I'm still not chasing your waterfalls, but the industry sure is (yup, I'm the crazy).

I'm either crazy or, perhaps, I'm that crazy little voice shouting "folks, the dude (emperor) has no clothes!" Maybe I best shut up and money-up from companies who long to create all-too-human, if oh-so-hollow, positioning strategies (cue-up the pretty waterfalls, wontcha?).

Problem is I wouldn't respect myself. And yet, ironically, I come to find out today that Dow's campaign is all about respect.

Yup, "Dow Chemical Co. has a modest goal for its corporate ad campaign: to be acknowledged as the largest, most profitable and most respected chemical company in the world."

Oh how I wish I could just leave that one alone. Darn't, I've already talked Dow--a convo, mind you, where most disagreed with me--but that behemoth is just forcing my little hand. And since BtoB will not add commenting functionality (I've asked thrice), I'll need to talk it on my turf.

(psst: my original post on DOW is here, along with the commercial where you'll learn how water is made and how water falls really pretty).

Um, no comprendo. Please tell me WHAT the company is doing--not what they're SAYing--to better the human element (not just trying to look better to humans). For that matter, I can't tell you how much I'd also appreciate your explaining what, exactly, the "human element" is.

A work of (manipulative) art. The ad's writing? Extraordinary. The cinematography? Transporting. Watching these spots I yearn to trek across sand dunes and make love under waterfalls. But I leave them with a sour not sweet taste in my mouth for Dow.

How does one change...from the outside? Change is a word that's used a lot in your campaign. But I don't see any internal change, just external messaging. So the lessons your campaign have bestowed are that (1) hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water (see commercial, readers) and (2) afforded enough literary brilliance we needn't really change just say we've changed against nice background music. I again wonder why I spent that money on graduate school.

Falling for it? They're falling all over it. I'm not so much surprised that the business-intended audience loves this campaign (and consumers, to boot). But I am amazed at the industry salivating over it. We're marketers after all, so my thinking is that we see through the strings, ponies and prose. Yet we highlight this campaign as a best practice. Maybe the waterfalls did it for them, too?

Why yes, I work for Dow...do you come here often?!: According to the piece, Dow CEO Andrew Liveris reckons the campaign will be successful when "A Dow employee in a bar anywhere in the world can tell the guy next to him where he works and get the response, "Oh, Dow. That's good."

To the CEO I ask, this is your barometer? You spend $25 million on an external ad campaign (not internal organizational alignment) to get your ivy-league troops to feel secure enough to talk chemical companies when out socializing over beers? For the record, my barometer is that they'd feel proud talking their employer while not intoxicated.

Using charity as a crutch: I love charity and charitable endeavors..but find it particularly concerning when companies use them to compensate or obfuscate. According to the article: "Dow is addressing the litany of problems one at a time. To emphasize the need for clean water, the company is sponsoring a worldwide relay race with the Blue Planet Run Foundation. Ads running in magazines such as The New Yorker and Harper's are headlined, "This summer, 20 runners will cross four continents to bring someone a drink of water."

How does running a sponsorship solve any of the "litany of the world's problems?" How's about sponsoring an irrigation system instead and "running" that water to people in need of it? Insofar as your PR efforts, perhaps solve that pesky little issue with Amnesty being that's consistent with humans (thousands and thousands of them).

Companies may lie, but numbers don't. Dow's stock has surged 29% over the past year. Wow! Interesting that competitor Dupont--sans the use of waterfalls--has shot up 20%, too. Isn't it coincidental how a climate-out-of-control world makes for good returns for chemical companies? Also of note: Dow's brand equity increased by 25%. So brand equity is alive, well and, judging from what they spent on the campaign, bought at $1million a percentage point.

Alas, there will be wins for all. Dow will be the talk of bars and the agency--apart from being on the AOR short list of other companies seeking respect, like coal and oil--will win awards and be able to show how advertising gave this company its groove back (maybe this can be their new theme song?).

Writing this post I've been approached by a publisher who wants me to review a book on the "elements of persuasion." How's about we review a book that marks an end to persuading (and masquerading through waterfalls) and shift focus on adding real value (not more hollow ads)?

Nah, that would be crazy.

Comments

[Ryan Karpeles]

CK,

I think it's a simple matter of value-alignment. Your (and many of our) values are quite different from those of DOW. They want to be known as large, profitable and respectable. So that's what they're doing. Whether it takes persuasion, manipulation or whatever means necessary.

Quite simply, they don't seem to care about so many of the best practices that we continue to advocate. And sadly enough, it's often much harder to change core values at this point in the game.

I'm not sure if DOW will ever turn its ship in the direction you propose, especially if its profits continue to soar. But perhaps some day all those folks in that bar singing to the tune of DOW will straighten up and ask themselves what exactly they're harping about. And why such a "respectable" company threw away so many opportunities to change the world in favor of making a few extra bucks.

When we're finally laid to rest and on our way out, can we honestly say that growth, money and respect were all we wanted? If so, then our definitions of living richly were never destined to match.

[CK]

@Ryan: You speak clearly on all fronts (which just goes to prove ANOTHER thing I said in an earlier post - you're too smart for your age. You're like a sage).

Nope, don't expect Dow to change (wouldn't that be a kick?). The only thing that I can do is to hope "the biz" doesn't keep falling for it. I'm amazed how much marketers are promoting it (talking the articles and some other feedback I keep seeing).

Also, from a pure marketing standpoint I'm not sure, with all their baggage, why they didn't launch a new brand (could have done that with their budget and even have used the same campaign).

And hey, when another company rises up and starts attacking them as a core strategy to gain market share--they're free to use this post. At the very least it underscores the practices I preach and practice. Thanks man (and hope you're well).

[Cam Beck]

"Please tell me WHAT the company is doing--not what they're SAYing"

I'm having a similar problem right now with a company's Web strategy - except in this case the customer has an opportunity to SHOW the traits they espouse, not just TALK about them. It's more difficult than I thought it would be.

To me, as I'd wager it is with you, showing is much more convincing than telling.

I've not done any exhaustive studies of Dow Chemical Company, but in college I learned that they are (or at least were when I did the report) in some instances in the forefront of alternative fuel development and research that make use of the by-products of chemical production and/or use. That was a choice they made -- They weren't painting over anything for show. It took real investment and commitment.

I don't attempt to hide my contempt for the interruption model of advertising, so it shouldn't surprise you that I'm skeptical of most efforts focused on this method of communication. However, if they are doing something good and worthwhile, they should absolutely try to get that word out, as long as doing so effectively supports their business goals.

Whether they are the right goals and whether they are meeting them is up for discussion. I find the goals as stated to be up for interpretation, and thus probably less effective than they should be.

[Mario Vellandi]

So true about Ryan; I said in my StumbleUpon review of his site, he's the reincarnation of Seth and Tom Peters...a young Jedi knight :D

CK, I dig your passionate zeal in promoting meaningful branding efforts that reflect the true spirit of an org. But when behemoth industrials, whose product is very fuzzy and largely unknown to the public, launch an ad campaign...what are the realistic expectations for reaction? I suppose this is pure 'brand awareness' going on here..."Hi, I'm DOW. Just a friendly little reminder that I'm here". This is the point where I suppose the agency starts getting imaginative because abstraction is already a given, and so why not make it the 'feel good' campaign of the year? Aaarrghh! Spear wound to brand identity...suffering from disconnection to authenticity. Too many rainbow s flying and unicorns dancing...vision blurring.
I know, the right prescription would involve showing short clips of diverse product solutions and applications.

Aside: I also received that book review offer. I thought the title was quite a bit off though, considering the underlying premise was storytelling.

[CK]

@Cam: "However, if they are doing something good and worthwhile, they should absolutely try to get that word out, as long as doing so effectively supports their business goals."

Yup. On your concern with the Web company, a show vs. tell strategy is indeed ideal. Agree with your comment all around.

Take a look at the BP commercials...I have lauded those since day 1. They pose a question to "regular folk" (yes those folks are actors) and then they show what they are doing (yes, most of it is investment as they don't have results just yet). The result is an ad campaign AND a PR play. And now I like a gas company and I don't even have a car (haven't for ten years since I use the subway). BP if you're listening: extend your ad to YouTube and let real people flood you with Qs, good next phase for you and you're prepared for it.

And why not invest some of that sponsorship money into actual improvement, not just awareness? See, we don't really need awareness on drinking water being clean...we know this. If not the #1, it's in the top 3 reasons for most world deaths (unclean, infected drinking water that leads to malaria, etc.). We've moved onto global warming and drinking water is a given. So we don't need awareness on that one, we need some action. And yet Dow could take this action, be the hero, and then promote it. They could still use waterfalls ;-).

But the biz loves it. It's like a model campaign. But I still don't have to like it ;-).

[CK]

@Mario: Yeah, that book review...and wording...came at the wrong time :-). I'm about to renounce "influence" and "persuade" entirely. I'm much more in the camp of if your product/service is of enough value to be remarked on then focus there--one can still do awareness campaigns. BP is really a fine example here. Jeez, even Exxon did some great spots about 3-5 years ago focused on 'action' not on how stuff bonds and then...voila!...oil.

And I might also be crazy for this one but I still don't get that ecomagination campaign by HP. But the elephant sure was cute (he wasn't a unicorn, though ;-).

[Zane Safrit]

I'm laughing so hard. Laughing in good, kindred-spirit, way. This post absolutely rocks!

Speaking the truth...

Thanks.

[CK]

Zane: Truth. Yup. I'm just amazed this campaign is doing so well in the industry (I get that we "persuade" those oblivious viewers...but the industry?). So I had to go on record (again). Couldn't otherwise respect myself ;-).

[content writing]

Nice post. This post is different from what I read on most blog. And it have so many valuable things to learn.Thank you for your sharing!