Walking the ethical talk - step by step

Too often ethics are seen only in the context of the ubiquitous green policies, community programmes and CSR report. And while these are ethical issues, it is often the smaller actions of an organisation that speak ethical volumes.

Consider the measurements that ethical indexes such as the Swiss Covalence Ethical Quotation System and Ethisphere.com use to rate companies: consumer communication, dealing with complaints, distribution and marketing. Because it is the everyday implementation of these areas that show a brand to be walking the talk… or not…

 For example:
Is it ethical if an airline charges obligatory extras that the consumer is only made aware of when they’re half way through the purchasing process?

Is it ethical that a food label can carry unsubstantiated health claims, or nutritional information for “portion” sizes that do not equate to likely product consumption - the 200ml kids smoothie label that cites a 100ml portion and the King size chocolate bar or soft drink that cites a portion as being half the product.

Is it ethical for a restaurant or hotel to claim it is “family friendly” when the catering and the pricing is anything but?

Ethics can be widely and unconsciously disregarded in the smallest of ways. But the accumulative effect of these apparently minor misdemeanours can be far reaching.

Today’s consumers want to feel good about the choices they make. They may have roomier purses but they also have time to consider how they spend their reduced disposable income. And it is not so much the price but the value and values that that price and the product infer that concerns consumers.

So brands that want to engage with today’s consumers need to get their values in order and their ethics in line.

Are your ethics hunky dory?

The highest unprompted recall for an outdoor poster campaign since 2001 went to Hunky Dory. No prizes as to why. But for me the ‘rugby’ posters illustrate an ethical marketing conundrum:

“Just because you can, does it mean you should?”

As a creative execution, the campaign didn’t break any regulations. As a marketing proposition, assuming the brief was to gain attention and male interest, then it was bang on. Media coverage was widespread. And recall was obviously great. So all this recognition makes it worthwhile, yes?

Well, no.

As a marketer I acknowledge the campaign’s success. But as a punter, I hated passing the posters that were irresponsibly close to my local schools, so I cannot reconcile the ethics. Nor evidently could the hundreds of complainants to the ASAI. And from a business perspective, that’s a concern:

Because unless the brand is bought solely by males over a certain age, then the campaign will inevitably damage its goodwill and loyalty. And I’d have thought that in the medium term, the homogeneity of the crisp market should preclude excessive audience alienation as a business strategy.

The published defence of the campaign by the manufacturer may have been that it was “fun”, but that begs the question: “at whose expense?”

There are many ways for a company and individual to examine the ethics of their actions, but the most simple and appropriate here is this: 

“Can you justify your ad campaign to your 12 year old daughter or niece?”

Brand marketing needs to employ ethical common sense. “Can” does not mean “should”. And recall does not necessarily mean reward. Brands need to go beyond even the spirit of the law as opposed to following just the letter.

And ultimately, brands need to be cognisant of the ethical implications of their actions, because in consumers’ minds, they matter.