When ‘good things’ turn sour: Coles’ shift towards the community isn’t the problem
In response to a piece published on Mumbrella which condemned Coles' strategic shift towards community work and sustainability, Hailey Cavill explains how the subject choice isn't the problem, but the way the supermarket chose to communicate it.
Jamie Clift raises an interesting question in relation to Coles’ new advertising campaign – do customers really value a supermarket’s community work over cheap groceries?
As someone who has brokered 50 partnerships worth $40m for companies such as Mondelez, Disney, Seek, Vodafone and many more, as well as commissioning five research reports on the topic of CSR, social good and cause-related marketing, I’d like to offer my perspective which is based on direct experience as well as current research statistics.
The simple answer to whether customers care about or value an organisation’s community work is YES. It’s not the primary reason for consumers to choose a product, service or indeed supermarket, but it is an important part of the overall consideration to shop. Research conducted in December 2017 asked Australians if they have switched brands in the past year because it supported a charity, and 25% of millennials said they had.
I agree with Jamie on one point – both Woolies and Coles’ advertising has been consistently lackluster, dare I even suggest lame. Lacking in creativity, focused on price cuts not value, battling each other rather than battling to fend off the Aldis of this world with their quirky advertising. If my choice of supermarket was purely based on the ads, Aldi would win hands down.
But to think that consumers choose a supermarket based on its ads is naïve.
So, let’s take a closer look at the new Coles campaign ‘good things are happening’.
Coles have failed in two ways:
- They’ve chosen the wrong thing to kick off their ‘good things’ campaign
- They’ve communicated the Redkite achievement incorrectly so that it alienates not resonates
They’ve chosen the wrong thing to kick off their ‘good things’ campaign
I suspect the Redkite advertisement is the first of many ‘good things’ they intend to share, but alas they started with the wrong thing. They should have started with the things much closer to home.
Today’s consumer, and especially millennials and gen Z, will go out of their way to find out how companies are impacting society and the environment. If Coles and Woolies seriously want to differentiate themselves and give customers what they want they will need to address the way their everyday operations and stores are impacting the world – things such as the over-use of plastics (fruit wrapped in plastic for God’s sake who needs it!), continued use of plastic bags despite promising to ban them, sustainable fishing, ethical dairy and meat sourcing, free range chicken and eggs, energy consumption in-stores, treatment of staff, equal pay, disabled access, CEO salary and bonuses and so on.
They need to address all of these issues and communicate what they are doing, as well as distribute some of their substantial profits to great charities like Redkite who are helping kids with cancer.
They’ve communicated the Redkite achievement incorrectly so that it alienates, not resonates
The ad starts with an elderly employee talking about one of the nicest things Coles has done. Whose idea was it to have her be the spokesperson? Do we care about her? No.
Then we get a two-second nod to what Redkite does, straight off the ‘positioning statement’. Then they pat themselves on the back to declare that they have given Redkite $27m dollars. Now that’s impressive, but we all know that numbers don’t turn people on.
This is typical ad agency using traditional advertising techniques to promote something (social good) that requires a different set of communication artistry. Social good is about showing a company’s human face, but they’ve kept all the human stuff out of it.
Where are the stories of the kids they’ve helped? It’s all about them, as usual. It’s quite sad, because $27m is an outstanding achievement by anyone’s standards, and Redkite is an amazing charity, and together they’ve done some great good over the years. This ad completely fails to resonate with Australians so that we feel proud, whether we shop there or not. A missed opportunity for both Coles and Redkite.
When communicating CSR and social good there is a new set of rules. Companies must talk about the human difference they are making, not the money. They must be humble, not boastful. They must tell stories not use stats.
Companies are wasting millions on dollars on blah communication that simply fails to land. As George Bernard Shaw once said: “the biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place”.
Hailey Cavill is CEO of Cavill+Co. In 2016 Hailey published a report called Talking the Walk®, the findings of which were presented at Mumbrella’s CommsCon in 2017.
25% of millennials switched brands due to the brand supporting a charity? Nonsense. Even bigger nonsense if you’re talking about a household’s biggest monthly expense after housing and transport.
Hailey, I’m sorry, but taking claimed behavior as gospel is naive at best – willfully misleading at worst – especially when it come to claims of social good.
Take any focus group. Everyone says being Australian made / grown / owned is a mandatory in their purchasing decisions. After all, saying ‘I don’t give a shit if it’s chinese, as long as it’s cheaper’ doesn’t sound great. But the reality is that sales show country of origin is less of a concern than claimed, by a long way. We just don’t want to admit it.
In the face of stagnating wages and cost of living increases, the bulk of Australians will vote with their wallet first. Coles has been cutting prices via cleverly playing with their margin mix for eight years and reaped the rewards. However, they have no financially viable place to go in the face of the (still much) larger Woolies cutting profitability to regain some of their lost market share.
This is a hurriedly thrown together attempt to change the game away from price. It won’t fail because it is poorly executed. It will fail because most Aussies think of household budgets before social good.
User ID not verified.
I agree Hailey – if one of these supermarket giants started to consider and “change the way their everyday operations and stores are impacting the world” and started behaving more ethically, it would win market share considerably. I also agree that the ad is boastful and doesn’t have any impact emotionally.
KGB I think you are wrong to say that as much as 25% of millenials are switching brands because of social good is nonsense. While we should always approach survey results with caution, brands like “Thank you” and “Who Gives a Crap” are making it easier and easier for consumers to choose social good over price. And it’s millenials that are starting these brands! I believe this is where the biggest impact is coming from – because you can actually track down the impact your purchases are having via their websites. This has got to me much more effective than 10c per purchase going to X charity – as Hailey said, “numbers don’t turn people on”.
User ID not verified.
Dear KGB, yes I was shocked at this too but stats don’t lie. Previous studies have asked ‘would you switch’ and around 70% say they would – this is when looking good comes into it. I think this is a more accurate stat. overall population was around 10%. Millennials really are influenced by social change…just look at the students in the USA. They know how to use the power of social media and their purchase to make corporates be accountable. Voting with your wallet is a good strategy. This was not a focus group it was 1,300 Australians in an online survey where they had no reason to lie. You can scoff at it if you like but those were the stats and my experience also confirms this. Perhaps you are not a millennial or perhaps social good doesn’t influence you. I don’t see many millennials in my local woollies – they are all in the organic health food shop paying 3 times more for their veggies. I agree that this strategy looks hurriedly thrown together. I agree most Australian households (eg Xers) wont be influenced but I disagree – millennials will be. Thanks for your perspective…
User ID not verified.
Thanks Felicity! yes CSR has to start from the inside. I really do admire Redkite and the Coles for the long term support they have provided its just a damn shame that the ad agency let them down with a bad ad. Happy to send the survey – conducted by respected firm Di marzio – to anyone who wants it. Email me at letstalk@cavill.com.au and I will send!
Take a look at McDonalds and how they promote Ronald McDonald House Charities. It’s all about the kids and the difference the money makes, very different flavour.
User ID not verified.
If 25% of millennials are switching brands (away from the market leaders) and they represent around a quarter of the population, then you expect to see the leading brands to have had a collective 6%-7% market share decline across all categories. If anything, we are seeing increases in private label brands.
So claimed behaviour is not supported by the data from the cash registers – the point KGB was making.
User ID not verified.
Hi JG thanks for your comment. The stat shows that 25% of millennials said they had switched brands in the last year due to a company or brands support of a charity. The research does not say away from market leaders…some of the brands that are doing good charity work are the brand leaders like Vodafone and Carman’s. Im not sure what formula you are using for your calculation. I can only comment on what the research says and 22 years of experience seeing company’s promote a charity and seeing sales go up. Good debate!
User ID not verified.