The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Office Hours: Cause-Related Marketing, Why Young People Should Get to a City, and How to Talk to Your Boss About Career Development

Episode Date: December 13, 2023

Scott discusses the trends around cause-based marketing, speaking as to why companies should avoid making statements on social issues. He then gives advice to a listener wondering whether to move to a bigger city for career opportunities. He wraps up with his thoughts on navigating conversations about career goals and aspirations with a manager, particularly when aiming to advance to their position.  Music: https://www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Constant Contact. If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you, Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform offers all the automation, integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly, all backed by their expert live customer support. It's time to get going and growing with Constant Contact today.

Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today. Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. ConstantContact.ca Support for PropG comes from NerdWallet. Starting your slash learn more to over 400 credit cards. Head over to nerdwallet.com forward slash learn more to find smarter credit cards, savings accounts, mortgage rates, and more. NerdWallet. Finance smarter. NerdWallet Compare Incorporated.

NMLS 1617539. Welcome to the PropG Pod's Office Hours. This is the part of the show where we answer your questions about business, big tech, entrepreneurship, and whatever else is on your mind. If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehours at profgmedia.com. Again, that's officehours at profitingmedia.com. Again, that's officehours at profitingmedia.com. First question. Hey, Scott. Tom Briggs from Portland, Oregon. My question. There's been a trend, at least in the U.S., toward cause-based branding over the past decade. Citizens United said that corporations are people with free speech rights, so they started acting like it. Since then, brands that

are politically left of center have more frequently engaged in cause-based marketing and branding. See Nike staying with Kaepernick, Patagonia becoming a non-profit. Right of center, this seems to happen less. Black Rifle Coffee is the main example that comes to mind. In any case, my question for you, putting on your forward-looking CMO strategy hat, what trends do you see in cause-based branding looking ahead to 2024 and beyond, particularly since 2024 is an election year and things will probably get a little bit spicy in the public square? Love the show. Keep up the great work. Thanks for the question. Over the past few years, companies have taken harder stances on social causes to please investors, customers, employees, and as a result, they've become targets in the U.S. culture wars because, generally speaking, about half the people in America are going to disagree with you when you take a stand on other things. Brands are increasingly emphasizing virtues such as sustainability, transparency, and fair wages. There are several examples of

companies that have prioritized a purpose-driven mission. For example, Patagonia. In 2022, Yvon Chouinard, I think I'm saying that correctly, the owner of Patagonia publicly donated all of his voting stock to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and the rest of his stock to the nonprofit organization Holdfast Collective. Both of these organizations ensure that all profit generated by Patagonia goes to fighting against climate change. Kind of the brand that sort of kicked all this off was in 2018, Nike released an ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, who was essentially, who's known for kneeling during the national anthem to show his protest against racial injustice and police brutality. The ad was part of Nike's Just Do It campaign,

or they incorporated it into their Just Do It campaign. And it was a close-up image of Kaepernick with the text, believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything, just do it. And it was a huge hit. I would argue that I wrote a post on this, and that is Nike did the math, and that is two-thirds of sales of Nike come outside of the U.S. No one outside of the U.S. thinks the U.S. is doing a great job on race relations or, quite frankly, cares. who are much more progressive and much more sensitive or empathetic to racial justice issues. So those people who supposedly were angry at the Kaepernick ad and went out and burnt their Nikes probably had to go out and buy their first pair of Nikes. And that is, I think this was a smart move just mathematically. And that is they created what was seen as sort of a courageous statement that 90 to 99 percent of their revenue agreed with. That was a strategic move. Here is what where I think this goes. I think the trend for the next 10 years in kind of social justice branding, if you will, is to just don't do it. There's a legal

scholar at the University of Chicago that all of university presidents right now wish they had embraced his thinking. And he said something along the lines of the following, that the university leadership should be the host and sponsor of critics, but not one themselves. And that is, he was saying, and the University of Chicago has adopted this, we shouldn't take political positions. We should encourage our faculty and our students to do that, as long as it's not hate speech that incites violence. But we're not going to take stands. It's just a no-lose proposition.

And it's all kind of blown up. I think you've seen the CEO of Apollo, correctly in my view, asking the president of Penn why she remains silent during the events of October 7th, when two days before she's putting out Instagram saying we want to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day. And that's the problem. Once you start talking about this stuff, people expect you to take a stand. And unfortunately, a lot of people aren't going to agree with those stands. Corporations are there to make a profit. They're called for profits. I've served on a lot of boards. There's oftentimes a lot of pressure to come out and say something. And if you have domain expertise, if it affects your employees, then yeah, you should probably make a statement. But distinct to that, the other 99.8% of very important social issues,

you should just keep it to yourself. Because when you make a statement, it's really the senior management of a company making a statement. And that puts pressure, implicit and explicit, on everyone in the organization to sign up for a certain political viewpoint that maybe they don't share. make more money, just sell more garage doors and make more money and pay your taxes and let elected representatives that represent the unwashed, dirty masses who generally over the long term get it right, make these decisions. So I think you're going to see a lot of corporations decide it's just not, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Now, Patagonia is central to their core mission. They talk the talk, they walk the walk. And by the way, there's a difference between all the virtue signaling of putting out an Instagram, a black square that says Black Lives Matter. Okay, boss, what the fuck are you actually doing about it? How many people on your board are non-whites? Like, what are you actually doing about this? Does your employee base represent

your customer base or somewhat mirror the local community rather than putting out a fucking Instagram post. Anyways, for-profit companies are outstanding at one thing, generating profits. What do you really do at the end of the day? You probably make a fairly mundane product, try and wrap it in brand codes, try and distribute it, try and sell it for more than the cost of producing it such that you can pay your employees well, pay taxes, and have a better society. That's your job. Get off your fucking high horse. That was a lot. Thanks for the question. Question number two. Hi, Favji. I'm a big fan of the show and it's had a tremendous positive impact on the way I approach my career and money. I wanted to ask you about the importance of living in a major city versus a smaller one. I studied in London, but I recently moved to Leeds after graduating.

While the wages here are lower, the cost of living is so much lower, I'm able to save and invest money in a way that I don't think would have been possible if I had stayed in London. Furthermore, I've been working on a personal business outside of my job that may take full time. As this business is online based, working from outside London will dramatically reduce my costs, allowing me to maintain my lifestyle and savings. However, I don't know if I want to remain in my current career field forever, and I'm aware there are more opportunities in a mega city like London. As much as I love Leeds, I do think it sometimes lacks a lot of the wealth and adjacent opportunity

I saw while studying in London. And I worry I might miss out on an important career option. Do you think it's necessary to move to a mega city to gain financial security? Okay, this is a great one. Undisclosed from Leeds. Here's the bottom line. I'm a big fan of getting to a city when you're young before you collect dogs and kids. Why is that? Two-thirds of economic growth is going to take place, globally, is going to take place in just 20 super cities. And the analogy I would use is playing tennis. And that is when you play tennis with someone better than you, your game elevates. And when you move to a city, you're playing tennis with Roger Federer across everything. It's the best people in hospitality,

in finance, in the creative arts, in culture. You know, that old adage does hold. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. It is an incredible test of your skills and your game will elevate. It comes at an incredible cost. It's expensive. It's stressful. The competition is intense. But before you start, again, propagating and needing land and needing more space for that second kid, get to a city. Now, is that right for everyone? No. Some people don't live to work. Some people work to live and want to make a good living, but they want to coach Little League and have more balance and have a bigger house and go hunting. And there's nothing wrong with that. That probably means you're going to move outside of a city. But there's just no getting around it. If you're economically ambitious or professionally ambitious, it's pretty simple. Get to the biggest city in your country and then get to a super city by the time you're 30. And then by the time you're in your mid-30s and you start having kids, you'll probably leave and go to a suburb.

But boss, if you are ambitious, there is no platform like a world-class city. You just bump off of opportunity. You bump off of other smart people that you can start businesses with that might invest in you, that might date you. The intensity, the crush of culture, of humanity, of capital creates opportunities.

It comes at a cost. It's very hard. But while you can incur those costs, see above young, get to a city. We have one quick break before our final question. Stay with us. Welcome back. Question number three. Hi, Scott. My name is Ryan. I'm an American expat currently living in Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

I work for a midsize international nonprofit of just under a thousand employees where there are relatively few opportunities for hierarchical advancement and the modest compensation increases that come with them. I've been with the organization for almost nine years, and I'm in my fourth different role, each of which has come with work of increasing scope and complexity and impact, although there's been only one formal promotion in those three different job changes. When I think about my future with the company and opportunities for advancement, there is one role above me that I feel like aligns well with my personal and professional interests and my skill set, and it's my manager's job. She's been with the organization a similar amount of time and is at the back end of her career,

and it's very likely that this is the last job she'll take before retiring. My question is, how do I have a conversation about my advancement and aspirations at the organization when that conversation will sort of be about me seeing myself doing her job one day? I imagine it's not entirely inappropriate to talk about since she should be considering succession planning as well, but I want to make sure that I have that conversation in a way which is respectful and doesn't make her feel like I'm dismissive of her work or that I want her to leave any sooner than she's ready to. I appreciate any advice you can give. And thanks a lot for all the work that you do here. Thanks for that, Ryan, from Amsterdam. So I don't think I think it's fine in a good organization every year should be sitting down and having these conversations with you in an open and from Amsterdam. So I don't think, I think it's fine. And a good organization every year should be sitting down and having these conversations

with you in an open and transparent way. And I don't think the conversation is, you know, Lisa, I want your job. It's, I would like to be a manager. I would like to be a vice president. I would like the compensation, the professional currency, the experience, the challenge. And I would be very transparent with them. I feel like

I'm ready for that role. Is there an opportunity for another role like that at this organization? It's not necessarily, hey, when are we putting Lisa on an ice floe? You know, it sounds like you're a young guy. If you have a family, it doesn't even matter. You have aspirations of your own. You are ready. You want to grow. You want to grow your role, your compensation, your contribution. Is there, you think you're ready. Is there a path for you here? And if so, what is that path? What does it look like?

And what is the timing? I think that is an entirely reasonable conversation to have. I tell employees to have that conversation once a year in the context of your review. Something I don't like as a manager is people constantly want to have that conversation with me every four weeks. I just tell them, we have this conversation once at the end of the year, full stop. Otherwise, I'd have a line out my door every day with people giving me their view on why they should be CEO of, you know, of Salesforce within 24 months at the age of 22. Anyway, this is an entirely reasonable ask from you. And you just

don't personalize it. You want to be a VP. You want to be a manager. You don't necessarily want Lisa's job. And I think that's entirely reasonable. And if the organization, for whatever reason, maybe it's not growing, it doesn't have that role, it doesn't have a clear blue line path for you, it probably won't be as quick as you'd like, but if it's not in a reasonable amount of time, I think after being with an organization for nine years, you may want to investigate a role at another organization. What generally the research has found is that we are fond of strangers. What do we mean by that? No one's perfect. And generally speaking, when boards issue searches for a new CEO, they have a bias towards an external CEO because the person you don't know seems amazing. And the people internally, you know them well, including what they're not great at, what their flaws, what their shortcomings are. So you're attracted to the stranger because they come in and for a series of interviews, they can be almost perfect. So we have a bias

towards external people. We also, and I'm guilty of this, I have a kid who's been, I say, even the bias there, I just said, I have a kid. I hired a kid out of Yale in 1994, I think, so 29 years ago. He is no longer a kid. He's this talented, deep domain expertise manager that is highly credentialed and has 20 plus years of experience. But I still think of him as our freshman hire out of Yale. And so I don't always give him the benefit of the doubt or, you know, if he just walked in at his age with his credentials, I have to remember he should make a lot of money. He should have a senior position. So I have a tendency to think of people through the lens of which they came into the organization. And sometimes, sometimes you need to leave.

Research shows that people who accelerate at a faster cadence or trajectory than the market typically leave organizations every kind of, call it every three to seven years. Because quite frankly, that's how you get promotions you don't deserve. And that is an organization needs somebody to fill a role. They can't find the perfect candidate and they find a director, but that person will only take the job

if you give them the VP role. So promotions are oftentimes a function of switching. So let's summarize. This should be a fairly unemotional conversation with your boss and a third person in the room because it involves her, the head of the organization, the head of HR. In the context of your annual review, I'm ambitious. I think I'm doing a good job here. I'd like to think that you think I'm doing a good job here. I'd like to know if and when you believe I'll have an opportunity to elevate my role, my responsibility,

and my compensation. That is my expectation. And I want to understand, A, if you agree with me, and B, if you do, what is that path in terms of timing and circumstance? And have the conversation. And if it's not what you had hoped, that is good information. And you can start thinking about a role at another organization. But this is an entirely reasonable ask. I am sure it is the same ask that your boss had at some point earlier in her career. Best of luck for you, Ryan from Amsterdam. That's all for this episode. If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehoursatproptimedia.com.

Again, that's officehoursatproptimedia.com. This episode was produced by Caroline Shagrin. Jennifer Sanchez is our associate producer. And Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Prop G Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network. We will catch you on Saturday for No Mercy, No Malice, as read by George Hahn, and on Monday with our weekly market show.