The Electronics Takeback Coalition's Marketing Campaign against Samsung - Case Study Example

The Electronics TakeBack Coalitions Marketing Campaign against Samsung The Electronics TakeBack Coalitions Marketing Campaign against Samsung The ETC, an association of not-for-profit organizations that promote green production and responsible recycling in the electronics industry. They have the mandate of ensuring that electronic producers handle their electronic wastes responsibly. Electronic gadgets usually have things such as lead and mercury, which makes their remains harmful to the environment. Electronic waste has been discovered to be the fastest growing source of physical waste globally. Most people keep most of these wastes in their homes while others dispose them to the environment. It is not always clear to the general public on whose responsibility it is to take care of the recycling process of the highly dangerous electronic wastes. In accordance with the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, this response hand ability solely lies in the hands of the producers of electronics. Though some producers voluntarily acted to this responsibility, most have always ignored it. In the year 2008 The Electronics TakeBack Coalition launched a marketing campaign against Samsung. This was aimed at forcing Samsung to take production responsibility. This paper aims at discussing the incident of the Electronics TakeBack Coalitions marketing campaign against Samsung. In order to secure the objectivity of study, this study collected data through a variety of methods such as interviews, surveys, observations and literature review. The people that were interviewed include public relations official at Samsung Corporation, the public, and the Electronics TakeBack Coalition. Through these interviews different perspective on take-back programs by electronic producers were observed. Questionnaires were also filled by members of the public. The questionnaires contained questions pertaining to what the respondents thought of the response that Samsung made during the marketing campaign against them in the year 2008. A literature review was the most important source of information in this case. From the literature review, it was able to get detail on The Electronics TakeBack Coalition campaign against Samsung. The response that Samsung had in the campaign against them was also obtained as a result of a literature review. Literature reviews can, therefore, be said to have been the backbone of this case study. Observation was important in viewing the outcome of the response that Samsung made in the campaign against Samsung. The research made use of Stratified sampling, which made sure that they limited the errors that are associated with random sampling. The respondents were from all over the United States of America. In the year 2008, The Electronics TakeBack Coalitions marketing campaign against Samsung with claims that the corporation had neglected their environmental protection and electronic waste recycling responsibilities. The campaign was dubbed “Take Back My TV”. It was intended to arouse awareness among consumers of the harmful metals that Samsung had used in manufacturing the television sets and other electronic equipment. The Electronics Take Back Coalition made use of online games; joined forces with bloggers, business, and environmental bloggers; and ran ads in local newspapers. Through the campaign, the coalition planned on letting the public know that Samsung has spent millions in the Olympic theme campaign instead of investing in a take-back process (Yi & Thomas, 2007). It argued that the financial resources that were spent on the Olympic theme campaign would have rather been used in making sure that they take care of any electronic wastes that have any potential negative impact to the environment. It is clearly evident that this campaign would have a negative impact on their market share. The Coalition’s campaign urged Samsung to respond to it (Davidson, Hendrickson, Matthews, Bridges, Allen, Murphy & Austin, 2010). \ In response to Electronics TakeBack Coalitions marketing campaign against Samsung, the company came to its defense through a media statement that Samsung had already initiated various take-back programs in their companies. Samsung claimed that these initiatives might have not been well known at that time because of the fact that Samsung had not been doing this for a long time. However, Samsung assured the public that they had already made significant steps towards making sure that their take-back programs were as successful as the programs are supposed to be (Davidson, Hendrickson, Matthews, Bridges, Allen, Murphy & Austin, 2010). Through this statement, they aimed at letting the public know that they had some interest in protecting the environment from pollution and degradation, as opposed to what the “Take Back My TV” campaign said about the Samsung. In addition to assuring the public that they had already initiated take-back programs in their companies, they also promised that they will make sure that they put up TV take-back programs in all the fourteen states in the United States of America (Destaillats, Maddalena, Singer, Hodgson & McKone, 2008). Through this, they intended to make sure that their products do not cause any environmental problems to the people who buy and use them. Samsung is also known to be the first electronics producing corporation to declare their commitment to eliminating BFRs and PVC from all the consumer products that they produce. Despite the fact that this commitment lacked a specific timeline, it was a clear indication that the corporation was interested in making their products less harmful to the environment. In this case they intended to achieve this commitment by making sure that they reduce the use of harmful substances in the production of product that are meant for commercial purposes (Artiola, Pepper & Brusseau, 2004). This reduces the amount pollutants that are exposed to the environment when their products are disposed in the environment. The strategy that Samsung decided to use with regard to this issue was successful to some extent. The reason behind this is that they were able to convince a good percentage of their clients and the public that they were committed to making the environment pollution free through their involvement in the take-back program (Davidson, Hendrickson, Matthews, Bridges, Allen, Murphy & Austin, 2010). However, the statement that they had already been actively involved in a take-back did not seem to do enough convincing to the public. Most of the respondents asserted that if they had been actively involved with such a program, then they would not be having problems with the Electronics TakeBack Coalition with regard to the same. The commitment Samsung of making sure that they have separate take-back programs in the 14 states in the United States of America were able to bring a more positive response in comparison to the statement on previous involvement. Through this initiative they were able to convince the public that they were willing to go an extra mile to make sure that their products caused less harm to the environment. Most people in the USA have strong belief that the fact that Samsung had decided on this initiative was an indication that they were willing to improve the manner in which they are involved in the environment (Khetriwal, Karachi & Widmer, 2009). However, a good number of people still believed that they were doing so due to the economic implication of the “Take Back My TV” that was launched by the Electronics TakeBack Coalition. In the year when this campaign against Samsung took place they had scored very minimally on climate change criteria. This is one of the indications of their lack of commitment to making sure that their products were environmentally friendly. Further researches carried out by independent researchers around the same time described Samsung as one of the least green companies at that time (Cohen, 2011). With records such as these ones, it can be clearly seen that the Electronics TakeBack Coalition was not wrong by launching a campaign against Samsung. Samsung is known globally to be among the least green companies. This is because of the components of most of their electronic products and the way they were reluctant toward putting in place a properly functioning take back-program. The good thing is that the company was able to make up for their environmental unfriendly activities in the past. In the year 2011, the company scored 4.1 points on on climate change criteria of guide to a greener economy. Given that they had not managed to get even as a single point in 2008, getting a 4.1 in 2011 shows that they had really done something that had convinced the public and other interested parties of their willingness to reduce the negative effects that their products have on the environment generally. The company also reduced the amount of financial resources that they spend on marketing and product promotion. According to the CEO, they were planning to use the part of the revenue that they normally used for marketing to develop take-back programs throughout the United States of America. This was aimed at countering claims that they had been spending too much on the Olympic campaign while spending very little on making sure that they had an effective take-back program in place. The programs that they will put in place would be independently handled in accordance to the specific need of the states. As a result of these activities, Samsung was able to earn back much of the trust that they had lost as a result of the Electronics TakeBack Coalitions marketing campaign against them. With the highly increasing concerns about environmental pollution by producers, the public has gained a general sensitivity toward environment conservation related issues. However, with the show of more commitment towards a greener environment, Samsung was able to reclaim the trust they had from the public to a specific extent (Anastas & Zimmerman, 2003). This process was not easy, but it is clear that it eventually earned them back the consumer trust that they really wanted. With a publicity campaign with a name that reflects the name of the campaign against them, the business organization can be able to use the current situation to their own benefit. For instance, when they came up with a take-back program in all the 14 states of the United States of America, they could have dubbed it a name such as: Lest have your T.V back. This will enable them to get a better way of convincing the public of their commitment to making sure that their products do not cause further pollution. Such an initiative is likely to be more convincing than the statement that they issued about their commitment about developing a take-back program throughout the United States of America (Naumann, Dick, Kern & Johann, 2011). With a program that is already stable such as this one from Best Buy, Samsung will be able to save allot of resources that they would have spent in putting their own take-back program in place. They could approach Buy Big with a deal that would enable them to get waste materials for their clients through them. For instance, they could approach them with a deal that would be aimed at making the public believe that they were working in conjunction with them. Given the fact that Big Buy is already well known, communicating their commitment toward putting in place a take-back program will be highly beneficial to their publicity, especially now that they are in need of positive publicity (Davidson, Hendrickson, Matthews, Bridges, Allen, Murphy & Austin, 2010). Samsung could also make a surprise introduction of a new product that is totally environment friendly. As much as most people will argue that this will not be an easy task, there is a possibility that it can happen. This can only happen if they invest on studies and experiments that would lead to the development of such product. However, investing in such activities is considered to be highly risky. As the risk is a result of the fact that there is no assurance that the result of such activities will be positive. However, if they will manage to do such a thing they will be able to give the general public the impression that they have been very concerned about the effect of their products’ waste to the environment (Davies, 2013). Through such launches they can also do product promotion that will touch on the commitments they have toward reducing the environmental pollution by reminding the public that even after the new product gets to a condition where they cannot use it, they wouldn’t have to worry because their take-back program will take care of it. The business organization can also make use of the media to counter the effect of the campaign against them by The Electronics Take Back Coalition. This is because by using media they will be able to get reach of the highest number of their customers. They will not only reach their customers, but the potential ones too. They could come up with a media campaign that is aimed at making sure that they communicate their commitment towards developing effective take back programs throughout the world. They can also use social media, which has so far proved to be a very effective way of maintaining the public relation of a business organization. Given that Samsung is an internationally known business entity, they are likely to benefit in a big way by using social media for public relations. It is clearly evident that the Electronics TakeBack Coalitions marketing campaign against Samsung had a big impact on the public image of Samsung in the United States of America this could be seen in the way the market shares of the company reduced as result of the Electronics TakeBack Coalitions marketing campaign against Samsung. This can be seen in the way they promptly responded to it. The case also shows the level to which compliance with regulations on environmental conservation during production is important in the US. This case study gives various things that the company would have done to make sure that they recover from the outcome of the campaign against them. It also shows the various things that Samsung did to counter the effect of the campaign against them by the Electronics TakeBack Coalition. The recommendations given in this paper would have buffered their response to the campaign, prompting a better outcome. References Anastas, P. T., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2003). Peer reviewed: design through the 12 principles of green engineering. Environmental science & technology, 37 (5), 94A-101A. Artiola, J. F., Pepper, I. L., & Brusseau, M. L. (2004). Environmental monitoring and characterization. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. Cohen, N. (2011). Green business: An A-to-Z guide. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Davidson, C. I., Hendrickson, C. T., Matthews, H. S., Bridges, M. W., Allen, D. T., Murphy, C. F., ... & Austin, S. (2010). Preparing future engineers for challenges of the 21st century: Sustainable engineering. Journal of cleaner production, 18(7), 698-701. Davies, K. (2013). The rise of the U.S. environmental health movement. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Destaillats, H., Maddalena, R. L., Singer, B. C., Hodgson, A. T., & McKone, T. E. (2008). Indoor pollutants emitted by office equipment: A review of reported data and information needs. Atmospheric Environment, 42(7), 1371-1388. Khetriwal, D. S., Kraeuchi, P., & Widmer, R. (2009). Producer responsibility for e-waste management: key issues for consideration–learning from the Swiss experience. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 153-165. Naumann, S., Dick, M., Kern, E., & Johann, T. (2011). The greensoft model: A reference model for green and sustainable software and its engineering. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 1(4), 294-304. Smith, T., Sonnenfeld, D. A., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Challenging the chip: Labor rights and environmental justice in the global electronics industry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Yi, L., & Thomas, H. R. (2007). A review of research on the environmental impact of e-business and ICT. Environment International, 33(6), 841-849. Read More