I Spy A Lie?

Skimming Cone's new 2009 Consumer New Media Study, I'm intrigued that 47% of us "think companies are transparent and honest when it comes to talking about their corporate responsibility efforts using new media."

Is the glass half-empty or half-full? One the one hand, this only confirms a widespread understanding that the public is suspicious of the private sector. But I would have expected much worse; I was pleasantly surprised that the trust level is as high as it is. The web has created a trend towards transparency in corporate communications, and I think the public is catching on.

Our team at Citizens Market often fields questions from folks concerned that corporations will "game" our crowdsourced information on corporate behavior by spreading lies about their company on our website. Certainly "gaming" is a real risk for which our community must be vigilant. Our main defense will be our community's ability to sniff out truth from falsehood as they apply peer ratings to reviews of corporate behavior. We'll also be exploring technical solutions, such as tracking the connection between our users' IP addresses and corporate IP addresses. (A neat example of this is Wikiscanner. Let us know if you have other ideas!)

But if gaming is a risk for us at Citizens Market, it's an even bigger risk for any company that tries it. False public statements by corporations can have tremendous negative consequences for their brand and legal liability. In a landmark case in 1998, Kasky v Nike, California's Supreme Court ruled that Nike had engaged in false advertising by publicly denying the media's allegations of abominable working conditions for Nike's overseas suppliers. Nike ended up settling for $1.5 million.

It would be a categorically dumb move for a company to deliberately spread lies within our system or any other social media outlet. Any minor potential gains would be massively outweighed by certain negative media and potential legal consequences if such villainy comes to light. And the web is making it easier and easier to nab such a villain. Whistleblowers, muckrakers and hackers, oh my!

Of course, companies are run by people and sometimes people make very dumb moves. E.g., Enron. More often, we grapple with the blurred edges between dubious information and an outright lie.

What do you think? Over time are you more or less trusting of what companies say about themselves online?

- Stephane

Axe & Dove

Should we care about the CSR performance of Unilever's brand Axe when considering Unilever's brand Dove?

A while ago my friend Isaac posted a great review about Unilever, an Anglo-Dutch consumer goods conglomerate. He was inspired by an interesting YouTube video about Unilever's brands Dove and Axe, and claimed that the video demonstrates the "cynical paradigm of Unilever and other corporations that use positive social messages only when it's profitable."

Isaac summed up the video nicely:

"The gist of it is that Unilever owns both Dove and Axe. The recent Dove advertising campaign seems to be at least making steps towards a less harmful ideal of the feminine physique (e.g. the "Dove Evolution" commercial, also on YouTube). But this is undermined by Axe advertisements, which are impressively demeaning towards women. (Even if you find them entertaining, it's probably not the worldview you'd want to bequeath to your daughter.) And Unilever sells more products inasmuch as consumers believe the people behind Dove actually care about addressing body image issues in our society...

... there are worse things than being a hypocrite. Maybe we shouldn't expect corporations not to play both sides when there's money to be made. But there is real damage done here: it gives cause for cynicism and suspicion whenever anyone looks like they're doing a good thing."

Isaac's review illustrates a tricky question about how our team at Citizens Market should structure the scores for the social and environmental performance of brands and companies in our database. We'd love to hear what you think.

One option is to post a separate score for each brand, even if multiple brands are owned by a single parent company. A search for "Axe" would take the user to a profile page for Axe with a unique score for Axe. A search for "Dove" would lead to the Dove profile page with a different score for Dove. Both the Axe and Dove pages would notify the user that the brand is owned by Unilever, which would have yet another score combining Axe, Dove and all its other brands. Let's call this the "brand score" option.

Another option is to post only one score for the parent company, where all brands owned by a company inherit its score. A search for "Axe" would take the user to the Unilever profile page with Unilever's score, with an explanation that Axe is owned by Unilever. Same thing for Dove. Let's call this the "parent company score" option.

As a potential user of our scores, what would you prefer? Some folks like the nuance of the "brand score" option, reasoning that this will empower users with more information and create more incentive for individual brand teams to improve their social and environmental performance. Other folks want to stay focused on the overall performance of the parent company, arguing that laggard brands like Axe will receive more pressure from peer brands and corporate headquarters, and that parent company scores are the best way to battle the hypocrisy evident in the Axe-Dove case.

From a pragmatic perspective, it is certainly easier for us to pursue the "parent company score" option because there are fewer unique profiles and scores involved, and fewer interactive levels between scores. That means a lot less work for our crowdsourced information contributors and our in-house web developers. Therefore, we'll start with the "parent company score" option as we develop our website and community. But with time it may make sense to get more granular and turn to the "brand score" option. And in that case we'd want to start planning now.

We'd love to hear what you think and why. Should we stick with just one score for the parent company and all its brands? Or should we delve into different scores for different brands within a company?

- Stephane

A cure for option paralysis?

Once upon a time my wife and I were picking up supplies in the drugstore. I headed over to the men's personal care section to replace a lost razor.

What I wanted: something sharp. Preferably inexpensive and durable. What I saw: a titanic display of disposable razors, razor handles, replaceable razor heads with one, two, three or four blades, foil head electric razors, rotary head electric razors. The options were spread five shelves high and several strides long.

I was boggled. Curses, those replacement razor heads are expensive. They lull you with a cheap handle and then nail you later by charging $2 per razor head. I hate feeling like a sucker. But those plastic disposable razors are such a waste. And I don't want to mess around with electric, I hear you don't get a close shave. Rrrgh. OK, so it's got to be a handle with replaceable head. Should I get a vibrating handle with 3-blade razors? Or a normal handle with 4-blade razors? Do the number of blades really make a difference? What about that soothing aloe vera strip? Oh come on, you have a flashlight in the razor now? Gillette: your display is enormous, why don't you just tell me which one is the best a man can get? Wait, how much do those replacement blades cost again?

I almost had a breakdown right there in the store. I was pacing. Mind racing. I was muttering to myself. Okay, I'll admit it: I had actually started to rant out loud right there in the aisle. My wife finally rescued me and gently escorted me out of the store.

I've since learned that I was suffering from a severe case of "option paralysis", which is defined succinctly by Urban Dictionary as "the tendency, when given unlimited choices, to make none." There was an interesting little radio piece about this on WNYC a couple years ago.

Don't get me wrong. I actually think it's great that people have so many choices in the market. OK, maybe the razor companies could tone it down a little. But choices are fundamentally a good thing.

I just wish I could make these decisions more quickly. It didn't take me long to figure out the basic product model I wanted: a durable handle with replaceable razor heads. But at that point the combination of brands and specific features overwhelmed me. They all seemed pretty much the same to me. The breathless promises on the packaging about this or that feature only reinforced my suspicion that there wasn't any real difference in the quality of the shave. I checked the prices between similar models and didn't see any obvious differences there. Should I just flip a coin?

If only I could have narrowed my choices by simply starting with a brand. A handful of options on one shelf is exponentially easier to navigate than dozens of options spread along an entire wall. (Human brains quickly get overloaded trying to hold more than seven discrete chunks of information at the same time. Consider our ability to remember phone digits.)

There are a lot of reasons why I'm excited about my team's work on Citizens Market, mainly the potential to alter the global impact of business on a wide range of social and environmental issues. But I'm also excited for my own selfish reasons: this just might be the cure for my option paralysis!

As I stood there dazzled and ambiguous before that shining wall of razors, it would have been just so satisfying to scan a few barcodes with my iPhone, identify the brand with the best social and environmental reputation, and then quickly pick a razor model offered by that brand. I would have walked out of that store with a smile. Much better than googly eyes and froth on my lips.

- Stephane

Lazy consumers rejoice! The barcode scanners have arrived.

I’m lazy. For a long time I’ve aspired to be a responsible shopper, but I get overwhelmed by all the brands and issues and I’m just too lazy to look it all up before I go shopping. Who has the time?

So for years I’ve had a vision where you can walk down the aisle of a store, swipe barcodes with your mobile phone, and instantly see trusted scores for corporate social responsibility. Bwoop. Toothbrush Brand A gets 2 stars. Bwoop. Toothbrush Brand B gets 4 stars. So I buy Toothbrush Brand B. Bada bing, done. Wouldn’t that be nice?

My team of volunteers at Citizens Market shares this vision. In fact, we got so excited about it that we made a little movie.

A lot of folks are excited about the potential for barcode scanning technology. Especially in Japan. But in the US folks have been skeptical, because the handful of barcode scanning apps developed for mobile phones have been frustrating to use: it would take too long to line up the camera on the barcode, or the app wouldn’t recognize the barcode.

Well, this week I realized that it’s not just a vision anymore. It’s right around the corner.

I bought an iPhone 3GS and downloaded the new RedLaser app ($1.99), which uses the phone’s camera or videocamera to scan barcodes, connect to a database, and deliver comparative prices from other retailers for the product. I haven’t paid any attention to the pricing database yet. I just wanted to play with the barcode scanner.

So last night I was buying a snack at RiteAid and decided to try my new toy. I started scanning everything I could find in the candy aisle.

It’s amazing! I just click a button and point my videocamera at the barcode. Almost immediately the phone gives a little bwoop of recognition and instantly connects to the database. The scanner can even recognize barcodes on curved or crinkly surfaces, though that takes a second longer. With this sort of speed and accuracy, it was easy to imagine using this on a daily basis.

And I’m not the only one impressed. Last week RedLaser was at the top of the charts in the iTunes App Store, second only to CNN Mobile.

So what does this mean? The barcode scanning technology has arrived. Done. Check.

Now we just need to develop a database of trusted scores on corporate social responsibility. With millions of brands. On dozens of social and environmental issues. With adjustments in real-time as companies’ behavior evolves.

Hmm, that sounds like a lot of work. And you know I’m lazy...

- Stephane

Next week: Lazy database developers rejoice! Crowdsourcing has arrived.