I have always been a firm believer that we should be aware of how our actions are affecting others. This isn't something I came up with on my own, my parents raised me that way.
Over the last couple of years I have become obsessed with science. In retrospect I believe it is because it takes me to the place where the lines get fuzzy. The journey resulted in an epiphany of sorts and the realization that everything is connected. Connected because all that matters is what we believe.
Recently I have persevered over an article for our school's annual publication. I paired up with someone I had never worked with before because we both had interest in the same issue. Boiled down in the business sense, it is referred to as the triple bottom line, or People Planet Profit. I never imaged the road it would take us down. We interviewed some of the smartest people I have ever met and asked their opinions about the subject. The synopsis below does not do justice to their depth, but these ideas must be shared.
Ed cotton, partner and head planner of Butler Shine Stern and Partners (an agency behind such campaigns as Converse and HP), keeper of influx insights, and co-founder (with Gareth Kay, Modernista - most notable campaign work for Hummer) of Planning For Good, was the first we talked to. The key takeaways I learned from that interview was that there are three tiers of businesses adopting this type of philosophy. The first being the old school companies, lending insight that this is not a new radical idea. They were founded out of strong principles and values that resonated from their core outwards through all of their extension lines. They were always aware. The second tier are companies that are retroactive. In other words, they messed up and were forced by outraged people to face the music and change their ways (a glaring example that he gave was Gap). The third and last tier are the new companies. Entrepreneurship founded on solid principles much like the first tier, just in a different day and age. Mark Twain may have said it best, "History doesn't repeat itself it rhymes." A great recent example of that is Zipcar. He also spoke to the complexities of the situation, especially when pertaining to the environment, siting examples of cradle to grave. More specifically he spoke of the difference between the Prius and a Hummer. While Prius is certainly perceived as less harmful, in terms of sheer numbers produced, the waste created and difficult disposal of the batteries may have a more harmful impact on the planet. This was not to say that Hummer is better for the environment, just to demonstrate the complex thinking involved in the situation. And to highlight the point that "people believe they are making a statement but they don't necessarily know the reality." He believes that ultimately it is a cultural decision and the biggest hurdle to its adoption is many companies feel they "would rather not say anything than say anything because they are afraid they are going to get negative reactions." In my mind this means that brands will have to be brave.
We also contacted Keith Reinhard, Businesses for Diplomatic Action and Chairman of DDBO, who brought up fascinating free market insights and a strong personal belief. He mentioned many of the hurdles, citing the "real conflict or perceived conflict between the 'planet priority' and the 'profit' priority. Taking time to identify the major argument that "many still argue" concerning the thought that companies should only focus on what they do best, permeating the benefits to society by "providing well-paying jobs, tax revenue...high rates of returns to shareholders who in turn re-invest in the local and national economy." An example of "reconciling these conflicts between 'people,' 'planet' and 'profit' priorities" that he found compelling is being demonstrated by Microsoft. They have developed a "separate entity whose financial performance is separated from that of the mother company...The new entity's mission is to find or create businesses that benefit the planet and that will eventually generate profits." Incredibly smart and forward thinking if you ask me. There is absolutely no denying there is money in considering the 3P. Two more powerful thoughts that I think Keith states best by himself:
"The good news, and maybe this is my bottom line, is that three free-market factors will merge to resolve these conflicts. 1.) The instant transferability of technology, 2.) a better informed consumer; and 3) the blogosphere. Let me try to explain. In most product and service categories, parity is already the rule. It is almost impossible, given today's technology, to sustain a meaningful, intrinsic product or service difference. Any brand's 'secret ingredient' will be instantly copied by its competitors and parity will reign again. This means that more and more, the brand selection (by informed and caring consumers) will be based more on what a brand 'stands for' and how it behaves than on product attributes or advertising claims. The blogosphere will keep companies honest."
“So, as you might expect, I am a fierce believer in the free market system and consumer choice. Our job then, is to create consumer demand for “people” and “planet” friendly brands. When that happens, companies will not only find it easier to resolve the present conflicts, they’ll find that triple bottom line behavior is absolutely necessary to their survival.”
And lastly, we spoke to David Droga, creator of the successful Tap Project and budding Million project. Not to mention recent agency of the year award. In his matter of fact tone of speaking he claimed that it is inevitable. Social capital is essential in the future marketplace, good businesses know that and are taking the opportunity, not because it necessarily feels good, but to the extent that is where the money is. Raised with a mother, described as an activist, he noted that "there is always a better way of doing something" and "brands can be a lot of fun and have a sense of morality about them." The Million project is a perfect example. It started with the goal of branding achievement for the New York Department of Education. In finding the solution, they looked at the nature of how teenagers communicate, what is important to them. This led to the creation of a cell-phone incentive program. With partnerships from Vorizon and Motorola, one million students receive a free phone jam packed with educational applications. While in school, the phone service switches off, so as to be used more like a personal computer where they can download homework or use the internet for research. Outside of school it functions as a regular phone. Incentives include more minutes and texting capability based on "consistency, participation and involvement." Once the plan rolls out to "critical mass, we can go to a handset manufacturer and get a specific phone that you can't find on the street." Ah, and we all know how much being exclusive means. All in all, brilliant idea.
This is a lot to digest, like I said, we had no idea the path this would take us here. But is is exciting. The time is right to make things better, to innovate new ways to find solutions and create commerce that benefits the common good.
