Alan Mitchell: Reinventing marketing - Brands caught in a moral minefield

Events such as the Arab Spring and riots in England raise fundamental questions about the role of corporations in society.

It is 27 January 2011, and the atmosphere is tense. Demonstrators are playing a cat-and-mouse game with the police. The army is waiting in the wings. The world is watching. In this volatile situation, speed of response matters. Then, just as the demonstrators feel they are getting the upper hand, their communication lines are cut. They feel isolated. They are isolated.

Vodafone defended the decision to switch off its network in the country, saying: 'Under Egyptian legislation, the authorities have the right to issue such an order, and we are obliged to comply with it.'

Many were still outraged. BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones wrote: 'For millions in countries like Egypt, the ability to get instant access to information which could change the shape of their lives is becoming as much of a human right as access to clean water.'

Vodafone's brand reputation was being crushed between a rock (what the government/law told it to do) and a hard place (what its customers wanted it to do). Sites like (tagline: 'Fail is what they do best') still flourish.

Government censorship

Vodafone is not alone. During the recent England riots, BlackBerry and Twitter came under fire not for cutting communications, but for failing to do so. To gain a foothold in China, Google accepted government censorship of its search results, despite its unofficial brand mantra 'Don't be evil'. In August 2011, internet service providers complied with the Argentinian telecoms regulator's instruction to block access to blogs reporting on leaked government emails, after a federal judge's order.

In the UK, ISPs TalkTalk and BT sought, but failed to get, a judicial review of Ofcom regulations that require them to 'shop' persistent illegal file-sharers. Part of their concern was commercial: only the biggest seven ISPs are covered by the regulation, encouraging what BT called 'churn' to smaller providers. Part of it was ethical, however. Is it right, as one consumer put it, that customers should 'subsidise their own ISP to spy on them for a private third party' (in this case, copyright holders)?

What about Tesco Clubcard data? Earlier this year, Tesco fended off government requests to share Clubcard data to assist its campaigns on healthier living. Tesco's refusal ostensibly put its relationship with its customers ahead of the health of the nation. How should brands manage such morally fraught fracas with governments?

Of course, these situations are not new. From the day multinational organisations ventured beyond their home shores they did business with unsavoury characters, including governments, accommodating a wide range of norms that were frowned upon at home. How do you flourish in a business environment where bribery is the norm? They've also had to manage conflicts between stakeholders' interests and socially responsible values along the way.

Today, however, these debates are played out in chiaroscuro online, and the dilemmas they raise are being ratcheted to a new level. It may be inarticulate, hazy and partial, but there is a sense in which consumers now feel that they are the 'owners' of the brands they buy; that it's not just the brand's job to deliver a desirable package of functional benefits. It should also deliver desired values and social interventions.

Brands, and the companies that own them, are escaping traditional boundaries of narrow profit, and even reputational, calculation. They are becoming moral actors, judged by moral as well as commercial considerations.

One way to navigate this moral maze is via a simple but powerful and pragmatic rule of thumb: wherever you are, abide by the law of the land. As Jim Donaldson, Europe, Middle East and Africa vice-president of corporate communications at Weber Shandwick, argues, Vodafone had no choice but to cut the connection in Egypt. 'It didn't want to do it, but it had to. It was part of its licensing agreement.'

Yet legal compliance is not a foolproof get-out clause. Companies that complied with the law in Nazi Germany were pilloried, not excused. Legality does not absolve us of morality, a point not lost on the human-rights protests against Vodafone.

Brands, therefore, need a moral as well as a legal compass. That's hardly a welcome or easy debate for any boardroom, but organisations need to know that, if they have to draw a line, they know where that line is.

Articulating these values is the opposite of PR puffery, observes brand consultant Nicholas Ind, because 'it strikes at the heart of the company's core decision-making and, potentially, its operational existence'.

The third level of response is communication. Vodafone's case was not helped by an ill-conceived JWT video implying that the products of communications companies such as Vodafone were responsible for the Arab Spring. 'Thanks for claiming you inspired the revolution when, in fact, you caused the death of martyrs by cutting off communication,' said one of the more polite posts on

On the other hand, well-managed communication can help brands weather such storms, argues Michael Barnett, professor of strategy at Said Business School, Oxford. 'So long as the firm can convey that it has no choice, despite its best efforts to fight it, then it can shift blame to the government and possibly even gain in the eyes of stakeholders by appearing as their champion in a fight against an overbearing government.' For example, a company can be seen to be lobbying hard against a law, even while complying with it.

Behind that, a simple strategy of transparency and openness can go a long way, says Ind. 'If the brand doesn't know what the answer is, don't keep it inside. Open it up and say: "Let's have a conversation about it, both inside the company and outside."' These conversations might not come up with a definitive answer, he says, but the process can take some of the heat out of the situation.

Yet heat there will be. In this territory, no matter what you do, one man's meat is another man's poison. As Joe Sinclair, director of digital at Burson-Marsteller, points out: 'The same newspapers that were pillorying Vodafone for cutting communications in Egypt during the uprising were pillorying BlackBerry and Twitter for not cutting communications during England's recent riots.'

When Google accepted Chinese government censorship of its search results, it was widely accused of trashing human rights. When it changed its mind in early 2010, moving operations to Hong Kong to escape censorship, the Chinese government accused Google of 'imposing its own values and yardsticks on China'.

Behind this conflict lies a bigger issue.

As the power of governments declines relative to that of global corporations, we are moving toward 'an almost science-fiction situation', suggests Donaldson, where we look to corporations more than governments for guidance as to how we live our lives. Clashes between what some governments want and what corporations and their customers want 'will only become more challenging'.

'This is an incredibly complex, difficult issue that goes to the heart of the question: "What is the role of the corporation in modern society?"' he says. 'It's a hornets' nest, but you have to jump in and deal with it.'

Alan Mitchell is a respected author and a founder of Ctrl-Shift and Mydex.


Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus
Brand Republic Jobs

subscribe now


Lynx tells men not to leave love to fate
HBO captures awkwardness of watching sex scenes with parents
Primark to open first US stores with Boston chosen as flagship location
Marketing spend on the up but a reality check is needed before celebrating
Top 10 ads of the week: Jackpotjoy and BT Broadband fend off Kevin Bacon
Lidl beats Tesco to 10m Facebook fans
Center Parcs ad banned for encouraging parents to take kids out of school
Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Amazon named top brands for targeting youth market
Leaked document shows Nokia to be rebranded as Microsoft Mobile
Nike lays-off hardware staff in move that casts doubt on future of FuelBand
Greenpeace says save the bees or humans will die
What brands need to know about changes to VAT and online downloads in 2015
Jimmy Savile victims urged to claim compensation in new ad campaign
UKIP launches biggest  ad campaign and stirs up 'racist' accusations
Apple boss Tim Cook provides voiceover on ad touting firm's renewed green commitments
John Lewis walks consumers through its history to celebrate 150 years of business
Waitrose boosts content strategy with 'Weekend Kitchen with Waitrose' C4 tie-up
Hottest virals: Cute puppies star in Pedigree ad, plus Idris Elba and Fruyo
Amnesty International burns candles to illuminate new hope
Toyota achieves the impossible by calming angry Roman drivers
Tom of Finland's 'homoerotic' drawings made into stamps
YouTube reveals user habits to appeal to 'older' marketers
Ex-M&S marketing chief Steven Sharp consulting at WPP
Wolff Olins reveals new CEO after Apple poaches Karl Heiselman
Glasgow offers £30,000 prize to best digital idea for 2014 Commonwealth Games
Google's revenues surge but shares drop as it grapples with transition to mobile
Facebook beats Twitter to most 'marketing friendly' social media site crown, says DMA
Fableists believe children like Finn should be outdoors enjoying life
Homebase, Baileys and Camelot join the line-up at Media360
MasterCard renews Rugby World Cup sponsorship to push cashless message