Competition at it's best!
http://adage.com/article?article_id=125460
According to a recent article in Ad age Proctor & Gamble and Unilever are competing to see who is the best philanthropic operating in the realm of "ethical marketing". These two companies are infamous in competiting for consumer's loyalty and brand positioning. P&G and Unilever are overly conscientious about their positioning in the mind of consumers as the "Captain Planet" of products. Your view of their good deeds matters to these Fortune 500."We are seeing, particularly with the new generation of young business people and young marketers, that they are only attracted to companies that fit with their own value set," said Kevin Havelock, president of Unilever U.S. "And the value set of the new generation is one that says this company must take a positive and global view on the global environment. ..." Unilever and P&G both agree that more advertising would win over their brand position. I feel a bit indifferent to having these companies going head to head for the best philanthropist. On one hand I think that it is wonderful that these companies are performing good deeds and supporting a good cause, but on the other hand I feel like a good deed should not be measurable, especially not in competition because it belittles the real cause, and too much attention is focused on the competition. The self-less acts of each of these companies started to shift gears in my mind from focusing on those "in need" to brand positioning of those who have money. At the end of the article you are left to question the authenticity of each company and how did philanthropy meet rivalry. Is this all for show?
posted by Ashley Brunson-Jones @ 12:52 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
It does sound like it's for show, but it's kind of a silly thing to be "competing" over. Really, who wants to find out who the most wholesome product is. Maybe we're in an age where everything has to be edgy or something but I just don't think people are going to care about this all that much. But hey, if we're placing bets...my money's on P&G.
This post reminds me of a couple issues that have much the same tone. For instance, when Dove was questioned for their beauty campaign and whether or not they were doing it as a marketing scheme or because they actually believed in it. While on one hand on face value it seems unethical that companies are competing about ethical, I would say that nobody really loses in the situation. While yes it would be nice to think that these companies gave out of the goodness of their hearts I’m sure we’d all agree that most of them do it for PR reasons. Either way though the more they compete the more will go to good causes.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home