Trialogue hosted CSI corporate practitioners to its quarterly CSI Matters Forums in three cities Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town in July to share insights and stay abreast of CSI thinking. The topic was ‘Should we be telling the public about our work in CSI?’, practitioners were in agreement that CSI should be communicated externally, and the discussion focused on what should be communicated and how best to do this, as well as how to manage the relationship between CSI and marketing departments.
Key points from all three Forums are summarised below.
Can marketing CSI go beyond superficial reputation management to truly complement and extend development efforts?
- Different companies have different approaches to communicating. Some prefer a modest approach, keeping a low profile and valuing ‘word of mouth’ marketing for its ‘sincerity’. But it is important to ensure that the messages get to the right stakeholders at the right times – this can be critical to business, as the fall-out after Marikana showed us. Journalists aren’t picking up the stories and communicating what CSI does because they don’t understand the developmental issues and implementation complexities.
- Today’s consumer is more aware and cares about supporting organisations that have integrity and contribute to development. It is important to have the sincerity in communication, whether the medium is a DVD, social report or print media – if the audience senses that the message is not sincere then a company could alienate important stakeholders. Using the right tone, CSI stories can bring the business much benefit.
- Marketing and CSI have distinctly different personalities. However, they can complement each other if approached strategically. The business can leverage marketing from mature CSI stories. But the stories need to be authentic – another reason why demonstrable impact matters. Marketing of CSI should not undermine the integrity of the development work that a company is undertaking or overshadow the developmental focus of the message. It is the CSI practitioner’s role in this case to ‘ground’ the marketing team.
- Often CSI budgets are allocated entirely to the developmental work and any communications on the subject falls under the marketing budget, including social or foundation reports. However, this can undermine the CSI department’s control of how their work is communicated. The CSI department needs to be able to set their own agenda, and communicate appropriately to avoid marketing taking on the appearance of ‘window dressing’. Marketing staff could benefit greatly from experiencing first-hand what CSI is achieving – by visiting projects, for example – in order to better understand the work.
- Who owns the story? In terms of the media, it’s often the one who shouts the loudest. This can result in the ‘wrong’ people getting the mileage out of the work being done. In truth, the story belongs to the organisation that is doing the work, and as such it’s important to tell the story as a team.
Marketing and communication platforms – traditional channels still have impact
- Telling beneficiary stories works well when communicating CSI to the public. Simamisa Farming and Tongaat Hulett produced a 45-minute DVD in English and Zulu, featuring examples of the companies’ work in the community. This is shown at stakeholder engagement sessions, and the community can relate to it as they are part of it.
- The question is often asked ‘does anyone actually read social and foundation reports?’ Many stakeholders do read these reports, but others don’t, so it’s important to communicate through a variety of mediums accessible to your target audience. However, social reports are an important part of institutional memory. They also provide a platform for the CSI team to engage with their work from a new perspective which can inform refinements to the programmes.
- Cause-related marketing an option if a fit can be found between the work of CSI and the company’s broader marketing strategy – it becomes a win-win since the extra money made from marketing can be used to supplement the CSI budget, making more of a difference in communities.
Pros and cons of online and social media platforms
- It’s vital to communicate on online portals these days. The absence of CSI information on the web leads people to think social investment isn’t happening. CSI practitioners find it is easier to get marketing to put up CSI projects on the company website as it is more cost effective.
- Social reports should always be made available online. However, not all stakeholders have access to the internet, so there is a need to ensure that information is communicated appropriately.
- Social media has been an effective medium of communication for many companies. VW’s CSI department identified VW’s Facebook page as an ideal platform to communicate its CSI and approached the marketing department to implement the idea. The company got its past beneficiaries to talk about VW’s CSI activities and how the beneficiaries had gained from them, creating online CSI ambassadors of them.
- The challenge with online communication is that the platform is open to abuse, and some issues that arise may be difficult to deal with. The company is expected to respond, meaning resources have to be dedicated to this – practitioners need to determine whether the benefits justify this.
- Facebook is a double-edged sword, say practitioners. Almost everyone from all walks of life seems to be able to access Facebook (some through mobile phones), so it makes sense that companies have a Facebook page and use it to communicate CSI information. However, simple messages can attract unintended attention and mixed feedback – Facebook pages host varied audiences, so getting the tone of messages on this platform right is vital.
- Rainbow set up a Young Performers Facebook page for beneficiaries to use as a platform for networking and commenting on the CSI project, and this has worked well for them as the it build on the existing community, strengthening the CSI project.
Published on the Trialogue Website: August 5th, 2013
