Big shift in consumer choices

In a survey published by Edelman last week, substantial changes are occurring in the way that consumers are reporting the factors that determine their choices on a day to day basis. Assuming that the statements made to the researchers are borne out by behaviour, this shift may mark a turning point for brands that have have been slow to get on board.

“Despite the recession, consumers are still spending with companies and brands which have a social purpose”

Bearing in mind that the responses were gathered during a dramatic global recession, this is a big shift towards values-based choices that all product and service providers could do well to take into account in their business planning and strategy.

“In new findings released from the recently published Edelman goodpurpose™ Consumer Study, a survey of 6,000 people in 10 countries, 57 percent globally say a company or brand has earned their business because it has been doing its part to support good causes and two out of three (67 percent) globally also say they would switch brands if another brand of similar quality supported a good cause

“The study also found that 83 percent of people are willing to change consumption habits if it can help make the world a better place to live, indicating a startling consumer shift and trend away from traditional status markers like big houses and luxury cars and toward identification with social purpose brands. The findings overall show that today more than twice as many people (67 percent) would rather drive a hybrid car than a luxury car (33 percent), with Japan (89 percent) and France (84 percent) preferring hybrid cars most.

“People are demanding social purpose, and brands are recognizing it as an area where they can differentiate themselves and in many parts of the world, not only meet governmental compliance requirements, but also build brand equity,” said Mitch Markson. “This year’s study shows that if companies respond intelligently to the sea change in consumer attitudes, brand loyalty among consumers – even during seriously challenging economic times – will actually grow. Even better, consumers will want to share their support for these brands with others.”

“Europeans are least likely to think that product brands support good causes nowadays, they indicate that supporting good causes in their everyday lives is important. More than three out of four people in the UK, France, Germany and Italy were willing to change their own consumption habits if it can help make tomorrow’s world a better place to live. Though the economic downturn has made Americans most likely to give less money to good causes, they too overwhelmingly indicate they are willing to change consumption habits to make the world a better place to live (85 percent) and are looking to companies and brands to make it easier for them to make a difference (65 percent).

While the study reveals that social purpose is becoming increasingly crucial to a brand’s success, a brand purpose must be authentic and true to the core values of the brand itself, and brands must look beyond traditional corporate social responsibility programs in which they simply donate money to a good cause. As the study notes, 66 percent of people believe that it’s no longer enough for corporations to merely give money away, but that they must integrate good causes into their day-to-day business.

“Companies that become catalysts for social change and respond to rising consumer expectations that they and their brands help make the world a better place will not only survive, but also thrive, in ways their competitors will not,” said Markson. “Mutual social responsibility provides that opportunity, as people today are more passionately involved and supportive than ever, yet more demanding and unforgiving, as well.”

Continue the social purpose conversation at www.goodpurposecommunity.com , on Facebook at www.facebook.com/goodpurpose  and on Twitter at www.twitter.com/LIVEgoodpurpose  

KEY 2009 GLOBAL DATA HIGHLIGHTS

BIGGEST GLOBAL CHANGES SINCE 2008

• 71% think brands and companies spend too much on advertising and marketing and should put more into good causes – up almost 10 percentage points

• 64% would recommend a brand that supports a good cause – up from 52% last year globally

• 59% would help a brand promote its products if there was a good cause behind it – up from 53% last year

• 44% are aware of brands that actively support good causes through their products and services – up from 33%

• 16% find contentment from shopping – down from 25%

2009 HIGHLIGHTS

• 83% willing to change consumption habits if it can help make the world a better place to live

• 70% prefer an eco-friendly house to a big house (30%)

• 68% feel that it is becoming more unacceptable not to make efforts to show concern for the environment and live a healthy lifestyle

• 67% would switch brands if another brand of similar quality supported a good cause

• 67% prefer a hybrid car to a luxury car (33%)

• 64% would recommend a brand that supports a good cause

• 64% expect brands today to support a good cause

• 63% are looking toward brands and companies to make it easier for them to make a difference

• 61% have bought a brand that supports a good cause even if it wasn’t the cheapest brand

• 59% have a better opinion of corporations that integrate good causes into their business no matter why they do so (61% in the U.S., 51% in Germany, 58% in Italy, 64% in India, 65% in China and 52% in Japan)

• 57% say a company or brand has earned their business because it has done its part to support good causes

Biomimicry 2010

There's a feeling in my bones that 2010 is going to see a huge increase in activity in the use of biomimicry for problem solving, design and systems thinking. Three or four concurrent conversations are lining up major events in London, Wales and elsewhere.

If you're interested in this work and are not already in touch with me or other EcoSapiens team members, then drop me a line.

Many hands make light work.

Australians get beached

An interesting article cam in via Twitter about Oz's potentially vanishing beaches, with 3/4 million homes at risk of flooding in the next 90 years if sea levels continue to rise as expected.

The piece had some built-in irony, as is frequently found:

So, if carbon dioxide hit the levels predicted for between 2030 and 2060, we can wave goodbye to the world’s largest and most diverse marine ecosystem. And Australia can say cheerio to €3.2 billion in tourist revenues. (Worldwide, reefs are worth €220 billion.)

Just imagine losing the world's largest and most diverse marine ecosystem AND having a tourism industry affected. I have difficulty (maybe unreasonably) imaging a world where our ecosystems have collapsed and tourism is still important. Call me narrow minded, but I can't help but feel that other things might be more important.

The article goes on:

What should we do, then? The first thing is to try and live as carbon free lives as possible. The second thing is to try and understand what the world will lose, by diving the reef.

If you’re lucky enough to go for option two (remembering of course to plant enough trees to cover the carbon cost of your flight), I’d definitely recommend Pro Dive in Cairns. They have a really professional set up, great instructors and a fantastic cook on their boats. And if that weren’t enough, this year they were awarded the Advance Ecotourism Certification from Ecotourism Australia for their liveaboard trips to the reef. If you do dive in while the reef’s still alive, I promise you’ll develop a passion for keeping it that way.

There's still some way to go...

Stand up and be counted

It's a shame how many people whine about their MPs. Whilst there may be many that have abused their privilege on expenses, the majority do what they do to make a difference. Here's what my MP, Stephen Crabb had to say about 10:10

Thanks for your email regarding the 10:10 climate change campaign debate in the House of Commons yesterday.

I am pleased to inform you that I did vote in favour of the motion as I believe that that the imperative for acting on climate change is more pressing than ever and we must set real goals if we are to make significant reductions in carbon emissions. You may be aware that I have also, personally, signed up to the pledge. See: http://www.stephencrabb.com/press/pressdetails.aspx?ID=255 for further information.

Eat your way down

Seeing Nick Stern's name attached to a 'go vegetarian' headline caught my eye on the Guardian web site today, not so much for the content, which covers a story that we've known about for years, but beacause it was written by an economist. His forecast of the £3,000,000,000 A YEAR cost to the UK of supporting developing countries' fight against the impact of climate change was one good reason for shifting our diet to one that's low (or zero) in meat and high in vegetables. Human rights and environmental justice are stronger measures of course, but without £££ attached to them, don't get the same headlines. Highlights from the Guardian are:

"Farmed ruminant animals, including cattle and sheep, are thought to be responsible for up to a quarter of "man-made" methane emissions worldwide.

Stern, whose 2006 Stern Review warned that countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels, said a successful deal at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December would massively increase the cost of producing meat.

People's concerns about climate change would lead to meat eating becoming unacceptable, he predicted.

"I think it's important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating," he told the Times. "I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food."

Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and now IG Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, also warned that helping developing countries to cope with the adverse effects of global warming would cost British taxpayers about £3bn a year by 2015"