Pen Stuart writes:

The irresistible rise of social networking has long had media types trying to calculate the best ways to make some money from them. But marketers are increasingly finding that these routes work best when brands provide a service rather than just push their message, creating what’s become known as ‘branded utility’. There are recent examples. The Beef and Lamb Sector Company, EBLEX Ltd, has launched a Facebook application, “Beefy & Lamby’s Summer BBQ”, featuring - from the TV campaign - the sometime England cricketers Ian Botham and Allan Lamb to help people plan their summer barbeques. Leaving aside the question of whether 50-something cricketers are the best match for the somewhat younger Facebook crowd, it does give users a useful service that encourages consumption of their product and also raises brand awareness, even if it seems to be building its audience slowly (26 visitors on the day this post was written). The apparent selflessness of this service can help build brand loyalty in times when ravenous profiteering is increasingly frowned upon.

MakeTheTea.com, created by Cravendale, takes this one step further, devoting a whole site and social network to their utility. This allows office workers to input their tea (and coffee) preferences and link up with their colleagues. The site randomly selects one person to make the round, overcoming the reluctance of any individual to ask around and get stuck with the task. The site seems to be flourishing, with almost 70,000 brews made since its April launch

But there are still questions about the future of such ventures - they have the feel of short-term awareness campaigns which seem certain to be pulled in due course. Yet for low-maintenance promotion such as this, the best approach may be different, especially as these types of internet communities are endlessly discovered anew by different groups, each time creating waves of publicity through blogging and social network invites. In the world of social networking the fundamental assumptions of ‘offline’ publicity may need an overhaul. Or at least, as marketers like to say, more research may be required.

Rachel Kelnar writes:

I’ve been interested to see the noise generated by Barack Obama’s decision to deploy and maintain staff in every US state during the current US presidential election campaign. Leaving aside the politics of such a decision (there’s a useful overview of this here) what’s most intriguing is how this decision will play out within each state, in light of reading Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, recommended to me by the Yankelovich CEO J Walker Smith.

Bishop writes about the growing clustering of like-minded individuals in small neighbourhoods across the US. His crunching of the data shows that over the last 30 years Americans have sorted themselves into homogenous neighbourhoods, where culture, economics and politics are alike. Individuals look to move to and settle in neighbourhoods of ‘people like me’, and so the political clustering has followed.

The big sort helps to explain the wonderful quote from the playwright Arthur Miller on the 2004 presidential race: “How can the polls be neck and neck when I don’t know one Bush supporter?” It’s about the company one keeps, locally.

The fact that people are less likely to have their views challenged or questioned, because they are less likely to come across individuals who disagree is a serious political (and indeed democratic) concern. Where we shop, who we meet at the school gates, and those we socialise with (physically and virtually) are all likely to share our views, rather than challenge them. And by reinforcing each other’s views our collective position becomes more extreme and more certain over time – thus shrinking the middle ground where political decisions tend to (have to?) be made.

In light of this ‘clustering of like-minded Americans’, it seems sensible decision for Obama and his campaign team to contest every state. For while one might think that California is a ‘blue state’ and Texas a ‘red state’ this simplification hides some real pockets of electorally significant dark red in the blue states, and dark blue in the red states (such as the liberal Austin in Texas, where Bill Bishop lives). So Obama has substantial pockets of support in some strongly red states.

But it’s not enough to know these supporters are there, deep in ‘enemy’ territory, and expect them to vote after getting a bit of attention from the campaign. Obama will need to work very hard to get such individuals to actually vote. That’s because, as Bishop illustrates, individuals are less confident about making their voice heard when their view is in the minority. Bishop quotes survey research on past presidential voting data by a fellow researcher, and concludes:

“rather than buck the majority and risk social sanction, citizens in the minority simply stayed away from the polls. They didn’t vote. In communities with large political majorities, people tend to give up battling over ideas…”

So, from Obama’s point of view, making such people feel that they are not alone and that his ideas are worth fighting for, should increase the likelihood that they will vote come November. If he succeeds, by Bishop’s account, Obama would have the significant challenge of trying to govern a country of ever more extreme groups, each of which is increasingly sure of its own extremist views.

The image is a plot of the sexual relationships of students at Jefferson High School occurring within the preceding 6 months

Trevor Harvey writes:

Over the past few years, society has moved stealthily from viewing sex as a commodity, to the commoditisation of sexual relationships – the ‘free availability’ of the relationship surrounding and driven by sex.

The development of technology has facilitated easier sexual relationships, including changes in pornography and sexual material. Top Ten Reviews reported in 2006 that 43% of internet users viewed porn, and 35% of all downloads were porn, while porn sales themselves have been dropping rapidly over the past few years. Technology means that anyone with a mobile camera can now be a porn star or producer.

In fact, technology has touched all aspects of sexual relationships – from user-generated content sites such as XTube, PornoTube and Gaydar, to the public spat between Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia co-founder) and Rachel Marsden (the end of whose sexual relationship was played out in Wikipedia and eBay), to the re-interpretation of pre-arranged marriages through online sites where daughters are promoted by the parents. MMOEGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Erotic Games), which provide a safe haven for people to have sex virtually, are showing a rise in numbers – showing perhaps that while sexual relationships are increasingly treated as commodities, we’re still concerned about their safety.

And for good reason. The effects on health and well-being are alarming. A 2007 BMC Public Health study showed that a third of 16 to 35-year-old men and nearly a quarter of women questioned said they drank to increase their chance of sex. HIV infection rates rose sharply (by 48%) in the US between ‘05 and ‘06, according to the US Center for Disease Control, and also increased (less dramatically) in Western and Central Europe in 2007, despite years of public health and education campaigns. Other disease infection rates are as alarming: the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV reported that sexually transmitted infection rates have risen rapidly over the past 12 years, with incidences of Chlamydia and HIV both tripling, gonorrhoea doubling, and syphilis increasing by twenty times.

There have also been disturbing changes in the sexual relationships of children and young adults. UNICEF reported last year that more children in the UK have had sexual intercourse by the age of 15 than in any other country. UK Government figures show that the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Western Europe, while the sexual health of young adults in the UK has deteriorated over the last two years. In the US, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last year that one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease. Meanwhile, by way of further evidence that the commoditisation of sexual relationships is affecting teenagers and young people, media reports say that the number of teenage girls having breast implants have more than doubled in the past year in both Britain and the US.

Sex is a powerful motivator in human behaviour and society and when it comes to analysing trends we must understand it as a significant driver of change. But as a rule sexual relationships are something we prefer not to think about in this context. If we are to seek a rounded view of the behaviour of consumers, we need to consider the increasingly apparent commoditisation of sexual relationships, which is starting to raise moral issues for brands, and for products and services, as well as for society.

Rachel Kelnar writes:

I went to two really interesting futures events last week and was struck by the extent to which some emerging learnings were common to both, despite having expected beforehand that the topics would have little in common.

First, I attended a debate at the London Transport Museum (LTM) on the future of transport – ‘Survive or Thrive: What will urban life be like in 2055?’ The LTM used the intelligent infrastructure scenarios which my colleague Andrew Curry and I wrote for the UK Government’s Foresight Programme as the starting point for this discussion. I also participated in ‘Museums in the Long Now’ – a roundtable exploring the future of the museum, organised by the Cultural Leadership Programme at City University and Compton Verney, with funding from the London Centre for Arts and Cultural Enterprise (LCACE).

An emerging theme of both sessions was ‘we are where we are’ – that if we were to design a transport system for the UK, we would not set out to design what we currently have, and neither would we fund or develop our museums in the way we do now. However, ‘we are where we are’ – and we therefore have to temper our views of the future with the reality of this starting point. We don’t have the luxury of a blank slate.

However, it’s important that this doesn’t limit us in terms of what we strive for, and both sessions used scenarios to help participants resist the temptation to think too short term, or too negatively.

Another interesting reflection for me was the potentially changing role of museums. They are generally considered windows to the past and this is pretty uncontroversial. But, if museums are to remain relevant in the future, they perhaps need to do more than reflect on what has already happened. They need to start providing a window on the future as well. The LTM has certainly embraced this idea, with the Future Generator, which allows every virtual or real museum visitor to explore how their choices can impact the future of London and the type of city we will all live in. It’s about putting the Museum at the heart of the debate about our transport system, sustainability and the London we might have in 2055, and pleasingly, it’s also based on the scenarios we were involved in writing.

Discussing the Museum of the Long Now, it became increasingly clear that many museums may well be a natural home for such futures exploration. They are naturally places where people go to learn – to be challenged, provoked, and to understand a culture, a society or a particular event in our history. This mindset is a good one for thinking about the future of our culture and our society – because thinking about the past is the first step to thinking more effectively about the future.

This shift is not without its challenges - it requires, for example, that museums get a bit more comfortable with conflict than many are at the moment. If museums can successfully place themselves at the heart of our future – regardless of the issue – than they are helping to cement their role in our lives going forward. We are where we are - but we don’t have to be stuck here.

Rachel Claydon writes:

Carbon consciousness is now here to stay. However the CO2 intensity of different activities isn’t the only issue concerning environmentalists. We’ve been aware of water shortages in many parts of the world for many years, but as these become more acute, the ‘water intensity’ of various products and processes is moving into the spotlight, particularly those relating to food and drink production. This is not about turning off the tap to save water when you brush your teeth, rather understanding how much water has been used to make the items that we consume every day, or what’s known as ‘embedded water’ (opens in pdf). The data are pretty staggering - it takes 35 litres to produce a cup of tea; 170 to produce a glass of orange juice; and 2400 to produce a hamburger - and are much easier to visualise than grams or tonnes of carbon.

Unlike carbon, the water issue has not yet reached mainstream consciousness, but this isn’t far off. Individuals can now calculate their personal ‘water footprint’ thanks to a collaboration between UNESCO and the University of Twente, and manufacturers are also starting to respond. The Coca Cola Company announced a new partnership with WWF in June last year around water conservation, and was already talking about reducing the water intensity of its products at the time. It may take a while to convince the British consumer that the world is short of water, even though the South East of England has less water per head than Istanbul. In many other markets, from Spain to China to Australia, consumers are already acutely aware of shortages. Without doubt companies need to actively scrutinise their supply chains and implement water saving strategies. This said, water footprinting may prompt people to move away from certain ‘water heavy’ categories altogether - meat, especially red meat, is a prime candidate.

The chart at the top is from the Australian news site crikey - perhaps not surprisingly, given Australia’s acute water shortage.

Andrew Curry writes:

The latest edition of our free e-letter, HenleyMail, has gone in the last week or so to those who have signed up to it. There are two main articles: Trevor Harvey looks at the credit crunch through the lens of Henley Centre HeadlightVision’s Financial Services Segmentation, and there’s an interview with J. Walker Smith, the Chief Executive of Yankelovich, which merged with HCHLV earlier this year. Among other things, we asked Walker about the major trends he saw in the US market at the moment:

We talk with our clients about three overarching dynamics – empowerment, purpose and health. Empowerment is simply the fact that unprecedented access to information is putting consumers in charge of the marketplace. Purpose is a newfound priority on the quality of life not the quantity of stuff, and so people are actively seeking more meaning and fulfillment in their lives. And multiple pressures, some demographic, some regulatory, some economic, are putting a premium on better health, particularly better preventive health which is one of the key initiatives in our business right now.

The full HenleyMail can be downloaded here. If you want to sign up to the newsletter, which is an occasional publication, you can do that here.

The painting at the top of the post is by the American painter Debora Gilbert Ryan: ” I did this series of rather simple encaustic and oil paintings … in the mid-1970’s. People liked them a lot until I told them they were paintings of envelopes. In certain circles, any sort of representation was looked down upon.”

© Jake Goretzki

Rachel Claydon writes:

I’ve been reading a lot recently about the ‘blizzard’ of ethical and eco-labels and product claims from companies. And with companies such as Renault producing images of (slightly more energy efficient) cars with leaves coming out of their exhaust, and P&G putting an ‘earth friendly’ stamp on their washing powder, this seems to be a reasonable critique.

What does this sea of green marketing activity mean for the growing numbers of consumers trying to ‘do their bit’? There seem to be three possibilities:

1. gritting their teeth and working harder to unearth the genuinely ethical products;
2. giving up on the endeavour in cynical frustration; or
3. enjoying the new array of ‘guilt-free green products’ now on offer.

The ethical livers (likely to go down route 1) are now well-established, and may even enjoy having to work harder to identify truly sustainable choices. But it will become harder. Sustainability design guru John Thakara fears that an growing number of green standards will cancel each other out, creating too much noise as each brand measures itself by different criteria, making comparison impossible. Consumers may respond by assessing green product claims themselves through sites like greenwashingindex.

Those who are less committed to sustainable lifestyles are unlikely to make such efforts. Eco-labels will stop being a purchase short cut for those short of time (after all, most of us wouldn’t choose to spend our time evaluating the competing ethical claims of different baked bean brands). But worse, consumers may become disillusioned with unfounded and confusing claims. Sustainability communications experts Futerra believe that the consequences could be bad (opens in pdf):

“Without confidence in the claims, consumers are reluctant to exercise the power of their green purchasing, as they no longer know who or what to believe. This puts the whole market for the ‘green pound’ in danger and might damage the virtuous circle of companies promoting their green products, consumers choosing them over non-green products thereby encouraging business towards greater greenness”.

I’m personally more worried about the third option, that consumers will unquestioningly embrace every new supposedly ‘ethical’ product that finds its way onto the shelves. Most people want to hear that they can do the ‘right thing’ without having to make too much effort. We’d rather buy organic mange tout from Kenya in January than work out how to cook seasonal swede; rather install energy efficient light bulbs than stop taking short haul flights. This said, campaigners such as the WWF are now challenging [opens in pdf] the prevailing wisdom that we’ll achieve pro-environmental behaviour change through small, painless steps. More please.

{And thanks to treehugger for the picture].

Andrew Curry writes:

You have to pinch yourself as you leaf through the current issue of Newsweek, which is on the impact of high oil prices as pump prices climb and analysts are entertaining the thought of the $200 barrel of oil. Even a year ago, the coverage would certainly have been doom laden, even apocalyptic. But the cover story is almost upbeat, as it decides that this spring marked the moment when America changed:

With average gas prices per gallon edging toward $4, America’s notoriously profligate ways started to change fast. Americans are driving less, using mass transit more, buying fewer gas guzzlers, indeed shopping less wantonly in general, and lowering their previously unshakable confidence as consumers. Suddenly, Americans are acting differently; if not exactly like Swedes, then not quite like themselves, either. It’s a shift that could change the world.

What’s interesting is that it isn’t just journalistic hyperbole. The latest data from America’s Department of Transportation shows that high gas prices are changing consumer behaviour. Estimates for March show that Americans drove 3.4% fewer vehicle miles this year - 11 billion miles - than last year. It’s the biggest year-on-year monthly fall ever seen in the US transport data, and to give a sense of scale, the last time the year-on-year March data tipped downwards Jimmy Carter was President. In fact, there’s been a general downward trend since last November. So it turns out that driving habits do respond to price signals provided the price signals are sharp enough and persistent enough. And this has good effects; one result has been that nine million fewer tonnes of greenhouse gases were discharged into the atmosphere in the first quarter of 2008.

And this also bears out one of the central findings of the recent report, Dollars and Consumer Sense, from our colleagues at Yankelovich, which looks at consumer trade-offs in the face of recession. Certainly consumers plan to cut costs, for example from buying at stores which have cheaper prices but a smaller product range, and by trading down on quality. But quite a lot of the trade offs reported in the research involve lower consumption, even less consumerism - delaying purchases, cutting back on food and gasoline, cooking from scratch instead of buying prepared foods, buying second-hand, and giving up ’shopping for fun’. Not exactly Sweden, at least not yet. But not exactly ‘shopping for America‘ either.

Thanks to Matt Cutts for the photo.

Update: Trendspoting, The Oil Drum has an account of the new American phenomenon of ‘hypermiling’ - or getting the maximum mileage per gallon from your vehicle. There’s even a website.