Disqus - Latest Comments for Gennefer Snowfield

Re: Sowing with Purpose: A Unified Corporate Social Responsibility Approach Reaps Long-Term Benefits

Gennefer Snowfield — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:52:13 -0000

I'm happy to see that this post has sparked some good -- and much-needed -- discussion around the differences between CRM and CSR, and how best to integrate the two concepts to achieve maximum impact for both company and cause.

I believe that cause-related initiatives are -- and can be -- extremely valuable when a) aligned with a company mission, b) support a natural product tie-in or c) have a personal connection.

sweetriot (http://www.sweetriot.com) is a great example of a. as it is a company founded on the premise of fostering a multicultural world, and all of their efforts are driven to that end. So, it's a deeply rooted mission that manifests in a multitude of related causes.

To illustrate b., Coastal Contacts (http://www.coastalcontacts.com/) in Canada is exploring a cause-related effort with Guide dogs which is an excellent tie-in to their product that makes sense vs. tossing money at an arbitrary 'buzz' charity merely for purposes of sales. In a savvy market, efforts like that always come off as thinly veiled attempts to prey on consumer sensibilities around a cause.

C. is best demonstrated by Yellingbo Gold (http://www.yellingbo.com), an olive oil company from Australia, that donates large portions of its profits to causes that are close to Founder, Jeremy Meltzer's, heart. Jeremy's personal experience with the tsunami prompted him to set up The Jasmine Foundation for orphans of the tsunami, and he serves as Ambassador for UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women), both of which benefit from the sale of Yellingbo Gold.

All three scenarios highlight cause-related marketing efforts that work well -- even though they are not necessarily part of a broader CSR position.

@JamesFarrar Regarding your mention of The Body Shop and Ben & Jerry's, I would argue that those are both prime examples of companies that ARE built on a socially responsible platform, and launched with a deep commitment to giving back to society already in place. I view them as more of a classic CSR approach than a tactical cause-related execution, which is why it works so well in the mainstream.

A company like Starbucks, on the other hand, which was built on a more consumer capitalist model, has some hurdles before the market will adopt them as an altruistic beacon of change -- especially when they only donate a whopping .05 cents per cup as part of their Project RED program.

At the end of the day, however, any vehicle through which money is generated to benefit a cause vs. merely lining corporate pockets, is a good one, and sets the stage for an ongoing mindset shift toward corporate consciousness on a widespread scale. Until then, I believe that both can co-exist, and create a lot of positive change in the process.

Thanks to everyone for your perspectives, and I welcome any further insights in keeping this important discussion going.

Re: When it Comes to Cause Marketing, Is Profit a Dirty Word?

Gennefer Snowfield — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:24:29 -0000

Excellent points, Peter and Jen.

I think that before a company decides to engage in Cause Marketing, they need to take a step back and clearly define their mission to ensure that whatever activities they engage in are aligned with their core identity, and their overall brand position. As you pointed out, Jen, integration is the key lest it be perceived as a thinly veiled attempt to prey on consumer sensibilities around a specific cause.

Yellingbo Gold, an Australian olive oil company with a deep commitment to the environment and aid for relief programs, is an excellent example of a well integrated effort. Their mission to reduce the harmful effects on the environment is represented in every facet of their business right down to the product itself, which is packaged using a 100% recyclable cask that greatly reduces their carbon footprint, as well as of those who purchase and use it. They also donate a percentage of their sales to a fund that they set up for orphans of the Tsunami as Jeremy is a survivor of the Boxing Day Tsunami in India.

So, rather than tossing money at an arbitrary cause or loosely tying a random charity into their product development or sales efforts, Yellingbo embodies their charitable activities as an inherent part of their business, making the for-profit aspect of it merely a vehicle through which they can re-allocate back into their causes to create even greater change. As Peter said, what matters most is not so much the profit but how it's made and what it's used for.

I look forward to continued discussions as this series continues, and will be featuring Jeremy's story in an upcoming post as a blueprint for conscious entrepreneurs who wish to create a thriving, socially responsible company.

Re: Self-Promotion 2.0 – Promote Yourself without Looking Self-Promotional

Gennefer Snowfield — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:22:27 -0000

Michael,

This is an excellent and comprehensive post that encapsulates our discussion well. Hopefully, it will serve as a primer for those seeking to maximize the value of their engagements on Twitter or other social media platforms, but this concept works across interactions, both on- and offline.

I've always subscribed to the "value for the community = value for all" methodology, meaning that the benefits you receive by offering insights, solutions and assistance far exceeds gratuitous posts and self-aggrandizing commentary. The best way to demonstrate knowledge is by *sharing* it, not touting accolades or using socnets as a glorified blog feed or overt sales stream.

When I learn something new, I always share it with my community, which usually sparks a dialogue (similar to our exchange), and through that conversation, key areas of expertise are brought to light (for all parties involved), and salient nuggets are crystallized that spread throughout the network, attributed to each participant.

So, it evolves organically from a singular point of view to multiple perspectives around a topic, which translates into added value for everyone. The key is not to have the loudest voice, but to create a forum for *all* voices to be heard.

It's the difference between being the conductor of a symphony where all instruments are brought together to create a harmonious composition vs. the tuba player trying to drown out the rest of the orchestra. So, you can choose to be the conductor, or the grandstanding horn player, but which one do you think demonstrates that they have the chops to create a magnificent opus? Or more accurately, which one do you think will get hired to lead a team?

Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion, Michael. I look forward to many more of our always spirited debates in the future!

Gennefer

Re: Understanding Izea’s Sponsored Blogging Service

Gennefer Snowfield — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:10:41 -0000

This is an excellent analysis and helps to bridge the Twitter firestorm with concrete business facts. I think the initial reaction to sponsored reviews was emotionally driven (myself included) as the authenticity of relationships is one of the critical factors in the success of social media as a sustainable marketing/brand force, and any immediate reference to money seemed tantamount to a bought review.

But after further exploration, this experiment, for lack of a better word, has revealed a potentially viable opportunity for companies and brands to expand their reach, and stimulate viral/WOM activity via 'sponsored' posts, and I am eager to see how it continues to evolve within the blogosphere. That said, the most powerful element of the sponsored post is the readership's trust in the blogger to offer an objective, unbiased review. If that trust erodes, the business model can't sustain.

However, given the turn of events and rampant controversy over this, I suspect that even greater care will be taken in preserving that trust, and in doing so, is likely to elevate the thinking -- and the integrity -- of the space overall.

In the end, it would seem that scrutiny is the most powerful driver -- not money. And there will be many eyes watching and scrutinizing the next moves of those entering this arena, monitoring activity, gauging response and attempting to measure success. I suspect that as an analyst, there will be no shortage of data for you to review in the coming months!

Re: When Will the Volume Game Turn Down?

Gennefer Snowfield — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:52:52 -0000

As someone who matriculated from the days of traditional advertising, a piece of real estate like that was infinitely worth it from a brand awareness perspective. It was also a play of dominance with other big powerhouse brands to captivate as much 'eye share' as possible at high traffic locations such as airports. But as the landcsape continues to shift, I agree that this is no longer the best use of marketing dollars -- especially when most of the 'eye share' and retention today occurs in front of a computer screen.

I think it speaks volumes about the mindset of large corporations where old paradigms are still driving the execution. I wouldn't recommend to IBM that they shift *all* of the dollars from that ad placement to social media per se but, to your point, think that they could benefit more significantly by allocating a spend across tools that open the door to engagement.

In doing so, they positively impact their brand perception in the market from that of a static, stodgy and unapproachable corporate giant to a dynamic, forward-thinking and approachable company who is interested in their customers' wants and needs vs. self-serving placements that feed their own egos. The days of companies elevating themselves are over. Now it's the community that decides who reigns over the market, making the thousands of dollars of that airport buy even that much more costly a transaction when facilitating a conversation could have sufficed.