There is no shortage of people to blame for the economic crisis that we find ourselves in today. Rogue traders, greedy i-bankers, poor government, and credit-card companies just to name a few. But yesterday I discovered the latest group in the bull’s-eye of angry public opinion: those of us who work at advertising agencies. It’s yet another shot against a group that is traditionally rated alongside lawyers and used-car salesmen in terms of public respect, and another example of how we need to collectively get our act together.

A Harris Poll released on April 15 asked more than 2,000 people, “How much responsibility, if any, should the following groups take for the current economic crisis because they caused people to buy things they couldn’t afford?” As you can see in the chart above, advertising agencies received the highest share of the blame among the group, with 66% of people assigning us at least some responsibility for the country’s troubles.

Interestingly, I tweeted this survey result yesterday and got back some interesting responses. (Side note: This proves another real benefit of Twitter; you can get instant feedback and create a “micro-discussion” at any time). Some of the responses were:

• @leighhouse: “Could be that 66% of consumers are just looking to blame someone, anyone to blame”
• @caffeinatedkate: “That article makes me think of someone blaming the baker for making the donuts they can’t stop eating”
• @adamkmiec: “We share part of the blame. We don’t have to do the work. Are agencies doing cigarette ads part of the prob?”
• @LeighGeorge: “Sounds like the Twinkie defense to me

Three of the four responses here show a very rational defense of our industry. I would also throw in there that the survey is pretty slanted toward putting ad agencies in the worst light—after all, where are the other groups that bear a lot of the responsibility? The people at the Harris Poll even admit that, “Americans are angry and upset about the state of the economy and need someone or some group to blame.”

I feel this survey and this view of advertising agencies is unfair. But then again, everyone was warned at an early age that life is not fair. We as an industry have to accept society’s judgment: We’re currently seen as part of the problem.

But we can choose to do something about this perception and strive to be part of the solution. Every person in our industry can choose to shift away from the activities that anger consumers, and embrace the meaningful-marketing mantra that I’ve been dedicated to sharing with you here.

Years ago agencies started to shy away from certain products that fell across the moral line as judged by the court of public opinion; the biggest example is cigarettes. Many passed on the chance to collect millions in fees because it was not worth the ethical cost. It’s going to take a lot longer, but what if account planners, creative directors, and client service managers around the world woke up tomorrow and decided to begin dedicating themselves to more meaningful marketing—and started driving their clients and teams to accept the reality that interruption is no longer working, nor is it responsible.

And if I get off my earnest high horse for a minute, this is not just about doing work we feel more proud of—it’s plainly about doing the kind of work that consumers will choose to engage with and tell their friends about. It’s the kind of work that is going to keep meaningful-marketing practitioners employed.

So let’s admit the reality that we’re part of the problem, and start striving to lead the world to a much more meaningful solution. In the next few months, create a community for like-minded marketers. It’s going to be a kind of tribe that I hope will become much bigger than me and much bigger than Bridge Worldwide. And I hope you will choose to join us.

A few weeks ago I wrote one of our most visited posts about the lameness of Toyota’s “Saved by Zero” television advertising campaign. Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the past three months, you’ve got to recall Toyota’s annoying use of The Fixx’s song and the promise of 0% interest rates. Some of you might have even joined the Facebook protest of this campaign, which now, thankfully, seems off the air.  According to Toyota’s spokesperson, the purpose of the campaign was to remind people that loans were still to be had (at great rates) in these troubled economic times.

But today one of our Search gurus, Ian “Trey” Dahlman, pinged me to let me know that Hyundai was doing something remarkably different. It seems the brand has launched the “Hyundai Assurance Guarantee.” The straightforward program promises to let people return their cars if they lose their jobs. That’s right, “if you cannot make a payment because of a covered life-changing event, we’ll allow you to return your vehicle and walk away from your loan obligation-and in most cases we will cover most, if not all of the difference.”

It’s a pretty dramatic offer, which is very meaningful coming at a time of dramatic economic risk. Hyundai realizes the main dynamic in the auto industry today-that people are holding off on making purchases because they are afraid of what will happen next. The reality is that a lot of these people do need new wheels, and most will retain employment. Hyundai’s downside is relatively small, while the upside is a strong differentiation in the marketplace and the chance to close some sales.

Hyundai’s killer idea obviously comes from honing in on understanding the needs of its target customer, and figuring out what its marketing could do to address the issue. And in this case, it didn’t take months of focus groups or $300,000 omnibus studies-but rather some old-fashioned common sense and human understanding.

Early proof of the meaning and effectiveness of this promotion is seen in the (free) news coverage it has already spawned. A quick Google news search shows several stories from media both small and large.  This free advertising means that Hyundai’s campaign will be even more successful. The only news coverage of Toyota’s “Saved by Zero” campaign was that of its annoyance factor.

According to Hyundai, the campaign is already driving positive business results. The company says it has gotten hundreds of phone calls to inquire about the offer, and showroom traffic is up considerably.

Long-term, Hyundai could reap some great brand equity builds out of a campaign like this-first, with buyers who feel that the company is looking out for them. Even those not in the market who are simply exposed to the message likely forge a more positive opinion of the brand.

I’ll keep an eye on the brand’s progress and track results over time. This should be an interesting case to watch!

UPDATE: Jonah Bloom, Advertising Age Editor has a nice article on the program, which ended up featuring it in a SuperBowl spot on February 1.

UPDATE 2: Here’s an article about other companies in other categories that are similarly aiding people who are out of work.  And, through March, not a single car buyer has returned a car!

In what seems like just weeks since the media world had embraced fully cause-related and sustainability marketing, it seems we’re already questioning ourselves and rethinking the best way to build brands in modern times—again. Some predicted that cause-related and sustainability marketing would fall back as the latest fad, or lose out to the next “what’s next.” Instead, it’s the economy, stupid, which seems to have us questioning these forms of meaningful marketing.

The growing countertrend is a belief that people are less willing to pay attention to brands’ good works for the less fortunate when they are forced to worry about feeding and clothing their own families. Advertising Age seems to have broken the seal on this line of thinking with an article today titled “Economic Blues Leave No Room for Green.” Reporter Jack Neff wrote of a survey of CMOs completed by Professor Christine Moorman at Duke’s Fuqua School of Business (who, incidentally, our president, Jay Woffington, has guest-lectured for). Moorman’s survey showed that CMOs who were more pessimistic about the economy tended to de-prioritize marketing around causes and environmental sustainability. A graph of the results is shown above.

Neff called me for my perspective on the study and whether we were seeing this with our clients, and ended up using several of my quotes in the article. My take is as follows:

First, I think it makes complete sense that people will, on average, be less interested in external causes when there is more pressure on their own budgets and families. A quick search of recent news shows that food pantries and the Red Cross are seeing fewer donations because of the economy. Donna Goldfarb, VP of consumer and market insights for Unilever Americas, makes a good point that we can follow Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs here. In other words, when food and shelter are secure, we can aim to improve society, but when these basics are under pressure, we retrench, cut coupons, and stick with the cheaper store brands.

On the other hand, I believe that brands that support worthy causes and truly make a difference with their work can reap a strong return on investment. Cause-related and sustainability marketing still help brands differentiate themselves in a competitive marketplace. And, as I said at the end of the article, “Coupons won’t get you on The Today Show.”

But the big question for this space is: Does a worsening economy dampen Meaningful Marketing? I think not.

To be clear, Marketing with Meaning has nothing specifically to do with cause-related marketing. Rather, it suggests that each brand must choose marketing activities that are meaningful to its target customer. Following Maslow, in great economic times, this might mean cause and sustainability efforts, and when people are under pressure to pay the bills or find work, a free sample or BOGO (Buy-One, Get-One) will move more cases.

Smart brands and CMOs should continually monitor their customers’ need states and adjust their approach accordingly. A move from higher-order causes to coupons and money-saving tips might be more appropriate today, on average.

But brands with historically successful and significant causes should think twice before abandoning these projects. These programs are built over decades, and a short-term cut may destroy a long-term win. Finally, we should remember that it is human nature to rally together during tough times. Lately I’ve been reading my 7-year-old a historical fiction series about life as a child during the Depression (yes, it’s an American Girl series). The stories depict one of nation’s toughest times, but also one in which neighbors banded together to help each other and the unfortunate.

The brands that stick to what their customers find meaningful in both the short and long term are more likely to weather the economic storms and come out stronger than ever.