How Blind Should Trust Be?

What struck me most about the Murdoch inquisition was the ebb and flow, not of conversation but of trust, within News International and News Corporation.

Of course that should be a necessary and reciprocal part of any business, but that’s only really possible when accompanied with information. And whilst trust may have been given and received freely within the organisation, information clearly wasn’t.

So is it appropriate for senior management to have blind trust in its employees?

Much of an organisation’s culture and value system comes from the top. It’s the heads that set the company’s moral compass and dictate what is and is not acceptable and expected behaviour. Leaders can only really lead effectively by example. And if their practice is to give blind trust then this will filter down the organisation and arguably focus line management on the output, and not necessarily the methodologies involved, or their associated ethical implications.

I guess it’s more myopic trust really, but it’s certainly a facet of many businesses’ management ethos and is one that is damaging, and in the current climate intolerable and unsustainable.

The basis of trust is information. And its dissemination should be shaped by ethically-sound codes of practice, which are shared, embedded and policed. Such codes should articulate the acceptable behaviours staff can employ to meet the business objectives. Enshrining the company’s stated values and ethics in codes and guidelines, sets the moral standard throughout the business.

But trust and information also need opportunity. Staff must have ample opportunity to discuss and raise issues regarding trust and ethics as a course of day-to-day business. The organisational culture must accommodate and encourage this if a truly trustworthy and trusted company is desired.

I’m not sure I believe blind trust really exists in the business environment. Wilful blindness on the other hand is a topic I’ve blogged about before http://ethicsandmarketing.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html.

So I guess for me the bottom line is if you think you’ve got an issue, trust your instincts and test your ethics.

Schools - the final marketing frontier

It’s back to school and traffic is the least of parents’ worries. Even where there are no school fees there’s still all manner of paraphernalia to cost, including the ongoing outlay of requests from the school for support, fundraising events, etc.

And whilst the government claims intellectual capacity can overthrow recessionary adversity, it ironically hampers the source of that intellect – our education system – through ongoing cutbacks. The result is that school principals focus on frugal efficiency, and parents are increasingly asked to supplement depleting resources.

But couldn’t the private sector help? And indeed doesn’t the private sector have a duty to look after its future customers and employees, enact its corporate citizenship, and plug this financial gap?

I am not suggesting a ‘free for all’ invite to companies to take marketing advantage of the situation. Because in the absence of formal guidelines, what’s to stop a company offering schools much needed resources in return for blatant PR, branding, and the ubiquitous proofs of purchase.

But just as an organisation’s corporate compassion should influence its values and activities, so too its ethical position should drive how such activities are implemented. By this I mean due consideration should be given to all parties concerned, identifying and protecting each group’s vulnerability. Activities should be based on mutual respect and trust. And most importantly, the motivation and metrics of the activities should be objectively reviewed and clearly defined… and put in writing.

There may be no formal guidelines to commercial activities in schools. But there are plenty of ideas out there (from which my own freely available guidelines are drawn – http://www.sheenahorgan.com/).

So companies cannot be excused for acting as if its open marketing season in schools. But nor too should they be closed to the many mutual benefits of considering a school programme.

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.