My post about consumer responsibility in a consumer behavior was mysteriously removed yesterday after talking about Nike and Appleby. Isn't that hilarious?
Among marketers, there are always conversations about the importance of cultural factors taken account in marketing - but there could be way much more conversations about the corporate responsibility in the creation of a consumer behavior. We have enough data on use to know, how consumers are behaving. As educated adults, we have an ability to recognize what is wrong and what is right.
The latest ad which really shows a good approach for international marketing comes from Ford, which published a stunning ad for women, when Saudi Arabia finally let the women to drive this autumn.
Internationally, companies should focus these days not only to understand the cultural backgrounds, also to understand and cope with, how important tax payments are for the environment. As an example, Nike Europe has managed to transfer approximately tens of milliards of euros (as far as it's been tracked, perhaps even more) to the tax paradises through their company in the where else but Netherlands. A sad fact is, that most of the funds transferred from Europe to the tax paradises move through the Netherlands. And that is not a coincidence. Also, after all, every Euro from the other EU-countries disappear more or less to the Netherlands. That might help the citizens of the Netherlands, but not the citizens of the other EU-countries. There are two sides of a coin in, why people want to leave the EU.
"Why still, consumers don't boycott the brand so that it would affect remarkably on their revenue? -Because people do not care about other people's suffer."
At the same time, Nike do not take the corporate responsibility as well as could and should, taking account which countries their products are made, and the amounts they are annually selling. For me it seems like, they don't care too much of their labor in the 'developing' countries (I avoid using word developing, because in my opinion, for example the US these days, fills the description of a developing country better than India for example). Why still, consumers don't boycott the brand so that it would affect remarkably on their revenue? -Because people do not care about other people's suffer.
"And who cares about the revenue anyway when there is a chance to hide tens of milliards to the Cayman Islands with the help of Appleby or other trustworthy tax paradise company and share the money with the share holders and investors?"
So coming to which, companies don't see the tax payments as a mandatory thing to take on account when planning a marketing based on the customer behavior. As long as there is money on use for the top footballers and models in the marketing - there are no worries of the revenue. And who cares about the revenue anyway when there is a chance to hide tens of milliards to the Cayman Islands with the help of Appleby or other trustworthy tax paradise company and share the money with the share holders and investors?
"If the decision makers would seriously want to change the customer behavior in the name of the climate change and love, that would have already happened."
I never get tired of talking about, how much us marketers are responsible of, what do we agree to market. If the decision makers would seriously want to change the customer behavior in the name of the climate change and love, that would have already happened. Unfortunately, it is all about the money, and everybody in the politics are involved in hiding money behind those tax paradise companies - even the cute, innocent president of Canada. And the sweetest, queen Elisabeth.
References:
- YLE, "Unlawful in a paradise", Finnish national tv journal project about the tax paradises
Available from: https://areena.yle.fi/1-3849181 [Online]
- ADWEEK article, Ford Made the Perfect Ad in Response to Saudi Arabia Lifting Its Ban on Women Drivers 'Welcome to the driver's seat'