Articles here and here.

An example of Loblaw’s latest campaign.

“Transforming a brand into a socially responsible leader doesn’t happen overnight by simply writing new marketing and advertising strategies. It takes effort to identify a vision that your customers will find credible and aligned with their values.” -Simon Mainwaring

Or does it? Loblaw is launching a new, some might say revolutionary, campaign targeting foodie culture and our society’s growing obsession with not only food, but where it comes from and what good it can do. The President’s Choice brand has undergone a few makeovers throughout the years, but none as dramatic as its transformation into a brand for socially conscious consumers, placing emphasis on organic, ethically sourced food.
The way corporations market, if done successfully, reflect the changes in our culture. If this campaign is successful, we may have a reason to be optimistic. Its focus is content marketing: questioning where our food comes from – historically and in modern day. It reflects a culture that cares about ethics, health, and sustainability. Corporations rely on public support to survive, and if the public will only support a socially responsible corporation, there may be hope after all.

Loblaw’s website for Crave More.

And, in the case where the medium is the message, Loblaw’s marketing method now also includes a discussion page on their website that allows customers to post about their interests in food. It’s beneficial to the consumers who can easily find and discuss new ideas and grow their sense of community, but the greatest advantage goes to Loblaw who can then market to each customer individually, and adjust their image and production as a whole to comply with the latest trend.

It would seem that, at least for Loblaw, perhaps the future of marketing is less smoke and mirrors, more real discussion and content, but only time and success will tell.

Article here

Coca Cola sucks the world dry.

According to Milton Friedman, the one social responsibility of business is “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.”

However, companies such as Coca-Cola and Nike find that the rules are changing. Though Friedman may argue it is not a corporation’s responsibility to reduce its impact on the environment, disregard for sustainability is proving to be a corporation’s own undoing. Global warming is impacting the availability of needed raw materials and forcing corporations to develop more sustainable methods of productivity. After all, there’s no Coke without water. Though this environmental concern is rooted more in self interest than in the environment, it proves why ethics are vital to the wellbeing of business: the problems of one element of the company and of society, eventually spread. The public is concerned with corporations’ ethics because when ignored, direct or not, they (negatively) affect everyone. Change occurs as the company realizes “everyone” includes them.

This realization aligns with Edward Freeman’s stakeholder theory: the belief that each part of the business must work together to achieve a common end. As evidenced by the struggles of Coca-Cola and Nike, If the environment is being harmed by a corporation, eventually that corporation will be harmed by its environment. And when that time comes, ethical behaviour and social responsibility becomes key not only to the success of the corporation, but to the survival of itself and the world as a whole.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!