Which will have a greater effect in November? The political climate…or the actual climate?

August 30, 2016 Randy Snow, Chief Strategic Officer/Principal Comment

The lines could not be more clearly drawn.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has clearly positioned climate change and the effort to reverse global warming as one of the centerpieces of her campaign. The Democratic Party’s platform agrees with the science recognizing a warming climate and attributing it to human activity. It also calls for putting a price (feel free to call it a tax) on carbon emissions.

Republican nominee Donald Trump, in the words of this New York Times article, “has gone further than any other Republican nominee in opposing climate change policy.” He refers to global warming as “a hoax.” The Republican Party’s platform is right there with him, calling climate change policy “the triumph of extremism over common sense.”

Needless to say, climate change is but one of many issues that voters will consider this November. For many, climate change and the environment in general, while important, will take a back seat to hot button topics including jobs, the economy and national security. Not to mention the seemingly endless list of character flaws brought to our attention each day by the candidates who the polls tell us are the two least-liked, least-trusted candidates in American presidential election history.

But for those who do view the health and future of our planet as an important factor in choosing the next president, the choice seems clear. Conversely, for those who are skeptical of climate change science and also stand firmly against any policies and regulations that may increase the costs of energy, there will be no hesitation.

Okay, fair enough. So where does America stand today? A Gallop poll taken in March tells us that 65% of Americans believe that human activity is playing a part in the warming of the planet. That’s a 10-point increase from just a year ago. Heck, even 38% of Republicans believe it, up 4 points from last year.

But there is another number in the same poll that jumps out even more. Fully 76% of Americans aged 18-29 believe human activity is causing or contributing to global warming. Those are the same Americans we commonly refer to as Millennials. And there are a lot of them. In fact, Millennials have surpassed Baby Boomers as the largest American generation.

Should the Republicans, who have just published a platform that calls climate change policy “extremism” and have nominated a candidate who claims global warming is a “hoax,” be worried about those numbers?

That depends on a couple of things. First, are Millennials politically active? Will they vote? Second, if they are voting in large numbers, is the environment high on their list of political priorities?

Where can we find the answers to those questions? In the one place where Millennials are talking – social media.

Take a look at these charts measuring activity and interest based on social media use and conversations:

These suggest that Millennials are very interested in politics and, as such, have become politically active.

And these tell us that issues involving the environment and sustainability are of a high priority…

Millennials Grew Up Being Environmentally Conscious, So These Issues Are Very Relevant To Them Because They Understand The Importance Of Protecting Our Climate.
According to the NextGen website, “Much more than previous generations, Millennials grew up with things like recycling, turning off appliances and lights when not in use, and awareness of energy efficiency as the norm. As a result, environmental concerns are ingrained in their identity, and young voters understand the importance of protecting our climate.” [NextGen Climate, 4/29/16]

However there’s this…

Millennials Have Punched Below Their Electoral Weight In Recent Presidential Elections. For A Host Of Reasons, Young Adults Are Less Likely To Vote Than Their Older Counterparts, And Millennials Are No Exception. [PewResearch, 5/16/16]

105214_RR_External_Comm_Energy_Graphs.002

[PewResearch, 5/16/16]

And this…

In 2016, For The First Time, Millennials Will Be As Large A Share Of The Eligible Voting Population As Boomers, Roughly 30 Percent. That Said, Boomers Are Still Expected To Outvote Millennials This Year. [Vox, 4/30/16]

105214_RR_External_Comm_Energy_Graphs.001

While The Growth In The Number Of Millennials Who Are Eligible To Vote Underscores The Potential Electoral Clout Of Today’s Young Adults, Millennials Remain Far From The Largest Generational Bloc Of Actual Voters. It Is One Thing To Be Eligible To Vote And Another Entirely To Cast A Ballot. [PewResearch, 5/16/16]

So, less than three months from a national election, where does that leave us? I guess time will tell. If history is precedent and Millennials continue to be outvoted by Boomers and Gen Xers, maybe the Republicans won’t get bitten on the environmental issue. Not this year anyway. But even a lot of Republican sages are saying that Millennials’ attitudes will have to be respected and accounted for in future elections.

Republican Pollster Bill Mcinturff : “I Kind Of Hate To Say It, But The Millennial Generation Is Now Important. Their Views Are Becoming The Dominant Public Views. Their Attitudes About Gay Marriage And Social Tolerance Are Radically Different Than The Previous Generations, And They Are Restructuring Our Views.” [NextGen Climate, 4/29/16]

Then again, it’s entirely possible that jobs, the economy, terrorism, foreign policy, e-mail servers, personal tax returns and an unending barrage of personal attacks will overshadow the environment this time as a tipping point for presidential voters. The first debate in September should be a good indicator. If that happens, watch for energy and environment to bubble up instead as issues further down the ballot in states that produce large amounts of fossil fuels (West Virginia, Kentucky, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado) as well as those where renewable energy sources are plentiful (California, Arizona, Nevada).

But whether or not energy, climate change and the environment become flashpoints in this year’s national election, two facts remain. First, energy and the environment is one of the rare issues that affect everyone, independent of wealth, race, age, party affiliation, sexual orientation or religion. Without a healthy planet, none of that other stuff is going to matter. Second, the strength and political influence of the Millennial Generation is going to do nothing but grow in the coming years. And Millennials care about our planet. Deeply.

Any politician, party or political entity that fails to recognize those facts moving forward does so at their own peril. The same goes for any company, group or institution whose existence is affected by the decisions those politicians and parties make (and I can’t think of any that aren’t).

However, those who do speak, and act, responsibly to those concerns will be heard by the most environmentally aware generation America has ever produced.

Sadly, El Nino didn’t save us.

June 17, 2016 Randy Snow, Chief Strategic Officer/Principal Comment

It all sounded so hopeful. Last autumn all the talk was about the “Godzilla of El Ninos,” forming in the Pacific Ocean and preparing to bring all of us in the western U.S. a winter positively brimming with wet, wonderful precipitation. Rain in the valleys, snow in the mountains and water everywhere the eye could see.

Meteorologists and climatologists were lining up to tell us that the models they were working on portended an El Nino unlike any we had seen since the record winter of 1997-98. States including California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Colorado that had been suffering under the jackboot of the worst drought any of us had experienced for more than a decade would finally see some relief.

It was going to be glorious.

Except, it wasn’t. In June, as we look back on the El Nino winter of 2015-16, it seems that Godzilla underachieved. Granted, the news wasn’t all bad. The Pacific Northwest had a very wet year. But that’s Washington and Oregon. Their situation isn’t nearly as dire as ours. Closer to home, rainfall in Northern California actually had what has been described as “near normal” rainfall during the season. The nature of the drought is such that a year of “near normal” is now considered cause for celebration. But, many of Northern California’s reservoirs did receive a nice jolt of new water. And that’s a very good thing.

But things were much less rosy elsewhere. The snowpack in California’s mountains was still 14% below normal for the year. Even more disappointing, the seasonal rainfall in Los Angeles was 6.59 inches. Normal for the area is 13.54 inches.

Things were no better – and no wetter – in Arizona. Arizona’s mountains recorded a less-than-normal snowpack for the sixth consecutive year, even after a very promising start to the season. Nevada had a year very much like California’s. Not bad in the mountains and lakes of Northern Nevada. But in Southern Nevada – well, it never rains or snows very much in Southern Nevada anyway.

Which brings us to the Rocky Mountains of Colorado – where the winter snowpack determines how much water will flow down the Colorado River into Lake Mead and ultimately to the millions of homes, businesses and farms in California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah – even Mexico – that depend on it as their primary source.

Again, we are forced to wonder what might have been. As in Arizona and California, the year in the Rockies got off to a very promising start. But in the months after that… more disappointments. When all was said and done, the snowpack fell 20% short of what is considered normal. Even worse, a warm March caused much of the snowpack to melt too quickly and too early to really make a difference in the downstream reservoirs like Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Granted, the region did have a very cool and wet month of May, but by then, the damage to the snowpack had been done.

Put simply, Big Daddy Drought had slapped El Nino on the butt.

There is no greater evidence of that than in the declining reserves in Lake Mead. In May of 2016, the level of the lake was measured at 1074 feet, the lowest since Hoover Dam had been completed. That level is expected to go down another five feet by the end of June. On a more optimistic note, due to some late season runoff and some extra stores that will be allowed to flow into the lake by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, it is anticipated that its level will measure 1078 feet by year’s end. That’s an important number, because it the lake measures at 1075 or less at the end of this year, it will trigger new – and harsher – restrictions on its use by all of us who depend on it for water. Cross your fingers now.

So, El Nino didn’t save us. What now? We have to continue to save ourselves. Water authorities and purveyors throughout the region need to continue to fight the good fight. Research has always shown that people in a drought-stricken area are enthusiastic to jump in and be part of the solution. They just need to know what to do, and trust that all of their neighbors are also contributing. If the drought has taught us nothing else, it has instilled in everyone in the region an awareness of the problem and a mindset to aid in the solution. Water smart habits were slowly but surely being formed. It’s vital that we keep that momentum going.

Our client, the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is about to introduce an aggressive new water-saving program this summer, while continuing the other sustainable water management programs we have established over the past two decades that have resulted in some astounding savings. But we in Southern Nevada are old hands at drought, and the SNWA is viewed internationally as a leader in water conservation programs and marketing.

The key is that people, businesses and governments in all of the areas that depend on water that we all hope nature will deliver adopt a similar mindset and attitude, proactively changing behavior to conform to a reality that we’re ultimately going to have to save ourselves.

Because now we know one thing for sure – El Nino isn’t coming to the rescue anytime soon.

THE FLINT DISASTER: Will Accountability Please Stand Up

March 25, 2016 Monica McCafferty, Director of Public Relations Comment

“Here’s to Flint!” said Mayor Dayne Walling, lifting his glass.

Unbeknownst to him at the time, his toast would serve to commemorate the tragic “switch” in 2014 when the city of Flint changed its water supply from the city of Detroit to its very own Flint River. In combination with the city’s aging pipe system, the new water supply toxified the tap water flowing into every Flint home. Meanwhile, government officials described the switch as an austerity measure intended to help soften the blow of the city’s looming financial crisis.

Fast-forward two years; today, the aforementioned celebratory toast has turned into one of our nation’s most disturbing contemporary tragedies.

Many questions remain unresolved. Did the city of Flint sacrifice the health and safety of its residents to save approximately $1 million a year? Would the tragedy have been avoided altogether had the situation occurred in a less diverse, more affluent neighborhood? What are the long-term health outcomes for the victims of Flint who were exposed to the lead-laced water? Why did their voices go unheard for so long?

Congress hoped to give closer examination last week when Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Both officials faced a withering barrage of questions and condemnation. Both were asked to resign. Neither did.

Politics aside, the continued blame game, finger-pointing and failure to accept full accountability on both sides—particularly for the popularly elected Snyder—is fueling the public outrage. Is good PR important to earning and keeping trust between an elected official and his/her constituents?

Let’s examine closer.

Fumbled public statements and responses haven’t helped Snyder’s office (nor the EPA) in gaining the public’s trust. In fact, numerous steps by these figures fly in the face of key PR tenets during a crisis: own your actions, communicate the facts and misdoings in a transparent manner, and inform people what you are doing to fix it.

Strike one. The facts were largely downplayed from the get-go. During a crisis, it’s critical to report the facts and interpret them objectively. Otherwise, you’re stuck in “media quicksand.” The more you say, the worse it gets.

As The Los Angeles Times writes,

“… The river drew more worrisome headlines when the GM engine plant in town decided to stop taking Flint’s water in October 2014 because it was worried the high levels of chloride, which the river water also contained, would corrode metal parts.

“The city insisted the water was still safe. GM employees, Flint officials pointed out, were still drinking the water at the plant. But then, on Dec. 16, 2014, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality notified Flint that it had violated the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Later, and in a background memo to the governor, the state Department of Environmental Quality downplayed the danger. Throughout 2014 and into early 2015, the state of Michigan continued to placate residents.

Strike two. Lack of transparency. As The Guardian reports this January:

“The governor’s office declined to answer questions about what role it played in the decision-making process that led to Flint using the local river as its main water source, but what is clear is that the lead-contamination crisis took place while the city was under the control of Snyder-appointed emergency managers.”

Let’s not forget that the state of Michigan, under Snyder’s administration, originally authorized the switch.

Strike three. Accountability that only goes half way.

In a National Journal interview from earlier this year, Snyder admitted that his administration was aware that the state Department of Environmental Quality was mishandling the Flint water crisis in mid-2015. Even staff aides made him personally aware of the complaints about the drinking water.

Testimony from last week’s congressional hearing confirmed Snyder’s acceptance of some accountability, but it didn’t stop him from simultaneously pointing the finger in the opposite direction. (The fact that the EPA’s McCarthy is just as guilty misses the point.) In addition, it has become clear from media reports that everyone convinced each other that everything was “OK” because no one wanted to be the one to call out a problem.

Too little too late? To be fair, Snyder is on public record for saying, “I am sorry, I will fix it.” He also penned an op-ed in the Detroit Free Press following the congressional hearing declaring that he is not going to walk away from the disaster but will be a leader in solving the problem. He also gets high marks for recently recruiting the whistleblowers/heroes who raised concern early on; they are now on his team. Numerous officials at lower levels of government have lost their jobs as a result of how this crisis was handled.

Yet Snyder still faces an uphill battle in winning back the public’s trust.

NPR recently reported that he is losing support in Michigan, with approval rating falling 30 percentage points. A recall campaign has been launched. According to The New York Times, Standard & Poor’s lowered the outlook on Michigan’s credit rating to stable from positive, citing the costs of dealing with the Flint crisis, and also with a looming financial crisis affecting Detroit public schools.

Will Flint ultimately become Snyder’s “Nixon” or “Katrina” moment as a result of his PR blunders? This question, while a worthy one that will be watched by politicos and serve as a playbook for PR consultants, falls secondary to the health and safety of the thousands of people impacted by Flint’s toxic water.

—Monica McCafferty, Director of PR

###

Perception, reality … and Ciudad Juarez

March 2, 2016 Randy Snow, Chief Strategic Officer/Principal Comment

To be honest, I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about visiting Ciudad Juarez. Perceptions can do that to you. Color your opinions. Sway your feelings. Paint a picture in your head that may, or may not, have anything to do with its reality.

That’s how it was between me and Ciudad Juarez. Here’s the thing. I’ve binged on The Bridge on television. I sat in my local multiplex for a matinee showing of Sicario. I’ve listened to the music of At the Drive-In. I’ve been on more than one Southwest flight leaving El Paso and flying directly over one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. And I’ve seen the news reports over the last 10 years of drug cartel violence throughout Mexico, but especially within Juarez.

It all added up to a pretty scary picture. A picture I was more than willing to hold as the truth until I learned that we had signed Ciudad Juarez as a client. It was now our job to take the perception I just described and turn it around. Mold it into a narrative that describes today’s realities while acknowledging yesterday’s reputation.

Perception and persuasion are what we do, after all. But this was uncharted territory for me. Did I have the wrong idea about the city? Was the reality of Juarez in direct opposition to my media-fed beliefs? I was about to find out.

The project began last December in a conference room in our Las Vegas office. I spent the better part of a day with 11 representatives from Juarez (and probably 10 or 11 of us – the room was pretty crowded) talking about challenges, goals and aspirations for their city. The day was a revelation. The people from Juarez were a joy – smart, friendly, articulate, open, and most importantly – honest. They were under no illusions. They knew their city was suffering from a problem of perception. And they fully acknowledged that, during the worst days of cartel violence, their reputation was well earned.

But in the course of that day, while we worked on the messaging strategies to begin convincing business owners and site selectors that Juarez is a hard-working city that deserves a closer look as a smart, and safe, place to do business, they managed to convince me that the situation in their city is changing. While still not perfect, the violence and the threats have decreased significantly over the past five or six years. And the attributes that make the city a strategically solid location for certain types of businesses (primarily manufacturing and distribution, with aspirations to high-tech in the near future) were still very much in place.

So on that day, we all agreed: Our first priority is changing the conversation from what’s wrong with Juarez to what’s right with the city.

Jump forward in time a month. The initial strategic work was done. Now it was time to travel to Juarez and present our recommendations. And as I’ve already stated, I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about traveling into the city that once had the highest murder rate in North America. But there are times when you just have to journey into the belly of the beast − only to discover the beast isn’t so scary after all.

After the presentation came a tour of the city. I would never go so far as to describe Ciudad Juarez as beautiful. But it isn’t frightening or depressing either. It’s clear that this is a city that works for a living. We saw wide streets, working-class neighborhoods, familiar brand names (Buffalo Wild Wings, McDonald’s) and many of the horizontal two- and three-story factories, or maquiladoras, that are the center of its economy. And throughout, there were people out and about, going about their daily lives. The fears of six or seven years ago were nowhere in evidence. We ended the day driving past the university and touring an exciting new technology center that will help lead them into the future. I never felt less than completely safe.

The day ended with an hour-and-a-half wait at the border checkpoint to get back across the Rio Grande (or the Rio Bravo, if you’re on the Mexican side of it) and into the United States. While we were waiting, I asked the polite and well-spoken young woman who had been tasked with driving me back to El Paso what exactly had happened to quell so much of the violence. She said that the law-abiding leaders of the city and its business community had simply decided enough was enough and slowly but surely, they were taking their city back. Showing my natural skepticism, I asked if it was also the result of one of the two warring cartels actually winning and driving their rivals out of the city. She admitted that was a big factor as well. I’m guessing it’s some combination of the two.

But in the end, does it really matter? The fact is, that while still battling many issues, Ciudad Juarez is definitely a city on its way back. Its citizens combine a powerful work ethic with resilience and pride that have allowed them to create a new reality that lies in stark contrast to the violent and negative perceptions.

I was able to see that on my day in Juarez. Now it’s time for us to help them show that reality to the rest of the world.

Net Metering Explained

February 11, 2016 Randy Snow, Chief Strategic Officer/Principal Comment

First, we need to understand the grid. This is the system of lines, power plants, solar facilities, wind farms, dams, switches, transformers and other very expensive infrastructure the U.S. power industry uses to generate and deliver electricity to all of us, 24/7.

Into the picture come homes and small businesses that install solar panels on their rooftops to generate their own electricity – independent of the grid. They don’t pay a utility company for it. It came from their roof. It’s theirs.

But the sun doesn’t always shine. So these homes and businesses stay attached to the grid because they need electricity 24/7. Of course, they pay the utility for the power they use when the sun isn’t shining.

So far, pretty simple. But wait.

First, most of the homes and businesses with rooftop solar don’t use all of the power they generate. Where does it go? Since they can’t store it (at least not yet – a number of scientists and visionaries are working on technology to change that), it goes back to the grid, so the utility can deliver it to someone else.

And charge for it, though they didn’t generate it.

If that sounds unfair, don’t worry. The utility credits the homes or businesses for the rooftop-generated electricity they have sold to someone else. That’s the basis of the term net metering. In theory, the home or business owner isn’t billed for the total, or “gross” energy consumption. Instead, the charge is for the “net” consumption – the amount you use less the amount you generate.

But what price do the utilities pay? Utilities would like to pay what it costs them to generate, buy and deliver electricity. Rooftop solar owners, on the other hand, would like a price closer to what the utility is charging other customers. To further complicate matters, in some jurisdictions, prices paid to rooftop solar owners were established years ago, when solar electricity was much more expensive. Not surprisingly, the utilities would like to see the prices updated to reflect current (lower) costs. Just as unsurprisingly, rooftop solar owners resist that notion.

There is yet another point of contention. It’s our friend, the grid, which, as we discussed, is very expensive. For the most part, the costs of the grid are baked into the rates the utility charges. Those rates are rooted the idea that customers are connected to the grid and pulling power from it 24/7. The theory: Spread the costs of the grid evenly across the entire ratepayer base.

However, based on that thinking, if rooftop solar owners aren’t pulling power from the grid all the time, they aren’t paying their fair share.

How so? Though they are always connected to it, they aren’t always paying the rate that includes its costs. Meaning those customers without rooftop solar will end up paying a disproportionately high percentage of its cost. Put another way, if a non-solar user pays a certain price for electricity and a solar user – after rebates – pays half that amount, the non-solar user is paying twice as much for a grid whose cost to both customers is constant. Utilities believe this is unfair. To close the gap, some utilities have proposed a flat service charge to rooftop solar owners to make up the difference and keep the costs of the grid distributed evenly. This has happened in Nevada.

Many proponents of rooftop solar resist. The original idea was that rooftop solar owners would derive savings from producing, using and selling their own power. Over time, those savings would cover the cost of installation and maintenance. They say that a combination of unfairly low rates for credits and service charges make that impossible. Again, the utilities disagree.

So, who decides? As with virtually everything in the utility industry – regulators decide. In Nevada, it is the Public Utilities Commission, or PUC. In Arizona, it’s called the Arizona Corporation Commission, or ACC. These regulatory bodies conduct public hearings in which all affected parties – utilities, rooftop solar owners, the rooftop solar industry, the general public – state their case and make their proposals. They then decide what net metering rates will be enforced and what, if any, service charges will be adopted.

Those hearings create a fair amount of news. This is happening in Nevada right now.

Like many issues in the world of energy, net metering can seem esoteric and confusing. But if you live in a state with conditions conducive to creating solar energy, it’s an issue that will surface, if it hasn’t already. Hopefully we’ve been able to unravel the mystery enough to give you a basic understanding of an issue that won’t be going away anytime soon.

R&R Employs Water Expertise at the National Rural Water Association’s Annual Conference

February 11, 2016 R&R Partners Comment

Nothing is more precious on this planet than water. It’s the one necessary ingredient to produce life as we know it.

Unfortunately, most people use water every day without thinking twice about it. Where does it come from? How much do we have left? Is it safe to drink?

This is where R&R Partners, the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) and its state affiliates come in. On January 14 and 15, 2016, R&R worked with NRWA and its state affiliates to sponsor their annual water conference in Miami, Florida. The conference brought together like-minded individuals whose public health goals include water storage, safety and conservation.

So what exactly is NRWA and what does it do? NRWA and its members provide safe drinking water to thousands of communities across the country and help to protect America’s water resources. Together, they provide training and technical assistance to roughly 31,000 small and rural water and wastewater systems. In fact, NRWA comprises the largest utility membership organization in the U.S. It believes in empowering local groups through training and education so that they are able to safely manage any water issue that comes their way.

Water issues are all too familiar to R&R Partners. Based in the drought-prone West, R&R first began working on water conservation efforts with the Southern Nevada Water Authority more than 20 years ago. Back then, residents in Nevada and across the West had many misconceptions on who was using water and how it could be saved. For example, most thought that huge hotels and golf courses were the biggest water consumers. The truth was, and still is, that the largest single user-group was homeowners. The vast majority of that usage is outside, keeping trees, shrubs − mostly lawns − alive in the West’s arid desert climate.

Over the years, R&R worked to educate the public on water conservation. Developing smart and sexy campaigns, we have saved billions of gallons of water every year with virtually no effect on the lives of the homeowners and business owners who conserve. Ordinary people continuing to do ordinary things, saving water, one gallon at a time. Today, the citizens of Southern Nevada are saving more than 42.5 million gallons of water every day. We have reduced our consumption of water from 248 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) in 2008 to 118 GPCD in 2014. We are saving water at a rate five times greater than the rate of our population growth.

Even with the good work done by R&R in Nevada, there is much more work to be done nationwide. Drought remains a top concern among many citizens, especially those who live in the West. In fact, a Colorado College Conservation in the West poll released last month revealed that this issue remains a top concern. In addition, scientists have predicted that the ongoing drought in the West will worsen in the coming decades. That is why it is more important than ever for R&R to continue working alongside important water groups like NRWA.

Big Brands See Value in Good Behavior

February 5, 2016 Amberlee Engle, Group Account Director Comment

This year, during the Super Bowl, some brands are shifting their focus from their products to messages about the use of their products. In simpler terms, they are learning to align consumer values to that of the brand. Colgate plans to air a spot to remind its customers to turn off the tap while brushing their teeth. The brand was looking for a way to ramp up its commitment and amplify what the company is doing to support water conservation. While Colgate has been doing this for years, especially in Latin America, it just recently starting promoting this in the U.S. It’s hoping that the Super Bowl will get its brand some additional exposure. And, in turn, make its customers more loyal by tapping into a national issue like water conservation, which is top of mind due to the severe drought the West is facing.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/colgate-to-make-super-bowl-debut-with-save-water-ad-1450805861

Another brand that’s shifting the focus from product to responsible consumer use is Budweiser USA. It has recently promoted a spot featuring Helen Mirren where she sternly lectures responsible drinking while promoting the hashtag #GiveADamn. Budweiser will be airing additional spots during the Super Bowl, but it’s clear that brands are seeing an impact in promoting their corporate responsibility efforts to a broad consumer base with similar values.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/budweiser-super-bowl-50-commercial-helen-mirren-chides-drunk-drivers-w163251

While corporate social responsibility has been around for quite some time, nowadays, it seems that it’s become a business imperative. And it’s moving into the mainstream this year with many companies’ efforts. Brands are choosing to make a conscious decision to purchase advertising during the big game to support and promote this type of messaging.

So, what does this all mean? How will corporate responsibility drive growth, transparency, empowerment and brand engagement? And maybe the biggest question of all, will brands secure long-term loyalty by implementing these corporate social responsibility efforts into mainstream advertising?

We shall wait and see.