{"id":69,"date":"2017-03-23T12:23:06","date_gmt":"2017-03-23T12:23:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/business-and-society\/?p=69"},"modified":"2018-03-22T16:40:01","modified_gmt":"2018-03-22T16:40:01","slug":"why-dont-people-associate-wwf-with-earth-hour-the-battle-between-panda-and-lights-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/business-and-society\/2017\/03\/23\/why-dont-people-associate-wwf-with-earth-hour-the-battle-between-panda-and-lights-out\/","title":{"rendered":"Why don\u2019t people associate WWF with Earth Hour? The battle between \u2018panda\u2019 and \u2018lights out\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

Dr Zoe Lee<\/a> asks how a strong brand identity can help charities who increasingly must satisfy both social and environmental goals and fundraising needs.<\/em><\/p>\n

Recently I asked my postgraduate students if they knew about Earth Hour<\/a>. Most of them nodded proudly and smiled. But when I asked if they knew who organised it, not many identified World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Some even mentioned Greenpeace. So why don\u2019t they identify Earth Hour with WWF, and how could WWF use Earth Hour more effectively to elevate and energise its brand?<\/p>\n

Earth Hour\u2019s success is unquestionable. It has been labelled the largest grassroots social movement on earth<\/a>, and is one of the world\u2019s fastest growing brands. The initial brief was about how WWF could inspire people to take action on global warming without using fear. A simple idea was born \u2013 asking people to switch off the lights for one hour as a symbolic stand. Since then, many landmarks around the world have taken part, including the Eiffel Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge and Buckingham Palace.<\/p>\n

WWF is still deeply stereotyped as cute, cuddly and warm due to its iconic panda image. Earth Hour, on the other hand, continues to gain global recognition, and could be perceived as more competent and hard hitting due to its idea of taking action now. But does this matter to consumers or supporters?<\/p>\n

Perhaps not directly. A classic text from Levy and Gardner, \u201cThe Product and the Brand\u201d, was a revelation for the branding world. They made explicit for the first time that every advertisement must be considered as a contribution to the complex symbol of brand image \u2013 as part of the long-term investment in the reputation of brand. Both the panda and lights off images are powerful and different, yet they are not directly related. Brand managers must accept that consumers see a brand in totality, and consumers and other stakeholders play a huge role in shaping brand meaning. The two different personalities and tones of voice can cause confusion if there is no compelling reason to link them together over time.<\/p>\n

In addition to consumer confusions, firms stereotyped as competent are more likely to increase buying behaviour when compared to firms stereotyped as warm<\/a>. Consumers have greater admiration for firms with high levels of competence and warmth.\u00a0 This may suggest some clear benefits for WWF to leverage some of the hard hitting and competent identity of the Earth Hour initiative.<\/p>\n

Charities usually take a narrow approach to branding \u2013 managing external perceptions in return for fundraising success. In contrast, an emerging paradigm recognises brand as a strategic tool to achieve greater change and social impact. Dan Pallotta noted that too many charities are rewarded for how little they spend \u2013 not for what they get done. Using donations to fund advertising to raise awareness or change perception is still deeply frowned upon. We need to rethink the role of marketing and advertising and focus on how to start rewarding charities for their accomplishments despite a high marketing spend.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n