An interesting set of statistics arrived in my e-mail the other day. Guess what? American consumers are conscious about their purchases. And they desire to buy products from companies who are energy efficient, promote health and safety benefits and fair labor practices, and commit to environmentally friendly practices? Certainly, you guessed so. The Center for Media Research, in its November twelfth research brief e-mail, reported more than 85% of consumers feel the same. I typically describe this type of survey as motherhood and apple pie research—Disagreeing voices are a difficult and rare find.
Biased surveys, such as this one making its way through my e-mail account, mislead business managers by simplifying the underlying dynamic. Obviously, consumers want to identify with and support companies who share their values. Who doesn’t! However, distinguishing companies who use fair and unfair labor practices, for example, is a challenge. Where do we obtain credible information supportive of our desires?
Self-proclamations by companies or detailed tell-alls by competitors do us no good. Both suffer from an age old problem: conflict-of-interest. A lesson I learned well while jointly developing my former company’s response to allegations that they benefited from slave labor. Similarly, politicians, nonprofit organizations and other non-governmental organizations who gain power and status by providing information that persuades a desirable action suffer the same credibility challenge.
Everyone desires forms of association or identification with companies, brands, teams, or others. And we make better decisions when we can distinguish beneficiaries’ information (persuasively delivered and either fair or fraudulent in its supply), from researchers’ information (informatively delivered and either complete or incomplete in its supply). The distinguishing quality, you might ask–Investigative journalism. A paid journalist, or a trusted friend telling you about their personal experience, both use investigative journalism concepts when they give you information–gathering and interpreting facts, assessing implications, credibly informing.
The primary business model supporting today’s investigative journalism is woefully flawed. Today’s models are too focused on ratings, which drive advertising revenues. No wonder today’s business executive resorts to turning news into entertainment. Entertainment, gossip, sex, it all gets ratings. Always has, always will. Conversely, investigative journalism needs a subscription based business model, where people recognize the value of receiving knowledge from those who investigate on their behalf. The “subscription” price for most magazines, Web sites, and other forms on content distribution merely confuse this issue. Furthermore, traditional media companies that try to provide both entertainment and investigative journalism, confuse us more than the help. The primary nonprofit models (for example, social networking Web sites, Wikipedia, kindness from strangers) all struggle with sustaining effort or providing timely information. Today on Wikipedia, I noticed, they requested donations.
I suggest we each make two list?
List A
My sources for entertainment, sports, gossip, and factual event descriptions are:
List B
My sources for useful unbiased information on other’s values are:
Goodness, my list B stood empty for days, and once completed impressed me with its insightful look into my personality. What does your list say about you?
