When Corporate goes Ethical

   

"The excellent execution of this campaign showed that cause-related marketing does not have to be dull." 

So says Warren Johnson, MD of W Communications, of Selfridge's Project Ocean campaign launched between March-August last year. Erm, pardon? Is he suggesting that charity and campaigning for causes in the 21st century has become... unsexy?


Gone are the days when women used to march up and down streets and chain themselves to Parliament for the right to vote, and those other days when Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was the soundtrack of your Green Peace protests. 


Nowadays campaigning and standing up for a belief usually means choosing the Fairtrade certified teabags instead of Tetley's at your local supermarket.

"Touch to donate"

But not at Selfridges. Last spring/summer they rolled out a fun, eye-catching campaign to promote their partnership with the Zoological Society of London to help save the seas. A rather savvy, intelligent, and colourful approach to their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda.

Selfridges' Project Ocean window display last summer

Selfridges then proceeded to remove all endangered fish from sale in its restaurants and food halls (hurrah) in a bid to enhance their message. Their objectives?


* To raise awareness about the plight of the oceans and the potentially disastrous consequences of over-fishing
* To encourage consumers to change their habits to eat only sustainable fish
* To raise funds to support marine conservation projects across the globe


As straight forward as those objectives sound, I would have felt real empathy for a company trying to make a mark on society's ethical conscience in a time when pursestrings were/are tightening, and charities were/are struggling - had I not seen the amazing campaign Selfridges rolled out in the end.

Selfridges used a variety of events such as chef demos, live music events, art installations (my fave), a fashion exhibition and store windows  to interact with their consumers and drive home their message. The price tag? For a campaign of this scale, I'd say it was a pretty well spent - it all came to under £100, 000; a number which would probably keep Jessie J fans happy... Or not.


In a credible and fun campaign, Selfridges managed to claim the CSR throne from Marks and Spencers with one clean move. They gave the public ethics. They gave them Prince Charles (an in-store visit as patron of the Marine Conservation Society no less). They gave them a 1940's-themed photocall (nostalgia, is like, so in right now).


And they gave them one more reason to shop with them... Because if Selfridges aren't protecting our seas, who will?

School days are over

Whilst visiting family this weekend, I had the opportunity to catch up with my 15 year old cousin; a precocious, intelligent, but angry boy - just your typical teenage guy. We chatted about why he shouldn't buy a Mac yet (too pricey), and whether he had a girlfriend or not (no, still too pricey). Then we started talking about school.
That was when he really opened up. Despite the decade-wide age gap between my cousin and I, and a change in government since I was at secondary school, I can see no visible improvements to the way children are currently being taught.
We chatted about how big his classes are (30-odd teenagers in one classroom sounds unbearable for all concerned), how he felt about his teachers, and how he felt about understanding what he was being taught.
As the conversation went on, it began to dawn on me that his experience merely scratched the surface of the problems surrounding the infrastructure of education in this country.
He handed me his report card; a brief look at his weaknesses and his strengths; prior to Parents' Evening later this month. I scanned his list of subjects. In separate columns next to the subjects, were four more columns each either with the initials AE, ME, and BE printed within them, and a grade for last term, and a grade for this term.
Vincent told me that they stood for Above Expectations, Meeting Expectations, and Below Expectations. Without giving too much away, the AEs and the MEs were almost equally balanced out, with a few BEs scattered onto the page. This was great, the kid seemed to be doing OK in school - but then I looked closer. Next to one subject, he was achieving a B last term, and as a result he was Above Expectations. Scan further along, and he was still achieving a B, (all in all good news), but in the next column along, it appeared he was Meeting Expectations.
My immediate thought was "Should he not be set new goals? How could someone who was exceeding expectations last term, not be set new goals and pushed to his maximum potential? How could he be meeting expectations if he was exceeding them last term?"
It dawned on me then, that my cousin was another student, another number, lost in a sea of students struggling against the odds set out for them.
Vincent's results proved that he had potential but instead of nurturing this, his school had a 'let him get on with it' attitude. This makes me exceptionally angry.
Since the move towards a literally more Conservative government who have promised to use education as a way to break class systems and patterns, there appears to be no visible efforts to actually help schoolchildren when it comes down to it.
It makes me think that there are thousands more students out there receiving the same lax treatment from their schools, which for whatever reasons, aren't helping students gain the most out of their education. And all this, in the midst of the current coalition government trying to get rid of  "mickey mouse" qualifications so that people can once more be packaged into neat little boxes ready to be served up at the end of their 18 year education.
I don't blame the teachers in any way, shape or form. The average class size in a state-funded secondary school is said to be 20.4, but clearly Vincent's school falls into the 6.6 percent of schools which have classes of one teacher for every class of 30+ pupils. I've heard first-hand from teachers who have worked around the clock marking homework and planning lessons, and their frustration at their lack of time and resources to help struggling students who are destined to fall into the same pattern their predecessors have.
So with a lack of resources, a lack of teachers, and yet more cutbacks, how do you solve a problem like the school system?
The answer is clearly, yet to be discovered.

A Jaded Nation

This week, the Edelman Trust Barometer revealed statistics which confirmed something we all knew: only 30 percent of the nation "found CEOs to be believable spokespeople for their organisation". The statistics show a nine percent drop in our faith from 2010. The survey also found something which reflects where the missing faith has been placed - there was a 25 percent rise in the credibility of "people like yourself".

This subject has been debated and dissected a million times over before I even begin typing, but I found myself drawn to this article, dry as it may have appeared when I started reading, for reasons which became clearer as I read on. The problem isn't just that the Goodwins and the Hesters of the corporate world are seemingly being rewarded for a botch job; the bigger problem is that as a nation, we can't identify with their apparent values and work ethic in the slightest.

Stephen Hester was away at his chalet in Switzerland for the weekend when he received the news that ministers and the media were outraged by his RBS shares bonus, and that he probably wasn't going to see a penny of it.  Cue images flying around in my mind of a downtrodden balding guy in a Christmas jumper, holding his head in hands by an open log fire, on a leather sofa, being consoled by his beautiful wife who strokes his back with perfectly manicured fingers. Amidst general economic despair and climbing unemployment, particularly in youth unemployment figures might I add, how could we, as a nation, possibly relate to his woes, or feel that he could represent us in any way, shape, or form?

Hester's basic salary is £1.4 million; from our perspective, the bonus he's missing out on sounds like a drop in the ocean to a guy like him. Most of us cannot imagine what earning that amount may feel like, but we do know what it feels like to stand in Topshop for half an hour, stroking that dress and convincing yourself that you earned it, and you really really need it because essentially, you are pumping money back into the economy, or if all else fails it's OK to not buy lunch for the rest of the month. Yes, I speak from personal experience.

I've drawn my own conclusions from these results, and the overriding factor for me isn't that I can't trust any CEOs in the world - it's that there aren't many I can relate to on a human level. We're almost led to believe they are a super-human robot race, built to serve the purpose of their company and naught else. As noted in my previous blog post, I have a lot of respect for Antonio Horta-Osorio, Lloyds Group's CEO for refusing his bonus, and I definitely believe that the sudden focus on bankers' bonuses and the media's ethical frenzy over them was in part set-off by his actions (amongst other factors).

Sometimes it takes one to know one - and most of us can probably deduce now if we haven't already, that becoming CEO of a bank is not in our life plan.

Just say 'No' to bonuses

Antonio Horta-Osorio, chief executive of the Lloyds Banking Group, broke the mould this week by refusing his annual bonus worth £2.4 million. Some say this is just a very clever PR stunt, and oh, coincidentally, he is just back from a much-talked about two month hiatus. The news of Osorio rejecting his bonus comes just days before it was announced that RBS chief executive Stephen Hester was more than happy to receive his annual bonus of £1 million, at a time when 3,600 members of staff are being made redundant at RBS. 


But the naive, truth-seeking little girl in me wants to hope that he refused it on genuine compassionate grounds - guilt. While I'm normally the first person to leer and revel at a rich man's misfortunes (shadenfreude actually suits me quite well sometimes), Osorio seems to be in real, human suffering.


Yes, those words and the word "banker" don't technically fit well into the same sentence, but after being signed off for two months due to insomnia and health issues, I do think it's acceptable to feel a marginal amount of pity for the guy. Even if his annual salary does come up to £1.6 million I will never, ever get to see in my lifetime. Ever.


The truth of the matter is, (again I stress this bearing in mind the amount of positive publicity he is gaining for Lloyds) it makes him seem more human, less infallible. He reminds us that sometimes, it's OK to admit we're not OK, and that he can't always get it right. And on those grounds, he refuses to be rewarded for it.


This is a simple human instinct, and one which I applaud him for embracing. After two months off from the banking industry, it would be nice to think that he's become a little bit more empathetic towards the average minimum wage earner, and his mindset as a millionaire banker has been diluted.


While it's easy to feel very little compassion for someone who most of us cannot relate to, I do believe that just saying no to a bonus which is larger than your annual salary might be hard. He was offered it, and he refused it. In the same position, would I have done the same? Probably not.


Sometimes it's easy to dehumanise people when it suits our needs, and particularly when the media helps us along our way. Osorio is showing initiative by taking the lead, and saying "No, I don't deserve this," before any other bank has done so. 


Having said all this, Osorio has hit the headlines during a time when Lloyds' share prices are dipping - hmmm... Maybe I won't be going into banking any time soon.

Wikipedia's "blackout" raises awareness of issues other than Sopa

Wikipedia's 24 hour "blackout" may be the eye-opener that founder, Jimmy Wales, intended for the public to react upon, to make us realise just how dependent on it we have become. The "blackout" is a reaction to a US legislation on online piracy that may be passed, forcing websites such as Wikipedia, Google, and Facebook "to keep a closer tab on what is posted by users". It is a Digital Age, and, as we all know, like er, duh, who doesn't use the internet?

No doubt, today's (English language only) Wikipedia blackout will affect the lives of millions of people around the world, not only "students", as Metro so joyously pointed out. Anyone who is anyone has conducted some last minute "wikipedia-ing" before an interview; before meeting someone they want to impress; or indeed during a pub quiz.

But in the latest issue of PR Week, Matt Cartmell points out that editorial on Wikipedia is swiftly becoming an issue, with PR companies using the site as a way to screen good/bad press; intending to censor bad press, essentially. Earlier in December last year, The Independent led a "damaging sting" on said topic.


The CIPR, one of the UK's PR and corporate communications trade associations, has welcomed input on how to monitor the approach to Wikipedia within the PR industry from none-other than Wikipedia’s Wales.

Wales is obviously an advocate of the ethical use of the online encyclopaedia, and certainly, should the Sopa (Stop online piracy act) not get passed, he'll be giving a few more seminars similar to the one he is due to deliver on Friday to Bell Pottinger, training employees on the ethical use of Wiki. Great news for PROs and stakeholders/consumers alike.

With the vast growth of online platforms of information such as encyclopaedias, and social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and foursquare, it was inevitable that a country as huge as the US would feel the need to step in and monitor it somehow. Never mind that it completely and utterly contradicts their freedom of speech and liberty rights acts. I do wonder if perhaps a scare such as Sopa has nudged public awareness in the right direction, despite all this negativity.

It would stop PR agencies such as Bell Pottinger from doing things such as removing the "wife beater" nickname of Stella Artois from its Wikipedia entry.

Introducing Wikipedia guidelines is a great idea, but I am dubious as to how many people will stick to them, and how, if at all, the future of Wikipedia editorial will be monitored if it is already a not-for-profit venture.

Thus far, Wikipedia merely "asks users to avoid editing topics in which they have a vested interest", but I see no way of physically stopping the act of unethical editing, especially not since some "senior figures" believe such censorship is fine.

I admire Mr Wales for attempting to address such a huge subject and tackling the problem head on. I have more respect for the CIPR for unashamedly getting involved with this matter at the height of Wikipedia's problems.

What I would like to see more of, is people backing Mr Wales and the CIPR on the matter, and a sturdy solution to "open, transparent engagement with the public through Wikipedia". Because it really isn't too much to ask, is it?

The Taylor Bennett Foundation

I got the phonecall as I wandered distractedly through Oxford Street’s H&M, hands full of bags, mentally drained from the day, and heavy of heart. As I shifted my bags from one
hand to the other and pulled my phone out of my pocket, the unsaved number flashing
back at me made my heart skip a beat.

Several thoughts went through my mind at once; “It could be the Taylor Bennett Foundation calling to say I haven’t got through to the internship,” or “It could be TBF calling to say something went wrong during the assessment today,” and finally, “It could be TBF calling to say I’ve got through.”

But it was good news. I barely remembered Sarah Stimson, the TBF’s Course Director’s
exact words despite the importance of it, I can only remember the elation I felt and how
gobsmacked I was at being selected as one of the eight interns who had made it through
to the Talk PR TBF Programme.

I had only left the venue for the Assessment Day around an hour before I received the
phonecall, and the day had been full of excitement, nerves and new faces - still on edge
after being told we would hear if we had been accepted that very evening, I had not
completely recovered from the day’s experience yet.

The Assessment Day itself was brilliant if intense; my day began with a group presentation
after being divided into two groups of applicants; followed by a short break; followed by
another group presentation; followed by our solo presentations. All this, before lunchtime.
After lunch, we ploughed straight on with two back to back interviews.

I learned so much on that day alone, that I told myself if I walk away tonight I’m going to
be a wiser and stronger person with the confidence to continue with my PR job hunt. After
graduating with a Masters in International Journalism , PR had not been part of my life
plan at all - then moving to Nepal changed my life.

I worked at an NGO hospital as their PRO for a year in Nepal and realised that PR
incorporated everything I loved under one title. I was able to write, edit, create, and
manage press releases, events, and campaigns. But I had no idea how to get into PR
back at home.

A friend and mentor told me about the TBF programme for graduates, and I went straight
onto their website only to discover I had missed the deadline for the Autumn 2011
Programme. Still, it paid off, as I researched as much as I could before the Winter 2012
fashion PR intake, finding @PRStarsTB and @GoooRooo on Twitter for updates. Once I
saw Sarah tweet about accepting applications, I went for it.

After receiving a response on the same day as the closing date declaring I had been
accepted onto the next stage, I was ecstatic! It was my first interview after almost 150 job
applications in six months, and the best news I had received to date.

I am overwhelmingly excited to be participating in this internship as I am fully aware the
opportunities it can lead to. For anyone who feels defeated at the current job climate, don’t
be. All it took was one moment and one chance to change my situation. Now I'm sat in the TBF offices, writing this.

What a difference a day makes...

"What's the most racist thing that's ever happened to you?"

Needless to say, as soon as I read the article title on The Independent's website homepage, I knew I was opening up a can of worms.

It's not that the question isn't loaded. I'm fully aware that racism still exists, and for as long as man shall live alongside one another with differences, it always will. As a British-born Chinese female born in the north east and brought up in the north west, such a question will always hold significance.

It's just that when I scrolled down to the sixth interview, and I read Dr Lynette Goddard's account of her most racist encounter, that I felt it was an issue I finally had to address through writing.

"I used to work as a stage manager with a touring theatre company called Black Mime Theatre Women's Troop. In 1992 we were touring a show about women and alcoholism to a youth centre in Carlisle. On this night I was understudying for one of the actresses. About halfway through the show, a young lad ran toward the stage spraying a fire extinguisher and shouting: "Get off, you black bastards." This was the first time I had experienced such explicit racism and I remember it to this day, especially when I go back to Carlisle."

For those of you who have not met me, Carlisle is my hometown. I would like to say that I was surprised to hear that Carlisle made it on the Racism Map of Shame, but in truth, of course, I'm not. I'd also like to say that I grew up in a lovely, innocent environment, feeling like I "fitted in" my whole life and I never noticed the colour of my skin, but I would be lying.

The truth of it is, that the colour of my skin has never mattered to my friends, family, or even friends of friends growing up in Carlisle, but every so often, I would experience something in my hometown which would jerk me back to reality from my "everyone is born equal" haze and realise that this issue will always be a part of me, and that there will always be those in the world who are uncomfortable with it.


I finished reading the article and immediately a handful of events, vivid as the colours of rainbow sprang back into my mind. I didn't even need to ask myself the question purposefully; my brain was already singling out incidents from my overall-happy childhood to chide me into writing this post.

There was the time I was in the playground of my primary school and a boy a few years older than me was teasing me about my name, chanting "Cindy, where's Barbie?" incessantly. Like any five year old, I found it irksome, and told him to "Shut up," after five minutes of trying to play with a skipping rope. The boy stopped mid-chant, narrowed his eyes at me, and replied in a measured, almost mature tone, "What do you know, Chinky?"

This was the first time I had ever heard the word, and while I did not understand its full venom when used in such a circumstance, I remember how it made me feel to this day. That was the first of many incidents I've experienced, but one of the few I experienced actually in school. Other incidents always occurred when I had friends around, when we were socialising, when I least expected it; usually just incomprehensive teenage jibes which I am able to write off after initial shock as ignorance, but on more than enough occasions, I've also had on nights out with girlfriends:

 "Oi, Ting Tong, I have a video with someone who looks like you in it at home, do you want to come and watch it with me?"

And even when I know it shouldn't, those are the ones I find most hurtful and shocking, because when a drunken middle-aged man leers at you in such a way, you know that in his heart he truly believes you are inferior to him. I always took these comments more personally than other racist comments because it also referenced my gender - yet I was the one being verbally attacked, not one of my girlfriends.

The article in The Independent is right to address issues of race, but when discrimination isn't only about the colour of your skin but also about your gender, the topic gets so much more complicated. It says a lot about the person who is insulting you, but inwardly I know it makes me uncomfortable because it reminds me of my differences; differences which my friends and family have never made me feel but parts of society will always be around to reproach me for.

It is easy for me to remind myself that the racism I have faced, especially in Carlisle, is due to a lack of education. It's one of those things your friends tell you, that your mother tells you, that your cousins who have faced the same situations, tell you. There are however, those who say they are not racist, who genuinely do not believe that they are racist, and stand by that assertion even after making sweeping comments about all Chinese people being hard gamblers, or that "your lot" are "coming in the droves to this country aren't you?".

My concerns in light of today's ruling at the Old Bailey on the 1993 case of Stephen Lawrence's murder  do pale in comparison, and I'm glad that justice was served today. It is not for me to judge whether the verdict is right or wrong, but I can say that the media coverage, the support Lawrence's family have publicly received, and everyone's interest in the case proves that racism is, and forever will be, an issue worth talking about, and always an issue worth educating people on.

In response to the question then, Mr Paul McKenzie, I have found that there are too many to count and put into words, but it's not the words that I hear which strike a chord - it's the underlying meaning of the message, which each racist comment carries, that I will never be able to get used to, no matter how many times it happens.