Does The Makeup Brand Fantasy Have Bad Things In Their Makeup

Pepsi makes brown sugar h2o that can contribute to obesity. Dove's "Real beauty" campaign was created by Unilever that also does the Axe campaign. Walmart has raised the bar on sustainability standards. In fact, almost every make doing meaningful work can be defendant of providing some product or service that can be harmful, and many so-called villains contribute to of import social programs. So what practise we do? Is it an all or nothing state of affairs? Or is in that location room for grey?

I don't recollect there is anything to be gained past being black and white on this issue. Transparency, authenticity, and accountability from brands is paramount. There is no doubt about that. But it's unrealistic to expect brands to do their duty to society and their shareholders without hard compromises existence made. Compromises that mean companies that do expert work still source, produce, and sell products and services in ways that are undeniably harmful to people and our planet.

Does that mean brands become a costless laissez passer to some degree? No. Does it mean we ease up pressure on them to practise conscionable behavior? No. Does information technology justify the harm they do to people lives, the environment or to our children's future? Absolutely non. However, I don't recollect this boxing can be won by demonizing brands. Instead we must look to piece of work with them and gloat the good piece of work they do as permission slips for others to do the same.

The ability of the Pepsi Refresh Project, Starbucks Shared Planet, Ford'due south Invisible People, Nike's Livestrong, Target Bullseye, Walmart's Sustainability and All-time Purchase'southward @fifteen campaigns is non limited to the actual crusade efforts they support. Their additional ability lies in the shift in corporate thinking they enable. By demonstrating to companies obsessed with cocky-involvement that doing good is skillful business organization, they allow others to expand their definition of self-interest to include the greater good.

We must celebrate this growing number of well-intended corporate initiatives fifty-fifty though these aforementioned companies can be defendant of mixed motives or double standards. Nosotros are in a period of broad transition in which–as a role of genuine dialogue between brands and consumers, heightened sensation of crises through the Internet, and a recognition of our interdependence inside our global community–companies around the world are waking upwards to their responsibility every bit social change agents. This transition may have twenty years to complete earlier the private sector becomes a third colonnade of social modify in addition to authorities and philanthropy, but information technology has begun.

By celebrating the skilful works of brands we encourage them and others to practise the aforementioned. As we support the success of those initiatives, these brands can do more than to shift the products and services into comprehensive alignment with their core values. Only then will nosotros see the emergence of many more companies who have successfully married profit and purpose, and only then tin nosotros realistically demand that all brands do the same.

Do y'all agree that nosotros should focus on positive make behavior to enable others to do the aforementioned? Or should we take all brands to task for any behavior that has a negative impact right now?

Reprinted from SimonMainwaring.com

Simon Mainwaring is a branding consultant, advertizement artistic director, blogger, and speaker. A onetime Nike creative at Wieden & Kennedy, Portland, and worldwide artistic director for Motorola at Ogilvy, he now consults for brands and creative companies that are re-inventing their industries and enabling positive modify. Follow him at SimonMainwaring.com or on Twitter @SimonMainwaring.