Today saw the launch of a project called the Big Red Box that we have been working on with Virgin Group. The main focus of which is to capture and express a commitment from every Virgin company about how their business can contribute to more sustainable lifestyles. This is clearly not a straight forward question because as well as trains, gyms and green funds, the Virgin family also includes planes and even spaceships! So the idea is simple. Create a big red box that represents the complex notion of what a sustainable future might look like. Then pass the box around the group and ask the CEO of each company to place something inside that represents their business, and explain what they are doing to ensure that they get to make it in! It makes for one hell of a journey, and was a pretty big feat to make happen. We even got to meet the beard himself.
Richard Branson has been tweeting today asking what other people suggest should go inside the box using the hashtag #bigredbox. My suggestion was pretty shameless…
“I’d put Given in Virgin’s #bigredbox and all the clients we are working with to make positive change happen ”
Last Wednesday I headed down to the jewellery mecca that is Hatton Garden, to attend an event to mark the global launch of Fairtrade and Fairmined gold. I accompanied Tim Ingle from ethical bespoke jewellers Ingle & Rhode, who are one of 20 British companies launching collections made from ethically sourced gold. We’re working with them on an exciting collaboration with an ethical fashion designer to celebrate the launch – watch this space for more on that…
The new gold standards, which are the result from a partnership between Fairtrade International and the Alliance for Responsible Mining, will boost the incomes and working conditions of gold miners worldwide. Two mining organisations in Bolivia and Colombia have received Fairtrade and Fairmined certification and expansion into Africa and Asia is planned for 2012.
While people working in the artisanal and small-scale mining sector produce just 10% of gold supplies each year, they make up 90% of people involved in gold mining. Fairtrade and Fairmined gold therefore has the potential to improve the livelihoods of an estimated 15 million people who work in the artisanal and small-scale mining sector. It’s also very exciting that soon the consumer will have the opportunity to buy Fairtrade and Fairmined gold, and be able to trace their product from the miner to the shop.
Here’s Juana Peña Endara, senior president of the Cotapata Mining Cooperative in Bolivia (the first group to be certified), pictured with Harriet Lamb, Executive Director of the Fairtrade Foundation, presenting the first 1kg of Fairtrade and Fairmined gold to the media:
Last night saw the airing of a Horizon program on the BBC fronted by Nobel prize winning biologist Sir Paul Nurse. It was highly successful in achieving something that has proved almost impossible in the past – a balanced yet convincing perspective on climate change science. “Science under attack” argues that the scientific community has failed to properly engage in the new ways that the current media environment demands. In the past scientists were respected and listened to as a central source of knowledge. However today two things have changed.
1 – People want free open and transparent access to scientific information whereas the scientific community has tended to be private or at least slow to catch up
2 – That now anybody has the ability to be heard regardless of their status within the scientific world, yet science has failed to take ownership of this new discourse.
The key idea from my perspective was the insight into how an unbalanced and unscientific polarization has taken place in the way that climate change is reported. This polarization is self-serving because the more you try to explain the failings of the other side of the argument, the more you fall victim to it. By facing your opposition you also validate their status as your opponent.
In the end it is not surprising that people end up confused. I am of the view that many of the societal changes that would be needed to move towards a low carbon economy would actually be a good thing – however I can fully understand that at first glance 90% of the population would rather stay as they are, thank you very much. So of course people are not going to change while there is still such an inconclusive discourse going on around them.
I remember when reading about how in the OJ Simpson murder trail the real innovation from the defense was not to seek to prove innocence but simply to raise doubt. Uncertainty is what the jury ended up feeling in this case and I think uncertainty is again growing in the climate debate despite the ever growing body of evidence.
What the show successfully achieved is helping people to understand the full systems at work that lead to this confusion. I have been thinking for some time that real work in climate change education remains largely unfinished, though many of my colleagues are far more excited by the idea of finding sustainable solutions that are fun and attractive in and of themselves; regardless of any personal perspective or ethical judgment on the part of the customer. I am all for this approach which definitely feels like the more innovative space to play in.
However, I also think that a high underlying demand for lower carbon solutions is necessary, that people need to want them on an intellectual level. After all, the underlying forces that drive the consumption patterns that exist today are themselves extremely strong and embedded into the fabric of life.
Despite this it’s an entirely new kind of education that is needed. Not clipart animations that show a sweating, red faced world in a giant greenhouse. What’s needed are new ways to openly and transparently represent to people, a more multi-dimentional view of climate science with proportionality and perspective built in. So when scientific consensus ends up in media polarization and uncertainty, the bigger picture remains clear.
I have attached my first attempt at understanding where things are currently going wrong. It’s a simple model to try and show the process that turns climate data into mediated content that we are all then exposed to. It is my own interpretation and not directly related to tonights Horizon show. I’ll save my explanation of the forces at work that create the flock and flow within this system for another day, as this post is getting too long already. Until then, UK residents can view the Horizon show here.
It seems like everyone I know has seen and likes the new Nike ‘BetterWorld’ site. In some ways, it’s a good illustration of the reason why Given started. CSR is strong in its mission for ever improving and measurable positive change for sustainable development, but its outputs are often so dull that even its own practitioners can’t bring themselves to read it. Marketing is strong in its ‘customer comes first’ philosophy and its belief in the power and pursuit of ideas, but drank so much of the kool-aid that at times, it seemed that the reality of the company itself wasn’t even that important. The strength of one is the weakness of the other – surely they should be able to work something out? Nike’s new site is a good example of how focusing the business on the broader needs of people and the environment, while at the same time inspiring and exciting them, is not only possible but absolutely the right strategy. I happen to know that the head of CSR at Nike has an advertising background and so is well placed to bring these two worlds together. He’s certainly made a good start. CSR and marketing are the same two skill sets that Given was founded on, and maintaining and expanding on both is key to the way we grow.
If I had to be critical of the Nike site, I would say that it could be more self-critical as they, more than anyone else, should understand and be able to explain how much more work is needed. It might sound like a cliché but sustainability is a journey, and so being open and honest about progress is important. But we all know that Nike is not comfortable with humility or restraint and is far better at being bold and vivacious. That’s just who they are. And after all, sustainability communications shouldn’t forget about the culture of the brand. One thing often missing from sustainability is passion and the Nike site has this with bells and whistles. So all in all good #brandsubstance case study.
It has always struck me as an unnatural thing to go to a gallery to see art. But maybe that’s just an excuse for not doing it more often. In some ways, there is something wonderfully democratic about the art gallery; anybody can see some of the most important or influential works ever created, if not for free then for just a few pounds. Art galleries today fulfill a role similar to that of a public library and that must be a good thing.
I wonder how many people really feel at home in the gallery environment. Visitors generally seem to behave in the same way – a sort of slow, somber stroll, hands behind back, with an occasional pause for a bit of chin rubbing. Rules of conduct like these seem to construct themselves in certain environments. There are no signs anywhere requesting only low-level noise and generally reserved behaviour. It’s only children that seem to ignore these unwritten rules.
Over the last decade or so, galleries have been tackling this problem of popular inaccessibility head on. Increasingly, they appear to have become a destination for a really good shop or restaurant as much as a gallery. I even vaguely recall a story about a museum that genuinely considered being the ‘back-end’ to a great destination as a marketing strategy. Much more energy also seems to be going into the idea that the art in a gallery is more about the sum total of the experiences that the exhibition creates, rather than the art per se, like the slides at the Tate Modern or the pond and rowing boat on top of the Haywood gallery. I experienced both of these but without cheating, I couldn’t tell you the names of the artists or the context of the works themselves. Maybe that’s a bad thing, or maybe that’s precisely the point – that in some ways it doesn’t really matter.
This weekend I went to an exhibition called MOVE at the Hayward gallery, which has interactivity at the core and where every exhibit is a personal invitation to do something. The image at the top is me more stuck than moving but was taken there. Examples include a room full of Hula Hoops and another, where rings are suspended from the ceiling, the perfect description for which is ‘a lot like the game called Hang Tough on Gladiators.’ I wondered whether people would really lose their inhibitions versus reverting to the pre-validated art gallery code of conduct. In the end, most people were with children, which gave them ready-made permission to loosen up a bit.
Even though galleries are trying to become more people centric, the art that I have always appreciated the most is the stuff that slots into every day life. When I say ‘appreciated’ I don’t mean it in the way most often used in the art context i.e. the ability to understand and have a taste for it in a way that sets you apart from those people who just don’t appreciate art (oh, the philistines). I mean it in the more literal sense of actually appreciating it being there – that it has transformed an otherwise unremarkable place or moment into something of value.
I suppose that this perspective could, however, attract some pretty negative criticism. It could be argued that it reduces art to prettification, or that the surprise of discovering something aesthetically pleasing, though agreeable, does not contribute to any greater artistic agenda. I remember my art teacher saying that for her, art had to be beautiful and so success (and hence high grades) meant producing things that she would appreciate as such. This usually meant shells or flowers or any other natural forms. My highly talented friend who produced Manga style illustrations, using mainly black with a little red (usually to represent blood) never got much of a look in. I hope I’m not now making the same point that riled me so much during GCSE’s, but I don’t think I am. For example, Banksy’s scattering of works around the East End are definitely not about prettying the place up – but they do in a very real way, improve the place, make it better.
I guess this means that my argument is that art works best when it has a practical relationship with places. And there are lots of places where art could make a positive difference. And lots of companies and institutions that could help make this difference. The word artvertising, which has been sometimes used to describe the relationship between art and commercial gain, suggests that art is used as branding – like a beer bottle with a specially designed label. This phrase suggests to me that brands or products absorb the creative expression of an artist into their own image. While this could be seen as a positive step on from the advertising of old, I am not sure its any different from hiring a talented illustrator or film maker to work on your ads. Everyone wants to be saved from advertising that hurts their eyes and ears, but just because an ad is more deft or sophisticated, it can still have the same effect, just in a slower, more insidious way.
What I am interested in is the opportunity for companies and institutions to see art as a tool for making a positive contribution to people and their relationship to places. Given bang on about ‘brand substance,’ which from the outside could seem like something only applicable to companies that have loads of time to sit around all day ‘brainstorming,’ abstract ideas like ‘the brand.’ However, it’s building contractors, estate agents, developers, the transport industries and of course the local authorities that have the biggest footprint on the built environment. By bringing something of value when they arrive to a location such as some kind of public art, they could be making themselves far more welcome, which to me seems like a useful thing to do when you have to earn your place in the landscape.
Here are the three examples I have seen recently that made me think these thoughts. Two are examples of the broader theme and one is an example of the kind of brand substance thinking that I think would make cities more interesting.
This oversized line of pens and crayons replacs conventional hoardings outside the front of a large development next to Hyde park. This is one section and it seemed to take ages to get past the whole thing when out running. This is the garage of a public library in Kansas. It’s close to being my favourite garage ever.
This is the inside of a ward that has benefited from a project to buy contemporary art and donate it to hospitals. Here, the intended social benefit is most direct in its attempt at healing.
My first ever blog was somewhat pretentiously called the Bobal, which was an acronym of the line the ‘blurring of brands and life.’ In short, it was about the idea that brands can and should escape from the artificial world of image and advertising to become reacquainted with tangible real-life things, like creating experiences, being useful, and participating in culture. One of the other big themes was the blurring of digital things and real things – the kind of stuff that is seriously taking off under the slightly alienating title of ‘augmented reality.’ My view is that ultimately, every kind of change is essentially about the merging or subdividing of cultural ideas. It’s the kind of thinking where one gets lost in one’s own head pretty quickly ☺
Anyhow, the recent observation that brought this line of thinking back to me was the adoption of commercial ideas into charity marketing – it seems like a few capitalist genes had jumped sideways and buried themselves into genome of the third sector. The example the stands out the most is the recent work of Cancer Research for breast cancer.The first example was a full editorial partnership for an entire edition of London’s free weekly paper for women called Stylist. The collaboration works to the mutual benefit of both partners with the kind of balance that is normally typical of a commercial deal. The second was the extensive portfolio of ‘pink’ products that have been put together in collaboration with an array of top brands. What is interesting is that in each instance, the amount of money that actually goes to the charity is clearly shown as a percentage. In some cases this was as little as 3% on some pretty high-ticket items. In others, a full 100% of the price tag was being issued to the charity, which suggests that not only was the company providing the product at cost, but they were footing the bill for production. A pink Kenwood foodmixer was one example at well over £300. Having said this, a little further examination showed that only 25 of this special edition were ever made. But let’s not be too harsh – they have a business to run and this was a commercial decision that they took. It’s up to the market place to decide whether to reward their generosity or reject their miserliness.
Hypocrisy is one of people’s favourite narratives and I think that this can sometimes get in the way of a good thing. Think about how much Anita Roddick did to build a business that gives a damn about people and the environment, and how much criticism this attracted; far more than other businesses that never even tried. The best way of avoiding this is to be as transparent as possible and tell the story of where improvements are needed before anybody else can. But in my mind, you will never escape some people’s negative attitudes. Everyone knows someone who smugly says that the Prius is the least environmentally friendly car on the road, or who think it’s clever to point out the environmental footprint of a poster with an environmental message.
The more we see an alignment of what business is good at, and what’s good for everybody, the better in my mind. It could look a little unfamiliar for a while but it’s generally a win-win for everyone in most instances.
Over the past couple of months we have been working with the Centre for Sustainable Fashion at the London College of Fashion on a project called Shared Talent India.
The Shared Talent project was about the creation of an online resource for the fashion industry to share the accumulated knowledge about crafts, skills and materials that can be sourced in India that are ecologically sensitive and promote social development. It also includes a database of suppliers who are currently taking steps to embrace these. Click here to access the online resource.
Our approach was to seek to start an industry conversation about the perceptions of what “Made in India” means to people and to exchange the challenges and opportunities of sustainable sourcing.
We produced this video with the help of a number of industry professionals as a way of starting this conversation, based on their own perspectives and experiences:
We have also set up a Linked In group for discussion within the industry as well as arranging a roundtable discussion.
A theme for the film was to ask everyone to wear/ bring a garment that was made in India to share the personal story that goes with it.
We are asking the help of some of the UK's most prominent fashion bloggers to choose an item of clothing from their own wardrobe that has been made in India and post about what it means to them, so we thought we'd better share our thoughts, too!
The item I am going to tell you about is this striking Lily and Lionel Aztec print scarf, that I bought in Square Boutique in Bath last month:
This project made me take notice of "Made in India" written next to the designer label. I previously didn’t really consider where clothes are made before buying them, and instead focused only on who designs them. Now it's clear that often, where local crafts and traditional techniques have been employed, the country of origin gives as much of a signature as the designer or label does.
With the launch of Borris’ & Barclays bikes it seems that, in London at least, we are on the cusp of a two-wheeled revolution. Compared to some cities this puts London firmly behind the times.
I still prefer to call the new bike scheme the Velib as it seems that on a couple of visits to Paris in recent months, the city has managed to own the noun for a state run bike sharing scheme. Interestingly a noticeable difference in the London system is the omission of a chain-lock to further discourage people to take possession of the bikes for too long.
If you want to see just how far a modern city can go towards a bike orientated transport system you need look no further than Utrect in the Netherlands as seen in this somewhat idilic looking film.
Anyhow, as it appears that the volume on all things pedal power is being turned up, it seems interesting to look at a few good examples of Bike related entrepreneurship. Would a boom in the bicycle economy (which itself sounds like some kind of pleasant financial euphemism,) have been something that anyone would have realistically predicted at any time up until the 1990’s? I expect it would have been seen as a step backwards. This trend also shows a nice example of the good growth that needs to be encouraged within the overall economy. Good luck to any company that can encourage people to ride bikes!
20m sponsorship from Barclays which to me looks like a smart move. An example of brand substance i.e. a brand enabling good things grow in the city. I personally like the light switch to illuminate the instruction bollard which seems nice and considered. Also the member key system is pretty faultless and quick, and allows locals to sneak in before tourists as they punch numbers into the screen in order to grab the last bike.
2 – The New York cafe bike.
Starbucks and co invest huge premiums to be located at exits and entrance points to stations and other transport hubs. The Undercover Economist explains why big brands will always take these spots. The amount you will pay for the location is the marginal difference between the amount you can charge the customer and the cost to provide that product, while still allowing you to make a profit. Because large brands are the most capable of running at low costs they can pay the highest premiums for the pitch in key locations. But cycling traffic runs in more organic looking lines. Putting your café on the back of a bike could be one way to respond to a growing bike commuter market.
The increase in the bike commuter market would also lead to an increase in bike friendly commuter gear. I have my eye on these rucksacks by Ally Capellino and sold on the apple site under the section‘ laptop cases.’
As the cities get more crowded a distribution models that favour more nimble an overtly responsible means of delivery could take off.
5 – Look mum no hands
Finally a local example to Given as its just a short walk away from our office – Look Mum no Hands is a quirky and friendly café that doubles as a bike repair shop. Bikes are the creative ‘theme’ of the place but also everything is designed to be friendly to bike traffic. Perhaps this will begat the drive through of the 21st century designed for two wheelers?
Recently we ran a session at Ashridge business school as part of their MBA course. The first thing to say is that I have hardly ever been in a place so grand. Apparently Harry Potter was planned to be filmed there, but the disruptive influence proved too big in the end. This attached presentation represents the content for the first part of the day. Unfortunately there is no transcript to post but I think it may still be a useful read. The second part of the day was based around putting the principles of sustainability marketing into practice on live briefs. In retrospect the briefs that we set seem pretty hard. The second one in particular would challenge the very best of sustainability innovators. In light of this I think the responses were very good. I thought I’d post the briefs here in case it gets anybody thinking.
The briefs;
Launch the Nissan Leaf – In the face of clutter in the electric and Hybrid market and the research evidence that Nissan are way behind the competition in the list of Hybrid or Electric vehicles that they would buy. In other words implicit in the brief was the idea that a message driven campaign would not work and that Nissan would need to demonstrate that they are serious about sustainability with a program or initiative that both engaged people and had positive sustainability outcomes.
Topshop sustainable innovations – Fast Fashion has dominated the market in recent years but some commentators have suggested that fast fashion may be going out of fashion. The brief was to create a strategy scenario for Topshop based on this eventuality.
Behaviour change is at the heart of marketing even though it is not often described like this in conventional advertising circles. When talking about the notion of getting someone to enter into the behaviour of eating at a new brand of fast food restaurant, then it starts to sound a bit big brother. The thinking got a boost through the invention of comms planning to structure campaigns in phases, taking people through a process of decision making. For some reason it always manifests as a three step structure based on some generally inter-changable words. A story has three parts, so there could be some inherent reason that it’s always three. A comms plan then becomes a mini saga or change narrative where a new brand of soap or cereal is adopted along the way.
In briefs where there is a social objective, like getting people to clean up after their dogs, use less energy, or stop bullying in schools, the phrase ‘behaviour change’ seems less dubious. It is perhaps most often discussed and applied to the area of public engagement around climate change. This is largely because it seems like none of the public awareness and campaigning is actually having any impact on people.
Generally the approach that has been taken to date on climate change is pretty much the same as every other ‘comms strategy’ I have ever come across. A well intentioned comms planner will create a catchier sounding version of the model below. It is based on the idea of executing a rich and varied campaign where different types of activity work together as a journey.
The first of the steps justifies a big advertising and media spend and so ad agencies tend to latch onto it like a limpet on glass. The second and third parts tend to fall by the way side due to lack of money, support from key players and difficulty to pull off. Despite this the logic still appears sound.
However the book I am currently reading suggests that what seems like a good explanation of how we get to our actions, is actually an illusion that we convince ourselves of in order to feel secure that we are rational, independent beings. The book is called Herd and as you would expect it suggests that most of human culture is based on a herd instinct derived from social forces. It puts forward a different model for behaviour change. Its basically the same process but in reverse. It suggests that our perspective is more a post-rationalisation of our actions rather than a logical process that precedes them.
The effects of this are such as, believing that a company was actually the wrong place for you to work only after you got fired, or believing that the brand you use is the best simply because you use it, or questioning medical evidence that goes against your lifestyle choices. The justification follows the action and not the other way around. This seems particularly true when thinking about climate change. People’s assessment of the risk, their ability to do anything, perspectives on what the ‘real problem’ is, or the lack of faith in science, are beliefs that follow their own actions. Actions that make up the dominant behaviours of the consumer society in which we live. What makes this even more of a challenge to overcome is that people don’t actually realise this. They think that the choices they make are based on the first model, so this is not a problem that anyone is likely to even recognise.
The solution to this lies in an understanding of how to put the second model into practice. Something for another day!
Interesting @dsoly â@joconfino: Understanding how brain works is critical to finding sustainable biz solutions http://t.co/lRiHqRrZâ 15 hours ago
Nice 'gift economy' idea. â@marckoska: Let's band together 2 create a movement 4 positive social change.http://t.co/qJdOhSjr via @Band4Hopeâ 2012/05/17
@firecoda Yep sounds good. It's on Thursday in Farringdon right next to my office. We could meet b4 if you like? 2012/05/17
@firecoda Hi there, are u still up for meeting before long? Did I see that you are going to the Goodfornothing social? 2012/05/17
”
It has always struck me as an unnatural thing to go to a gallery to see art. But maybe that’s just an excuse for not doing it more often. In some ways, there is something wonderfully democratic about the art gallery; anybody can see some of the most important or influential works ever created, if not for free then for just a few pounds. Art galleries today fulfill a role similar to that of a public library and that must be a good thing.
The first example was a full editorial partnership for an entire edition of London’s free weekly paper for women called Stylist. The collaboration works to the mutual benefit of both partners with the kind of balance that is normally typical of a commercial deal. 
The second was the extensive portfolio of ‘pink’ products that have been put together in collaboration with an array of top brands. What is interesting is that in each instance, the amount of money that actually goes to the charity is clearly shown as a percentage. In some cases this was as little as 3% on some pretty high-ticket items. In others, a full 100% of the price tag was being issued to the charity, which suggests that not only was the company providing the product at cost, but they were footing the bill for production. A pink Kenwood foodmixer was one example at well over £300. Having said this, a little further examination showed that only 25 of this special edition were ever made. But let’s not be too harsh – they have a business to run and this was a commercial decision that they took. It’s up to the market place to decide whether to reward their generosity or reject their miserliness.
With the launch of 
The effects of this are such as, believing that a company was actually the wrong place for you to work only after you got fired, or believing that the brand you use is the best simply because you use it, or questioning medical evidence that goes against your lifestyle choices. The justification follows the action and not the other way around. This seems particularly true when thinking about climate change. People’s assessment of the risk, their ability to do anything, perspectives on what the ‘real problem’ is, or the lack of faith in science, are beliefs that follow their own actions. Actions that make up the dominant behaviours of the consumer society in which we live. What makes this even more of a challenge to overcome is that people don’t actually realise this. They think that the choices they make are based on the first model, so this is not a problem that anyone is likely to even recognise.