little bit of a pickle if they choose not to pursue Simon’s idea unless they are completely transparent (and justified- the debate of course will then be played out for the world to find online) with how and why Simon’s idea can not be progressed…. so they better have a pretty robust argument in place if the idea is unworkable.

Next challenge according to Simon- an international NGO to engage… check out the Radio4 iPM interview here and a video interview here. 

Spread the word about this fantastic initiative which adds further fuel to the fire that if a brand wants to resonate online (or, in my opinion, offline too), they increasingly need to be operating pretty authentically whilst doing nice things- this is a fantastic opportunity for Coke and it’s brand; a creative idea just tapping them on their shoulder and asking them to pick it.

It’s fascinating to see how digital is just completely tearing up the silos of CSR, advertising and PR whilst peeling back the brand into something which now needs to stand for something and has a point of view on the world. It’s amazing, and somewhat ironic, how the ‘virtual’ world, so long poked fun out for being intangible, flaky and just, well, not real, is turning brands into something which can’t be ‘virtual’ anymore- they need to be saying ‘real’ things for people to believe in them.

Audiences are increasingly believing in a brand through it’s actions, not necessarily through it’s ad spots.

Surely this is good for everyone?