Changing The Game: A Conversation About Oil Company Credibility

A few dozen people are claiming the Chevron disaster is the satire launched against it. Not even close.

Companies don't need to worry about or fear satire. They need to learn from it. Characterizations are seldom made of companies that don't deserve a ribbing on some level. After all, the essence of most comedy, especially satire, is finding the middle ground between tragedy and laughter. The tragedy in this case is the Chevron campaign, not the spoof.

The Tragedy Of Green Campaigns By Oil Companies.

Having worked in and with the energy industry, I've met quite a few people. Generally, they are not stupid people. Most of them are smart, like in any industry. However, even some of the smartest have nestled up comfortably inside an industry cocoon.

Most communication conversations tend to revolve around what they can't do as opposed to what they can do. And, their favorite answer for anything is "you don't understand, we can't do that because we are in the [energy] industry." As Ike Pigott said, after I asked how oil companies might gain credibility with the public, "what the oil companies *haven't* done over time is trust the public with their story. [The credibility gap] is self-inflicted."

Exactly right. Oil companies talk too much. So while the new Chevron campaign is aimed at well-researched public sentiment, Chevron seems to have heard but never really listened. If it had listened, it would have come to the realization that public trust has eroded to a point where they cannot tell their own stories anymore, at least not about their pursuit of renewable energy.

You see, when oil companies do talk about renewable energy, it almost always sounds like listening to a fiery-eyed demon promising to show you the way to heaven. "Yes," they hiss. "I might be in the business of dragging souls down here, but look, I really want to help you up because you all seem to be such nice people."

Creating A Basis Of Understanding.

Sometimes the message is the messenger. Unfortunately, for the oil industry, they aren't the right messengers. They have to trust the public with their message. They may even have to trust people they consider the enemy with their message. But even then, a message is not enough. They need to trust these people with reporting on positive oil industry actions.

There is a challenge to that. Most oil companies (much like most energy companies) aren't ready to do it. They've been spoiled by decades of only communicating the end use: brilliant light bulbs, beautifully grilled foods, toasty heaters, nice cars.

The reality is that the energy business is super ugly, smelly, and sometimes hazardous to your health. Like much of the manufacturing industry, they want to hide the ugliness as much as possible. Even when I've worked with manufacturers and energy companies, they don't want anyone to take onsite pictures unless those pictures are carefully screened.

However, proper planning could allow these behemoths to slowly pull back some of the curtain. (Not all of it. Goodness no. Not everybody looks good when they are naked.) How far can they pull it back? As far they need to in order to regain trust.

For most oil companies right now, all we see are toes. And even those toes have been polished up for the photo shoot (and sometimes after the shoot). That's not public relations. It's propaganda.

Opening Dialogues With People.

Any public relations plan by an oil company needs to be approached on two fronts. Big picture, even if they are not the only stakeholder. And specific action, almost like Chevron tried to do with its cherry-picked and polished up campaign.

The Big Picture Dialogue.

Why big picture? Because, frankly, nobody really knows how oil companies see the future. If you look at a different industry, we very clearly knew how Apple saw the future of smart phones — long before the infrastructure really existed to support them. And even if you didn't like Apple, most people liked the vision (so much so, everyone followed suit to fill demand).

What this means is that if oil companies want to be credible, they have to stop campaigning for themselves and start campaigning for a sustainable new/renewable energy future. They might even have to promote other people who are involved in the solution (much like Apple promoted certain apps). And, they may need to funnel support toward solution-oriented people as opposed to regulation-oriented people, diminishing the need to fend off what are sometimes very unfair attacks.

These big picture campaigns need to be joined too, perhaps by as many stakeholder groups as possible. Such connections might even help ward off politicians from attacking oil companies as the bad guys and painting the ultra green taxpayer subsidized companies as the good guys. That is not always the case, you know.

The Specific Action Dialogue.

Almost every oil company is pursuing varied degrees of research and development of renewable energy. In most cases, it's a very tiny, tiny percentage of their overall business. And that makes sense to some degree. There is no money in it and companies don't exist on good will alone. Likewise, over focus on tiny investments is disingenuous.

In that regard, I personally believe some of the Chevron message. On one of the many campaign threads, Desmond King, president of Chevron Technology Ventures, says ...

"We invest in energy technologies that satisfy, or have the potential to satisfy, four basic criteria: economics, scale, customer expectations and density—that is, the ability to be delivered on demand and in quantity. And we never stop looking."

I believe that. It's how companies operate. They look for innovations that will make them money. For Chevron, geothermal is one of its investments. The downside, at the moment, is that it may be the largest geothermal supplier in the world, but it's still only a speck of the energy we consume.

These are the stories that need to get out. However, Chevron and other companies need other people to tell these stories. And, equally important, the public needs more proof that every advancement fits in with the big picture plan. They want to know what percentage of energy comes from renewables like that now and in the future. Plans are powerful things.

The Reality That The Public Doesn't Want To Hear.

Naturally, oil companies cannot attack the public, even if the public sometimes deserves attacking. Sometimes we collectively act like locusts, complaining that there aren't enough fields to eat after we've already eaten them. And we also complain about the waste we leave behind after we polish them off.

But, they really can't talk about that. The auto industry falls back on this conversation too much as it is. Boo hoo, they say, people don't want to buy our clean cars. It might be true, but some things are better left off the table — you know, it doesn't make sense to tell the girl you want to date that she looks fat. Besides, after decades of being sold on the great wonders of energy we consume, it feels very empty to stress "we're just keeping up with demand." Leave that one to the porn industry.

So what can they do? This is where public relations can also help, with the first step being to stop the endless prattle about how the public (government) needs to help fund the infrastructure. We already do. We fund it with every gallon purchased and every product bought. If you have to kick up gas one or two cents to pay for more renewable energy production, then do it.

When it comes to the public (government) funding renewable energy, the return is always less than private sector investments. It's just the way thing works. Government-funded or mandated projects tend to consume more than they produce (and yes, I have examples). It's why government-funded projects are best confined to things that are not profitable but desperately needed. Energy is not one of these things. It is profitable. And if some portions of it won't be, then it's best that they not be pursued.

This touches on some of the points Tim Walker and Matthew Stokes brought up. Stokes hopes that renewable energy gains more credibility in the marketplace. Walker mentioned how serious capital investments are need to make renewable energy meaningful.

Those are both solid points. Somebody other than oil companies needs to free the topic from politicians. You see, as soon as politicians grab a message, they muck it up into something worthless like kill oil now or forget renewables. Baloney. The only solution is to use our current consumption (despite its ugliness) to fund future solutions. At the same time, we have to admit that the transition isn't going to happen overnight.

Recapping Communication Tips.

Since this post tended to be conversational, I thought it might be worthwhile to recap the general concept. How could an oil industry regain credibility? After they shut up, they might ask people to open a dialogue and really listen (as opposed to hearing). After that, they might even work with people to find solutions. As for the rest, here are seven critical steps.

1. Define the vision and/or promote other people's visions toward a renewable energy future.
2. Highlight actions that prove you are moving in that direction, but let others tell those stories.
3. Make sure you define how those tiny successes fit into the vision, today and tomorrow.
4. Open up a dialogue about the challenges, inspiring entrepreneurs to provide solutions.
5. Don't hide all of the ugly side, but do work to humanize it with real people in the field.
6. Stop whining about government regulations and start dismantling their excuses to make regulations.
7. Stop asking government for money for infrastructure. That's public money. We already invest privately, every day.

People sometimes act like we have never seen technological leaps forward in this country. We do it all the time, and the adoption rate has never been faster. Many of these leaps forward required new infrastructure but that infrastructure always seemed to rise up to meet demand. Ergo, somehow we managed. The government didn't always have to fund it.

In fact, in terms of the auto industry, it couldn't be more simple. If hybrids are the future, better plugin devices need to be developed for the home (and sold with the car). Since they are hybrid cars, gas stations don't have to upgrade unless it is equitable. When it is equitable, and as the cars become less hybrid in nature, the infrastructure will keep up.

And if the government wants to be proactive and meddling heroes too? Allow people to receive a double credit for the sales tax on their income taxes. You can make up the difference by not funding some of those government-funded consumption companies. Of course, other ideas are always welcome here.

Blogging Tips: Not All Posts Do The Same Thing

A friend of mine recently asked why some posts on his blog attract attention and others do not. And, he wanted to know if he should skew his posts to the most visited. Absolutely not, I replied. Not all posts are created equal or behave the same way.

It's one of the pitfalls of relying too much on analytics. If you skew toward the most popular arrangements, people will become bored. The truth. You never know how much traction a post might have or when.

Ten Common Variations In Posts.

• Conversations. Probably the most popular among social media pros nowadays, the writers claim that they either don't know or hold back that they do know. Doing so opens the door for readers to leave opinions, suggestions, whatever. They tend to receive comments whether or not they are controversial.

• Dialogues. They're easily recognizable as an exchange, with two or more bloggers toggling back and forth between ideas and building upon the content. These used to be the most popular posts among communicators, with various people contributing their thoughts to a central theme. Unfortunately, they lost some luster when they became memes.

• Thinkers. These are posts that make people think. In fact, they make people think so much that they don't comment, respond, or add any contribution whatsoever. Sure, some people might bookmark them, but the content is rich enough that no one has anything to add, or at least, not without significant thought in composing a reply. Bloggers who write these posts tend to have discipline because there isn't much reward in terms of attention. It's just good information.

• Satisfiers. Another popular intent, lately. They are posts where the blogger already has a pretty good idea of how the audience will respond. Simply put, they are preaching to the choir and the choir offers up resounding applause, sometimes in the comments but more often across various social networks.

• SEOs Not always, but sometimes, they lead with "10 Tips …" and then ramble on about a certain subject. These tend to be popular, especially among publications and businesses looking for search engine traffic. Some people only write SEO posts. It has nothing much to do about anything other than catching some search engine juice.

• Giggles. I know several bloggers that beat this path to death. There is nothing wrong with it, but they don't always lend much value and often take advantage of multimedia. They either create something cool (or funny) or find something cool (or funny) and then offer up the briefest of descriptions. When people stumble onto it, they can't help but to say "that's cool" and then share with other people they know. It's the epitome of Does It Blend.

• Bookmarks. Not many bloggers use them (I do from time to time). They compile and curate research that might be used for another time or as benchmarks of where we are in terms of the economy or sustainability of various ideas. The downside for these bloggers is they might be the only people who care no matter how relevant the topic might be.

• Linkbaits. More often than not, they are designed to be controversial and aim at attracting attention and rebuttals. This is the reason so many ideas have been declared dead online. Some people take it even further by declaring something dead in the headline, but then leading with a sentence that says "not really." It's a trick, pure and simple.

• Circulators. Not all posts are shared publicly and, very likely, the only person who knows they're being read is the blogger. I've written dozens of these over the years. The posts won't attract visible attention in terms of page rank or comments, but they fly around emails being passed around or pop up on a closed forum for discussion.

• Sleepers. These are my favorite, but only because they tend to be so utterly unpredictable. And it's also why I advised my friend to ignore analytics (other than getting a sense of trends). Sleeper posts are those that are virtually written before their time. They won't be popular today or even this week. But then one day, out of the blue, they become your most popular posts for weeks or longer because something happened that made them relevant or a new group of people stumbled upon them.

Naturally, not all posts have to be limited to these arrangements, and different styles can be blended together. There are even a few more here that I didn't mention, including curators that compile other people's posts (often used to attract the attention of anyone included, but are sometimes employed for other purposes like an experiment). And, of course, cheerleader posts, which offer nothing much more than mindless praise to the original author.

In general, the best blogs mix and match these variations, which keeps their content fresh (or perhaps the author). People who only subscribe to one style tend to lose their passion or push content too aggressively.

However, I have noticed (and some others have too) that more seasoned bloggers abandon certain styles, but not always for the right reasons. They avoid anything that involves sourcing, linking, or attributing so they can stand alone as originators of the idea. I just read one of them yesterday, suggesting that social media is more than a campaign.

That idea popped up around 2008. But it was later popularized by Jeffrey Hayzlett, former Kodak CMO, and is sometimes attributed to Dan Blank (after his marketing firm credited the quote to him, earlier this year). Ho hum. Social media. Hope the above helps.

Talking Too Much: Chevron

On Monday, Chevron Corporation (NYSE:CVX) launched a new ad campaign entitled “We Agree,” which seeks to establish solidarity with people around the world on key energy issues. It also describes the actions the company takes in producing energy responsibly and in supporting the communities where it operates.

The campaign can best be likened to throwing a family of mongooses—all sporting T-shirts that say "some of my best friends are snakes"—into a cobra pit. I don't know exactly what would happen, but chances are those little guys on either side wouldn't stand around and sing Kumbaya.

And yet, this is the thinking behind Chevron's new campaign, except its T-shirts read "It's time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy" as an extension of its longer running campaign Will You Join Us.

It also comes at a time when Chevron is embattled with an Ecuadorian lawsuit. Sure, the lawsuit recently lost some credibility as raw footage might suggest collusion to inflate the extent of the Amazon rainforest pollution (that the company may or may not be partly responsible for), but telling the truth requires the right timing. And regardless of where you stand on energy issues, this was not the right time.

Sometimes The Truth Is Reliant On Timing.

Big corporations make easy targets. Oil companies are especially soft. It's difficult for them to hold any defensive position when they produce a product that — despite demand for it — has been singled out as one of the most harmful to the environment.

"We hear what people say about oil companies – that they should develop renewables, support communities, create jobs and protect the environment – and the fact is, we agree,” said Rhonda Zygocki, vice president of policy, government and public affairs at Chevron. “This campaign demonstrates our values as a company and the greater value we provide in meeting the world’s demand for energy. There is a lot of common ground on energy issues if we take the time to find it.”

Zygocki is right. Most oil companies want to embrace renewable energy. It is on the drawing board for any company that hopes to have sustainability. In 2007, Chevron was among the first to admit 10 percent of Americans “hate us and our industry and there’s nothing we can do to change their minds." Since the Gulf Coast oil spill, which involved another oil company campaigning for green, that hate has grown exponentially.

Naturally, Chevron didn't launch the campaign to attempt to clean up ill feelings over the Gulf as some people initially speculated. That wasn't (even though it should have been) a consideration. This campaign hopes to minimize some of the damage caused by the film Crude and the Ecuadorian lawsuit, which is still being played out to determine who might be the biggest villains.

This is also why the timing of the campaign launch couldn't be worse. The situation for Chevron in Ecuador might have improved as new information is being brought to light but the verdict is still out. So instead of coming across as more green or responsible, the only thing the company has succeeded in doing is drawing even more attention to the ugliness of the case.

Chevron Earns Push Back Before The Campaign Is Launched.

Almost immediately, the release sent out by Chevron was parodied. And some publications, unfortunately, ran with this news release, which is tied to this spoof Website. It seems fact-checking is optional these days.

It also wasn't the only parody release. I received a second release yesterday morning, also a spoof, quoting a frothy mad CEO as vowing to take revenge on the "environmental groups" that hijacked their new campaign. While I didn't bother to verify who sent the mock release, I suspect it also belongs to the Yes Men.

I've written about them before. The media generally likes them, except when the media gets punked. The giveaway in the one I received was that it was published under the guise of a shareholder message. I don't own investments in Chevron. I've also read plenty of real shareholder statements.

You Do Have More Than Two Choices.

Barry Silverstein, writing for the brandchannel, tried to sum it up with his lead-in. "When your brand's industry has a major PR problem, you either hide your head in the sand, or get out there and make a statement," he wrote.

And therein lies most of the problems with marketing and public relations today. There aren't two choices. There are a million choices. And the reason Chevron picked one of the worst choices is exactly why its industry has a public relations problem.

They talk too much. They talk so much, I am almost convinced they never listen. There is only one way the oil companies can regain some lost ground. They have to stop telling stories and start having dialogues. Specifically, they must start having dialogues with people who don't like them. And then, those people, will be the ones who tell the stories.

Recovering Cautiously: Consumers Test The Waters

As some companies are slowly thawing pay freezes and even considering the addition of new employees, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) says retail sales climbed higher in September. This is the third consecutive month, with slight increases spread across nearly all segments.

The uptick is slight, with an increase of 0.6 percent over August sales and 7.3 percent over September 2009. Retail sales (excluding auto sales) were up 0.4 percent over the previous month and 5.4 percent over August 2009. The largest increase over August came from electronics and appliance retailers. Sales increased by 1.5 percent.

Why Electronics And Appliances Continue To Rise.

Unlike clothing stores, which bolstered their sales in August with back-to-school shoppers (and dropped in September), electronics represents an industry where innovation continues to propel the industry forward. In the last few months, technological improvements seem to capture all the attention.

Appliances aren't much different. However, in addition to innovations that promise to be more environmentally friendly, energy conscious, and cause less wear on clothing, the industry and retailers have worked hard on marketing rebates, one-time sales, and extended credit (where customers don't have to pay interest for six or twelve months). These approaches tend to bolster immediate sales without devaluing products.

Consumer Awareness Reveals Which Companies Do Better.

When you look across various industries at market performance, the top performing companies have one thing in common. They appear to be listening to consumers and either evolving the product to add value (innovation) or better communicating what they offer (credibility).

Companies that rely on discounts without added value or expertise will continue to struggle. Even while announcing modestly promising news, RILA was cautious. The economy has been sluggish for the past three years, with many businesses holding off hiring until new rules and regulations are fully understood.

"Every aspect of the economy, particularly those industries reliant on consumer spending, remains challenged by the fact that nearly 15 million Americans are unemployed and millions more are underemployed," said RILA President Sandy Kennedy. "Without a meaningful improvement in the job market, retail sales gains will be sluggish and hard won."

Again, for marketers, those hard won sales seem to be tied to innovations and better services. If you cannot offer a more innovative product, then demonstrating that you care about the consumer (market knowledge) can go a long way. Simply put, beyond innovations, customers are wondering who they can trust.

Breaking Rules: Fresh Content Project

Social media was an exceptional step forward because it helped many communication-related industries start thinking out of their increasingly diminished boxes. However, there is an irony at work in that now; many of the recently freed communicators, public relations pros, and agency folks are now working double time to find a new box to climb into.

Right. With almost too many choices at their fingertips, all the previous specialists are finding out that their specialties don't work so well. So almost all of them have set out to break their old rules (only to make up new rules so they can say they are specialists again). These five posts, for the most part, pin down why many of the new rules are just as bad as the old ones.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of October 4

• Paper Beats Digital For Emotion.
If you think direct mail doesn't work in the digital age, there is a study highlighted by Roger Dooley that might change your mind. Physical media leaves a “deeper footprint” in the brain. However, that is not to say that print is always perfect, Dooley cautions. "Digital ads can do things that print ads can’t match, like this Halo ad from Unicast." In other words, digital has the potential to make a multiple-sensory impact. So can print, with enough imagination. Suffice to say how you use a medium might matter in maximizing its potential.

• Going Direct With PR.
With trust in mass media at an all-time low, more public relations firms are considering direct-to-public tactics and strategies. However, unless public relations can execute these efforts right, the risks might outweigh the rewards. And a good part of what needs to be considered before you forward is becoming (or finding) a credible source. Valeria Maltoni includes several more worthwhile tips in her post, but the most critical of all, in my opinion, is recognizing that individual credibility underscores trust.

• Shaping Networks.
More and more people are beginning to see the obvious. The freedom of the social networks, online and off, isn't always scalable. (In nature, all ecosystems move toward order, don't you know.) Ike Pigott shares some past experiences that demonstrate how this has always been case, which means (even online) networks beyond a certain point must have an internal structure and rules. Sure, you can create a network without any rules, but the rub will always be that people who populate it will make them on their own.

• Content Curation: A Required Skill For Digital-Era Communicators
Shel Holtz wrote an interesting perspective on the increased need for public relations professionals to become content curators for their companies. He's right. Personally, I think they ought to have been taking care of this long before the digital age (and I don't mean simply cutting out clippings from the paper). Curation requires much more thought. It means finding the most valued information, organizing it, and — something not everyone does once they have it — drawing connections and conclusions. There is more to it than that. The rest can be found on Holtz's blog.

• 10 Sure-Fire Ways To Alienate Your Brand’s Most Devoted Advocates
Now that Social Media Explorer has several authors, it also added some new names to the Fresh Content Project. One of them is standup comedian Jordan Cooper. While the presentation is purposely twisted, he does an excellent job describing some sure-fire ways to lose an audience, including laying down rules of engagement, passing out ultimatums, attacking people who covered you over SEO, and so on. Truly, if you turn all of it on its head, you have the foundation of creating a real network. Of course, some people will still insist destroying them is more worthwhile.

Making Choices: Psychology Marketing Aims At Students

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has launched a $2 million initiative to help food behavior scientists find new ways to use psychology to fight childhood obesity and improve school lunches. Ironically, the initiative doesn't necessarily rely on providing healthy meals to students as much as it aims to market healthier foods to children.

For example, the initiative might have cafeteria workers hide chocolate milk behind plain milk, increasing the speed and convenience of the balanced meal choice, hiding ice cream so it cannot be seen, and placing fruit in pretty baskets to improve its appeal. These ideas, of course, are remarkably similar to common sense, assuming the bad choices are available too.

Why Not Eliminate Less Healthy Choices?

According to USDA researcher Joanne Guthrie, changing the menu is not enough, reported the Associated Press. The concern is that when children are not making the menu choices, they leave food uneaten and it is discarded in the trash.

Jenn Savedge, author of green parenting books and blogs, concurs. She writes that bans on soda and junk food have backfired in some places. Some students have abandoned school meal programs that try to force feed healthy choices.

Why The Psychology Marketing Is Smart And Stupid.

The Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics has dozens of convincing studies that these tactics work. Suggesting fruit, they say, will increase consumption by as much as 70 percent. Closing the lid on the ice cream will decrease ice cream orders from 30 percent to 14 percent. Introducing a salad bar will increase salad choices by 21 percent.

The work being done at Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics represents everything that is right about this direction. Some of it is very smart. However, there is plenty of stupid in the mix too.

Many school systems are defeating any progress inside the lunch room because of what they do outside of the lunch room. Educators in some areas are rewarding children with candy and snacks for test performance. Many school programs — ranging from sports to computer labs — peddle candy bars and donuts to raise money. And, at my son's school, they do all that and offer smoothies every Wednesday. They are expensive, generating cash for the school and the private business making them.

In other words, there are enough unhealthy choices being dangled at the kids (and their parents for any parent who has felt obligated to buy up the remaining box of unsold candy) that any improvements in the school program may not be enough. Besides, in many cases, the only reason limiting menu choices failed is because they aimed those limitations at the wrong students.

Daily Choices Aren't The Problem As Much As School Decisions.

Telling high school students that the pizza now has whole grain crust (which even I would probably pass on) after indoctrinating them into an unhealthy lunch program for nine to twelve years should be expectedly met with resistance. The time to make dramatic changes to school lunch programs begins in elementary school, when children haven't had the experience of choosing burgers and fries or a hotdog and tater tots.

In addition to implementing better choices for the wrong students, many public schools continue to have operational problems. Children aren't only eating unhealthy foods, they are eating those foods in an unhealthy way.

“Most of the time it takes the students forever to get their lunch,” Steven Cauthron, a 15-year-old sophmore, told The Augusta Chronicle. “By the time everyone gets through the lunch line they will have 10 minutes at the most to eat their lunch. Most of the time the students usually only have about five minutes to eat their lunch because there are so many students getting a lunch.”

One of the reasons I've become critical of some modern government agencies is the increasing ability to find ways to spend money to fix problems that they helped create. Government created the school lunch problem to increase revenue (e.g., awarding contracts to fast food conglomerates several years ago) and are now funding the solution, which also means the bad food they order will go to waste.

Meanwhile, private schools don't appear to have the same problem. Many of them contract catering companies that make food choices that are healthy and taste good. In fact, earlier this year, one of these schools in Washington D.C. was featured in an article. They make meals from scratch. The kids eat them. Everybody is happy, without pretty fruit baskets.

If Ever There Was An Opportunity For Crowd-Sourcing.

When it comes to school lunch programs, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, the key isn't testing in high school as much as it is to introduce healthy foods in elementary school and give up on adding incentives that run counter to healthy eating habits. Kids that age are just as happy with a silly eraser as they are with gummy bears.

In high school, rather than invest $2 million in marketing gimmicks that do not instill brand loyalty (healthy foods, being a brand of sorts), the better bet is to ask the one group of people who haven't been asked — high school students. Much like Cauthron pinpointed one of the problems with his school lunch program, high school students could provide solutions.

In other words, the time to give people a choice isn't when the food is being served up, but before the food is ever prepared. The more participation students have on the front end, the more likely they will be to eat the food, assuming the school districts in charge give students more time to eat right and take sweets away as educational incentives or fundraisers.

If the people making these decisions only understood that "impulse marketing" does not create "brand loyalty" then maybe these problems would already be solved. A healthy lifestyle is not an impulse purchase. It's a way of life, which requires a personal decision. Kids need to know why it's a good decision.

Clear enough? Good, because I'd like my $2 million now. Thank you.