Social enterprises probably find it more difficult to translate what they are selling to customers. Why? Because, often times what you are selling is not a computer, sandwich, or care service. If you want to really connect with great customers and reach sustainability you need to take your business to next level and get out of the business of selling and into the business of connecting.
Examples? Apple, Disney, Nike, Betty’s Cafe, Marks and Spencer’s, and Virgin.
On first blush its technology, theme parks, tea, food, and travel.
But, take a look at how they connect to their customers: not by selling those things. (Excepting some Virgin ad campaigns). They connect to customers by helping them realise: coolness, dreams, superior athletic prowess, old world charm and quality, specialised shopping experience, and reality with a twist.
Think about it. Do you think you will move more sandwiches if you are selling cheap eats or a decadent eating experience that leaves a legacy?
Related posts:
Perhaps any social enterprise that starts from the point of ’selling’ was never really a social enterprise – just an income generator bolted on in an attempt to make the books balance?
For me social enterprise is about doing something that promotes social justice – whether it creates cash surplus or not. Connection is the point of the social enterprise – the very root. Collins – whose monograph on the social sector you are reading – implores the third sector not to import the mediocre business practices of the private sector. I would include a pre-occupation with what you can sell – and how you connect in order to sell it – as one of these mediocre practices. Focus instead on how you can connect for social justice – however you describe it.
In answer to your last question you will almost certainly ‘move’ more cheap eats than decadent dining experiences. This is the difference (in the majority of cases)between ‘high volume/low value’ versus ‘low volume/high value’. McDonalds sells more than Gordon Ramsay’s – and probably will for a very long time.
Mike,
Thanks for joining in the conversation. Just a couple of points in response as it appears my post may not have been clear:
* Social enterprise is a combination of social justice and enterprise. Social justice on its own is not social enterprise. This is likely why it is difficult, as it is not just about helping people/places/etc., but sustaining that mission through trade that may or may not be completely incorporated in your mission. There is a large spectrum of a social enterprises.
* Selling is a key component of enterprise. It’s how you sell that makes the difference.
* Collins’ monograph points to the myriad of charities that simply think adoption of business practice will solve the sustainability problem. He spotlights, by way of example, that businesses often get it wrong and following them blindly is not recommended. However, I don’t think anyone is going to suggest that Apple, Betty’s, Disney, M&S, and Virgin are bad business examples. The aim of Collins’ text is to point out the uniqueness and difficulty in blending the two: business and social justice. And to give examples for inspiration.
* Focusing on the social justice mission as a way to connect to customers and to sustain your enterprise limits your customer base and will ultimately confuse the customer who will trade with your enterprise, but needs to understand what it is they are trading in.
* Your last point is spot on. I quickly jotted a point down without expanding and it looks like a comparison of apples and oranges. What I meant by my comment was that you need a way to distinguish your value proposition from your competition. For most social enterprises, even many of those that scale, the experiencial approach (connecting on other than price) is going to produce better long term results.