Thursday, July 12, 2007

The global warming brand

Tom Peters asks if the issue of global warming is poorly marketed. good thoughts...and an even better thought starter for those of us in the marketing industry. i'm interested in hearing thoughts on how - or if - the branding process differs between a charity or cause vs. a corporate brand.

do we as marketers approach the branding of a cause in the same way as a corporation? moreover, do we as consumers expect messages and interactions with causes or issues to be delivered in the same way we build relationships with corporate brands?

there's a fear, i think, among us marketing types, to treat a cause to the same ROI/Reach/Penetration metrics as we might a corporate client. but would the cause be furthered if it was treated more like a business...or does success result in doing just the opposite?

a post of questions, on a worthy discussion.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Mike Swenson said...

A great discussion indeed Andy. I think you do have to treat causes in some respects, if not like a business, at least using sound marketing principles to help it reach its objectives. As we work with more and more non-profits, it is clear that their "brands" are just as important to them as Nike's or Starbucks' is to them.

Who is the primary audience we need to start conversations with; what are the key points of view we need to get across to engage that audience; and, then what are the best and most creative methods we can dream up to keep them engaged once we have them listening.

It isn't selling soap. It is a higher calling. But we as marketing communicators are in a great position to help further causes just as easily as we sell hamburgers and Ipods.

7:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home