Tragedies are capitalist conundrums.
Whenever the world is gripped by an unfolding disaster, American corporations wrestle with their response strategies.
Ignore it and you risk looking detached, or worse, callous. Particularly in an era when consumers expect big companies to make big gestures.
But splash it over your website and you run another risk -- coming across as grubby and opportunistic.
Public skepticism isn't what it used to be, though. Walmart's heroic response to Katrina, in comparison to FEMA's ineptitude, sparked excited commentary like this in the Washington Post:
"...an unrivaled $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers -- has turned the chain into an unexpected lifeline for much of the Southeast and earned it near-universal praise at a time when the company is struggling to burnish its image."
So what has been the corporate response to the wrenching scenes out of Haiti? A quick scan of the websites of some of our most well-known brands indicates a surprising -- if not shocking -- minimalism.
It's nothing even close to the post-Katrina period, when website after website devoted their home pages to messages of shared sorrow and invitations to contribute to the relief programs.
The reason this is important to assess is that a company's website is a wide-open front door into its heart and soul. Visibility is strategy. Responsiveness is diagnostic. What's featured and what isn't featured -- and what the relative emphasis is -- speaks volumes.
And in our world of instant digital communication, in which websites can change in seconds, when a major American institution chooses to ignore a global catastrophe, without even a pro forma "Our hearts are with the people of Haiti" message, it makes you wonder about them.
• Let's start with our eleemosynary friends at Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, whose CEOs testified before a bi-partisan Congressional Committee on the financial crisis last week.
I don't know what their response was during Katrina. But today, when they should be scrambling for any shred of goodwill, their websites are completely silent about the devastation, not even an insey weensey "Contribute to Haiti" button. You'd think (hope?) one of their PR flaks would have said "Hey guys, let's burnish our brands a little while we're in the withering glare." But nothing. And the silence is devastating; they don't even care enough pretend.
• Walmart hasn't given its Haiti efforts any dramatic home-page placement. There's just some small real estate below the fold that features a Red Cross logo and an invitation to "Join Walmart's efforts to support those in need."
Click on the link, though, and you come to a page dedicated to the company's efforts in Haiti. While not on a Katrina-like scale, they include a $400,000 monetary donation.
Target goes bigger than its rival Walmart on their home page - with a big horizontal banner that sits right under their logo and top navigation. Click on it and you come to a page that details "How Target is Helping" and "How You Can Help."
• Media companies are obviously following the story intently, and their websites show it. But while their newscasts continually direct viewers to organizations who are accepting donations, it's curious that their websites generally offer no opportunities for readers to contribute. Nor do they boast of their own philanthropic efforts; that's probably to be expected, given that media companies are experiencing their own metaphorical earthquakes.
NPR asks for donations, but PBS, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today don't. CNN is running a paid ad unit from a non-profit World Vision, asking for contributions. (Yikes, does that mean they are profiting from the earthquake?)
• Big consumer brands, usually quick to associate themselves with so-called CSR -- Corporate Social Responsibility -- efforts, are conspicuously mute.
Surprisingly, that includes Starbucks and Nike, two brands that usually chase down socially conscious opportunities wherever they find them. Their websites are acknowledgement-free zones.
The cone of silence extends to Coca-Cola, which is a fascinating case because their foundation donated a million bucks. But their website doesn't hint at that; it remains plushly dedicated to their "Open Happiness" message.
Clearly, they've resolved to keep their philanthropic and marketing efforts separate, perhaps deciding that the grim news out of Haiti would be inappropriate in juxtaposition to the bubbly promise of "Open Happiness". A perfect example of the Capitalist Conundrum.
As for Amazon, they yield some room above the fold, in the upper right portion of its homepage, asking for donations to "Mercy Corps to help victims of the Haiti earthquake."
• Most technology companies and telecom are too busy. IBM, HP, Verizon and Sony keep their mouths closed. Microsoft is an exception, with a message on the home page that links to an impressive page that notes the company has made an initial commitment of $1.25 million and that it has:
"... activated its Disaster Response Team. Through Microsoft's support, nonprofit partner NetHope has been able to set up an immediate response, with specific focus on establishing temporary telecommunications infrastructure to allow humanitarian agencies to communicate and provide relief to the affected victims."
• Google and Apple, as you might expect, are also exceptions. Google's home page features a big link that reads "Information, resources, and ways you can help survivors of the Haiti earthquake."
The link takes you to a page that references Google's $1 million contribution, but is largely devoted to a range of contribution options, including Unicef and CARE, as well as organizations that only accept SMS donations.
Apple has a small message on their homepage, which takes to the iTunes store. There, the usual storefront is replaced an interruptive page which asks for donations to the Red Cross in amounts from $5 to $200, with all transactions processed through iTunes.
Lastly, the site for the Vatican makes no reference to the earthquake. (Note to Holy See webmaster: Time to take down "Christmas 2009" from your site messaging.)
Bottom line: compared to Katrina or the 2004 tsunami -- when the Internet was far less developed -- most of corporate America has chosen to leave Haiti unacknowledged on their websites. They've chosen not to leverage their digital presences; which means no opportunities to contribute, and certainly no efforts to use their databases or social media to rally support.
I don't know if it's disaster fatigue, or if the recession has downsized their digital departments, but our biggest companies have failed to rise even to the level of meretricious opportunism.
Follow Adam Hanft on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hanft
It takes very little effort and can make a huge difference. If they win, they are donating $100,000 to relief in Haiti. They are a reputable organisation and will be sure that the aid gets to the people who need it the most.
We live in a country where our jobs are being off-shored to countries where the laborers make $2.40 a day, yet the price of items that we pay stayed the same or have risen.
In Haiti's case, companies like Wal-mart, Target, KMart, Sears, J.C. Penny.. (you get the idea), are all guilty of exploiting the Haitian workers. I recommend reading about duty-free zones --it's slavery.
U.S. corporate exploitation, with the assistance of the Haitian corrupt government, has kept the Haitian's impoverished and living amongst a woefully substandard infrastructure.
That you even presume "a corporate response" as if THEY reflect US is a measure of how ingrained 'corporatism' has become in The States, imho.
Upon achieving power in the Legislative and Executive Branches, U.S. politicians revealed to a shocked Europe and apparently impotent American electorate that they were deeply corrupted by globalized corporations, whose interests are ultimately detrimental to "Americanism," or for that matter, any other artifact of the "notion of Nation" era.
Under the leadership of Barack Obama, Democrats in Congress are making ‘health care’ neither a right, nor a privilege -- but an obligation for individual citizens; and they are enfranchising a government-mandated profit center for private corporations.
For the first time in American history, politicians are using the coercive power of the federal government to force every American -- simply by virtue of being an American -- to purchase the products of a private company. In effect, this represents an historic defeat for the type of American idealism represented by the New Deal and the Great Society, and marks the ascendancy of a new type of 'corporatism'.
Also what would happen if a major Earthquake hit California? How much space to Haiti does Apple give then?
I think the spontaneous and massive outpouring of charity clearly did not need Apple or Google, nor did it need Katie Couric or Bill Clinton.
Well, you'll be able to 'help' the babies and toddlers get out of Haiti. Apparently tons of rich, white Americans are willing to adopt them.
As for the rest...let's face it. Not a single country wants a bunch of uneducated, poor, black adult people. Not one.
If you disagree with me...I dare you to prove it...show me a link, an article, from anywhere saying "Give us your poor, your downtrodden, your homeless...we will take them".
Oh, yeah, well, maybe that was true once upon a time...now it's a cute, charming reference to the distant past...if it even actually existed in the first place.
Many brands are using social media to encourage their supporters/fans/followers to donate to well-known organizations. This is a much faster and more effective way to get the message out then relaying solely on those that visit their website. It also creates a message that it's not about what the company's do - it's really about what WE ALL can do to really impact the relief efforts.
An interesting blog about the CSR/Ethics of these relief efforts is here: http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/
Chris does a good job of presenting both sides of the discussion.
Also, check out The CSR Minute (Disclosure: My company's production) for a brief recap of what some corporations are doing: http://3blmedia.com/theCSRminute/4079
Thank you for an interesting article.
The Tonton Macoutes are back. Convicts have escaped; armed gangs will be the default rule of law.
The response must be military-humanitarian because of the thuggery, looting and disaster profiteering that is already occurring.
There must be an all-out humanitarian-military response because the generations growing up in Haiti must not become embittered towards a world they could look back on as abandoning them at their worst hour.
This disaster may be an opportunity for the UN to finally accomplish what they seem to be powerless in doing elsewhere - rebuild a country from the ground up. Another Papa Doc Duvalier must not arise out if this.