Brand Ethos

Spend to save?

The headline says “Every Bottle Makes a Difference.” Ethos water, acquired by Starbucks in 2005 distributes .05¢ from each $1.80USD bottle sold ($.10 per unit in Canada) to fund clean water projects in under-developed areas. Although sales of Ethos water have raised over $4,000,000 for clean water efforts, and the marketing positioning suggests clearly that purchase of this water will make the lives better for people who make less per week than the cost of the bottle itself, the brand is not a charity organization. 94% of the sale price does not support clean-water projects, but rather the Starbucks bottom line. “So what?” you might say, “Starbucks is giving back.” The founders of Ethos say the brand is intended to raise awareness of third-world clean water issues and provide socially responsible consumers with an opportunity to support the cause by choosing Ethos over other brands. After all, nearly 2/3 of the people on the planet do not have access to clean water, and as global population increases, sources are becoming fewer and fewer.

There is no doubt that the money and awareness Ethos raises is valuable, but it comes at a large cost both physically and psychologically.

Physically, the cost can be counted in the number of plastic bottles produced and discarded. Recycling rates for these are appallingly low. The number of plastic bottles made from recycled materials is smaller still. Not to mention the use fossil fuels in the manufacture and distribution of the product. I wonder, if all of the time, energy, and resources were channeled directly to solving the problem of clean drinking water, would we be closer to the actual goal? Playpumps is an excellent example of direct, innovative action in this field. Branded even.

Psychologically, the cost is more difficult to measure. We live in an era of increased awareness and activism. People want to help solve the world’s problems, to live more sustainably. When a corporation obfuscates the end with the means, as Starbucks is doing here, does that truncate consumer desire to help? In other words, are they doing more harm than good? There is an awareness raised, yes, but there is also an innate feeling that one has done something to help. Put yourself at ease, “we’ve got this,” Starbucks seems to be saying, do your part, spend to save. But in the long term, the customers will understand. They always do. And when they do, they will feel ripped off. Authenticity in branding is critical, authenticity in the acts of a brand are paramount. I don’t know the answer here, I am just asking the question. How can brands best engage social causes that they believe in while still making money?