Influence Strategy 101
Red Herring
Red Herring: RD
Definition
SEND OFF-COURSE. Action or communication that draws another player - usually a competitor - away from its preferred position or intended course of action.
Screen
Screen: SN
Definition
INVOKE PEOPLE, IDEAS OR BRANDS. The attempt by a player to borrow issues, ideas, events or other symbolic references.
The Plays of Corporate Social Responsibility
April 15, 2009
Aren't They All Red Herrings + Screens?
The playmaker's have long suspected that all - or if not all, than 99% - of CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs are Red Herring + Screen plays. For the sake of brevity, we will use the example of Exxon-Mobil in this post (although we've listed at the bottom of the post other CSR programs) that fit this mold.
In this case, Exxon-Mobil Partner with professional golfer Phil Mickelson and his wife Amy to form the Exxon-Mobil Teacher's Academy. (Click here to view the TV-commercial. To note: Exxon has not posted the commerical to YouTube, ostensibly to avoid a repeat of the General Motors Chevy Tahoe CSR TV-commerical debacle.)
The goal of the academy is to provide third-through fifth-grade teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to motivate students to pursue careers in science and math. The inferred purpose is to inspire students to become the engineers, mathematicians and scientists of tomorrow.
A noble cause, right? Of course.
But the question is 'why': Why does Exxon need to donate millions to Phil's academy? What's the strategy - or more appropriately, the influence strategy - behind Exxon's move?
To understand why, one has to consider the average day at Exxon. The company faces attacks from myriad parties on multiple fronts (see Influence Strategy Map How Exxon Plays PR Dodgeball.) In effect, Exxon's CSR strategy is to bend, blunt and flip its critics' arguments. Sponsoring the Exxon-Mobil Teacher's Academy is one avenue through which it accomplishes this objective and gains competitive advantage in the marketplace of public opinion.
What about the Screen ? In Exxon's case, it's natural to associate with math and science when the bulk of its company is made up of engineers and scientists. Hence, Exxon lends its credibility to a cause that fits its corporate image.
Voila! A CSR program. A textbook Red Herring + Screen ! Do you agree?
Other Red Herring + Screen CSR Programs:
Starbucks
- Diverts criticism from those who claim its exploits the profits and labor of those from tea and coffee growing regions by supporting various charities that operate in these regions.
Hilton Hotels
- Diverts criticism that it's a polluter by belonging to various Green Building Initiatives.
IBM
- Among many that it supports IBM diverts criticism by supporting green causes and socioeconomic development programs that operate in many of the areas where it operates.
Gap
- Stops criticism before it starts by actively supporting public health and prevention programs in the textile producing and manufacturing countries where it operates.
For a complete list of all CSR programs click here. We challenge you to find a program that's not a Red Herring + Screen.
Posted by: John Koval
"34 Comments
- Login to post comments
-
(permalink |
Comments
Communicators are Influencers for the Next Generation
I still think it is fascinating how Exxon continues to exceed expectations regarding trust within the social corporate responsibility sect. They have been able to remain conscious producers of a resource that many relate to negatively. Public Relations practices have leveraged and branded the company as a trustworthy entity among competitors. Which is more than I can say for Toyota.
I think more and more we are seeing companies use positive issues, ideas and events to advance their organizational objectives. In my opinion, it is a safe and easy way to overcome public opinions that negatively impact a company. With that said, it is also wise to consider the negative results that a "screen" play might produce. Exxon-Mobil was so successful in promoting STEM opportunities for the next generation because its company is in line with science, technology, engineering and math. Using Phil Mickelson to speak to this Teacher's Academy is another step in drawing opposition from Exxon-Mobil's moneymaking foundation.
In the end, it is difficult to hate Exxon-Mobil when they are proactively making efforts to fund the next generation of young scientists, engineers and mathematicians. It even makes you forget about the harming affects of oil depletion and the war that is taking place because of it...at least it does during the three-minute spot on the Today Show (give or take a few minutes thereafter). But, what Exxon-Mobil did accomplish was associate its name to the future of the world and stop "haters" in their ploy to bring down the number one company in the world.
Comm 483
There's really not much more to add to what my classmates have already said. Basically, regarldess of some selfish intentions of CSR programs, they still provide benefits to society. There's nothing wrong with killing two birds with one stone.
First, I think all CSR
First, I think all CSR programs could be called Red Herring + Screening in some ways because in the end, CRS programs benefit the company. It is hard to identify the true motives behind CSR programs.
Companies like Exxon are acused of Red Herring and Screening when they create CSR prgorams in response to problems or criticisms. They are also critcized if they don't do anything. They can't win either way.
It is good to sit back and analyze companies' CSR programs, but it should be done fairfly. It seems like most of the companies being acused of Red Herring and Screening are successful ones -- companies that have been able to gain a competitve advantage over their competitors.
Whether a company is socially responsible or not should not be defined by a few initiatives and CSR does not just include charities. CSR include many initiatives. A company can create a recycling program within its buildings that the public does not know about. It can purchase new energy effiency equipment. It can create programs benefitting its employees.
For example: in addition to its various charities, Starbucks has exceptional employee packages and policies.
Blog posts like the one above unfairly casts a neagtive image on an organization.
Comm 483
As a strategy, social responsibility works as a means of building goodwill between organization and community. In its most callous definition, social responsiblity works as a play, a strategic maneuver to improve an organization's competitive advantage in its marketplace. In reality, corporate social responsibility is not as shallow as providing means to an end.
There are real effects taking place due to the efforts of organizations involved in socially responsible actions. Exon-Mobile's partnership with Phil Mickelson may have been a way to play "PR Dodgeball," however, this partnership will benefit countless teachers and students alike. It is important to not allow skepticism of an organization's motives to get in the way of appreciating the good works organizations are doing.
COMM483 - Response Post
I also agree with my classmates that the Exxon case is clearly a Red Herring + Screen program. I also think in the realm of Corporate Social Responsibility it would be difficult to find an organization that does not follow this approach in executing their CSR programs. Essentially, companies exist to provide a product/service and generate revenue, as such all company programs, whether explicit profit makers or implicit profit promoters, must align with primary goal. Is this wrong? I don't think so. At the end of the day, CSR programs generate mututally beneficial results for the company and the associated philanthropy party, the company receives positive attention and a deserving cause gains funding. This is a win-win situation.
COMM 483
In the case of Exxon-Mobil and most of the other CSR examples provided in the post, it is difficult to deny that these CSR programs are merely a Red Herring + a Screen. In fact, this post was a glaring reminder that even I am guilty of displaying such motives as a PR practitioner. In an assignment about a Health Tech Labs case study, one of my recommendations was that the company promote its water purification campaign in Haiti to divert media attention away from the problem at hand.
However, I do not think that all CSR programs have such "spin doctor" roots. As an example, from the CSRwire link in the post, Bayer Corporation partners with the United Nations Environment Programme for an Annual International Children's Painting Competition. I cannot see any obvious reason that they would need to cover up or "fix" anything involved in their healthcare and nutrition business by launching a creative initiative for kids. Also, it is important to note that most companies do not face so many attacks that they have to "play PR dodgeball" like Exxon, because their business activities do not carry the same implications that drilling for oil does.
Lastly, I think that CSR programs are important and beneficial regardless of the motives behind them. Say that Starbucks is indeed supporting charities in tea and coffee-growing regions only because it exploits profitable opportunities there and feels pressure to improve their image. At least companies are giving back now that CSR is in the spotlight.
CSR
I agree with the statement that you would be hard-pressed to find a company with a CSR that isn't a Red Herring + Screen. Why would companies not use this approach? Organizations that are for-profit want to boost their brand awareness and their sales. So even in their CSR programming, they will look for ways to edge out their employers and thwart criticisms they can expect from the public. While sometimes deceptive, I think that Red Herring + Screen CSR is a smart business move.
Intentions Behind CSR
I agree that the Exxon case is an example of a Red Herring + a Screen CSR program. Like several of my classmates before me, I think that it is interesting to point out that the article seems very skeptical about the value of the corporate social responsibility being exhibited by companies like Exxon, Starbucks, and Gap. The article seems to attribute all corporate social responsibility to the effort of organization to divert criticism and bolstering the corporate image. I would like to think that organizations also participate in corporate social responsibility in order to actually be socially responsible and contribute positively to the community in which the organization exists. I appreciate the tactics that go behind the examples provided above, but I do not think that any tactic is as clear cut as any one or two plays can demonstrate.
483
It is interesting how the article maintains its skeptical view however most often than not, I believe that this is reflective of general public opinion. The public tends to be skeptical of private corporations motivation because the "bottom line" is the focus in our economic structure. The orginial reason of the organization's tactic may not be clear cut but regardless of intention, the CSR is beneficial to the community.
Comm 483 - Dorie Sanders
I agree with my classmates that this is a Red-Herring and a screen approach. Considering that Exxon is a huge company, who often face a wide variety of negative media coverage or negative feedback from competitors, a Red-Herring approach is a good distraction to any negative problems the company may be having. Charitable activities often place a company in a positive light.
I also think this could be an assessment to a ping as well. If a competitor is engaging in philanthropic activity, it is a wise play for their opponent (Exxon) to reciprocate these actions.
It's interesting to read all of the companies who participate in these approaches, however I think it is unfair to assume they are only being philanthropic because these actions will provide them will a good image. I would hope that some, if not all, of these companies would be charitable simply because they believe in that cause... maybe that's naive of me.