Polar opposites?

You may have seen the ads on TV, or perhaps shared a link on Facebook or tweeted about it, as Coca-Cola and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) unite for a campaign to combat climate change. The Arctic Home initiative encourages consumers to use and waste less energy (reducing carbon dioxide emissions) - and to donate money to the WWF to fund climate change research and initiatives.

From a PR point of view the WWF are clearly getting extra coverage financed and crafted by the excellent marketing minds at Coca-Cola - and Coca-Cola are building on the polar bear that became a perhaps unexpected emblem of their brand through their 1993 Christmas ads and later campaigns. The polar bears have recently resurfaced in new wintry commercials, and even a short film directed by Ridley Scott.

It's unclear whether this film was designed to set up the WWF campaign, or if the WWF collaboration and the film were designed to counteract the backfiring of the iconic polar bear imagery. Last October, the Center for Science in the Public Interest collaborated with animators and musicians to create a film about 'The Real Bears' - polar bears who drink sugary drinks and suffer the effects...weight gain, diabetes, tooth decay... The two bears in bed are particularly sad but perhaps the chainsaw amputation is overkill. In the US, sugary drinks are the main source of calories in most Americans' diets, and the soft drink manufacturers are seen as key culprits in the US obesity epidemic.

Furthermore, Coca-Cola is embroiled in a debate about their latest ad, which sought to tackle this thorny issue and the role of sugary drinks, by highlighting their low calorie alternatives, smaller portions and clear food labelling. 

And now they are supporting a charity and the fluffy polar bears with CSR on a topic that seems little related to their core business... And it is perhaps a surprise that the WWF would risk their own image being linked to such a brand, that is in no way universally loved, despite their deep pockets. Is this perhaps a defensive move, well away from controversial brand issues for Coca-Cola? Seemingly talking about the polar opposite to what everyone else is talking about when it comes to Coca-Cola?

Corporate social crap?

It's generally taken as read that corporate social responsibility (CSR) improves the reputation of your company...right? But it turns out that if you are a 'socially stigmatised' firm it may in fact do the opposite. So, if you're a tobacco firm, an alcohol firm, or a firm with an otherwise less than sparkling reputation it may be that your CSR efforts are perceived as insincere and may not help your brand at all. Sometimes known by sceptics as 'whitewashing', such CSR can be seen as merely painting over the cracks in the rest of the organisation. This is also called  'greenwashing' if regarding environmental issues - such as this ad for Shell.

A paper by Steltenpool & Verhoeven in this month's Public Relations Review isn't the strongest piece of research ever but it's an interesting view on a topic that is generally accepted as indispensable in modern day corporate comms.