RetailWire ran an article on 11/18 with the title “Study: Beauty Ads Make Women Feel Bad,” which summarized the findings of a recent study indicating that ads for beauty-enhancing products, such as makeup, caused women’s self-esteem to take a hit. The study was interesting, but perhaps more interesting was a comment made by David Livingston, part of the RetailWire BrainTrust. Livingston’s response included the following, “As long as the ads are effective in selling the product, the customer’s self esteem is just a casualty of selling.” I appreciate his let’s-get-real approach, and I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that he was endorsing this “fact” as much as stating it. However, I am troubled. Is empathy dead?

It may be effective to sell products at the expense of the buyer’s self-esteem, but is it necessary to move product in that way? When doing shopper insights work, I believe it’s absolutely critical to be able to have empathy for the shopper—not just to be able to understand him or her objectively, but to step in his or her shoes in order to understand the decision making process as it relates to budget, time and interest constraints (and how all those factors come to bear in-store with a screaming toddler and a complaining pre-teen in tow).

In the world of shopper sciences and retail design, we enjoy many in-depth discussions about strategic adjacencies, cross promotion opportunities, complimentarity studies and the like. We spend our time pouring through data and observing how shoppers are pairing items together in store. Our aim, of course, is to simplify the shopper’s experience–and drive sales, obviously!

Today, I saw the mother of all product pairings in one fixture. That’s right, Dove chocolates has paired up with Gallo wines to produce the ultimate in-store one-stop shop. I am salivating just looking at the picture! For those of you who have never experienced the glory of a good wine and chocolate pairing, you are in for a treat.

This program is a fantastic example of two brands coming together to compliment the other’s product portfolio. Knowing that today’s busy shopper is looking for solutions in-store, a program of this nature helps her quickly and easily supplement dinner (or after-dinner) plans.

The more CPG client workshops I attend, the more aware I become of the tension that exists between protecting or gaining distribution versus managing the brand experience in retail. It is the classic tension between delayed versus instant gratification. But are they really separate issues?

Few manufacturers have the cachet to successfully demand that their retail partners afford them carte blanche to create in-store experiences around their brand. In fact, most retailers are becoming more assertive with their own control of the store experience and merchandising standards.

The reality is that distribution choices will always impact a company’s brand, and even impact or influence the success of product innovations meant to move the brand forward. I am more convinced now than ever that your brand and marketing challenges will be determined by where you choose to sell a product and who makes up the competitive set in that environment. For example, does private label dilute your name brand benefits and equities?

Brand assets and touch points are like words in a sentence. By themselves they might have their own independent meaning, but when combined they add up to convey a larger meaning and message or voice. Everything a brand says or does has an impact on a brand’s voice.

Historically brands and the business they represent were viewed by the general public simply as a business, with basic economic and strategic issues to deal with. However, right now we are witnessing a shift in the way consumers think about brands. Consumers are now seeing brands more as living, breathing entities with personalities and voices all their own. As a result, brands are being asked to act more like good citizens and have an overall net positive impact on the world or at the very least to limit their negative impact.

It wasn’t that long ago that the majority of consumers had no clue about a product’s life cycle. They didn’t know or care where their food came from. They had no idea what a brand’s policy on energy was of if it recycled. Consumers didn’t think about human rights issues in the factories of the developing world.

There’s little doubt about it, Corporate Citizenship has become a force within many brands and organizations. Some of these efforts are very large in scale and highly publicized (think Pepsi Refresh project). Others are as simple and small scale as creating an office recycling program. Either way, it seems as if people within organizations of all sizes and types are actively seeking out opportunities to be better corporate citizens. The momentum behind the movement seems so great that it almost seems assumed that something must be done by each and every brand and organization.

One question must be asked, though, when considering whether or not your brand should engage in an activity; what is my motivation for doing this? That’s right, I said it. As much as it pains me to say, your brand better have very specific reasons for being a better corporate citizen, or you may be doing more harm than good.

I’ll spare you the lecture that economist Milton Friedman would give on this topic. I’ll just say that anything that takes a brand’s eye off of the singular focus it was created to achieve makes the brand a little less competitive in its market and a little less viable as an ongoing concern. In an ever more competitive world, it doesn’t take much of a slip to lose your competitive edge and set you back. So, if you’re considering doing something in the Corporate Citizenship realm, you need to ask yourself a very important question. “What is my brand getting in return for this effort?”

The problem I see with the body of knowledge on the topic is that nobody really knows how much these efforts drive purchase.