Archives

green marketing - Terra Infirma


Browse All

11 January 2012

Putting the customer first

There's disappointing news from the world of low emission vehicles (LEVs) - while sales of all cars were up 10% last year in the US, alternatively fuelled vehicles (incl hybrids) only rose 2.3%. In the UK, however, road fuel sales were down. This broadly suggests that people are simply driving less rather than investing a premium in a vehicle which would cost less to run overall. But it may also be fear of the new - will that electric car run out of charge half way down the M1?

The relationship between green products of any type and consumers has always been complicated - for example organic food dominates baby food sales but not 'adult food' - we're happy to eat cheap crap ourselves but won't feed it to our kids. There are many reasons for consumers being lukewarm on green products:

  • Habit/comfort zone
  • Costs - perceived or otherwise
  • Perceived low quality
  • Lack of understanding/fear that a new system will be complicated

I've argued for a long time that it is retail which is acting as a gatekeeper for fast moving consumer goods. Their huge buying power can both drive innovation, ensure quality and keep costs reasonable. The consumer can then trust the retailer to get it right on their behalf.

But what for other sectors? The golden rule is to put yourself in your customers' shoes. If you are aiming for a green niche then you can compromise on performance or price for a very green product. However if you want to go mainstream, you must compete on performance, price and planet.

Of course the ultimate goal is a green product that people deeply desire. MP3s and e-Books aren't marketed as green, but they are - and they sell in their millions. It may be that the auto industry needs to go through another couple of iterations before they hit that level of customer pull for LEVs - after all one technology has dominated the industry for 120 years and that it take some shifting.

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

28 November 2011

RBS, Fossil Fuels, Campaigns & Greenwash

Interesting story in the news this morning that Royal Bank of Scotland has pulled out of sponsoring Climate Week after pressure from NGOs angry at the bank's $13bn investments in fossil fuel industries.

To me, this is an interesting case that throws up all sorts of questions - the trickiest of which is "can no-one with a financial stake in fossil fuels campaign against climate change?" I've got half a tank of diesel in the car outside, yet I'm heading off (by fossil fuelled public transport) in 90 minutes to give a lecture on climate change to engineering students. Am I a hypocrite?

A hard line on this would surely rule out most corporate sponsors, which then begs the question - who will sponsor 'Climate Week'. Actually, I'm getting a bit cynical about all these special 'weeks' and 'days', anyway, so I'm not so bothered.

The lesson here for businesses in general is more clean cut. You won't get much credit for 'doing good' if you are still 'doing bad'. Stopping doing 'bad' things is the litmus test between a true green business and the rest. And that takes real leadership.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 3 responses

7 November 2011

Is this greenwash? You decide...

A week or so ago my other half proudly presented me with a new kettle. "Look!" she said "It's an eco-friendly one!" And sure enough it was slathered in claims it would save 66% energy.

"Mmm", I thought, putting on my electrical engineer's hat (which is admittedly a bit dusty), "A heating element is 100% efficient, the heat capacity of water is constant, the heating time is so quick you won't get significant losses through the sides, so what could possibly be 66% more efficient?"

The answer is, with a flat element and a gauge that lets you see if you have a single cup of water inside, you can save energy by only boiling the amount if water you need. When I explained this to her, she felt she had been conned. We ended up having a long conversation about greenwash.

Here's the evidence as I see it:

For the prosecution:

  • An intelligent, but busy person (she has a PhD and two small kids) assumed that the kettle itself was 66% more efficient, because she's not enough of a green geek to pore over the details;
  • The savings are almost entirely dependent on the user (and the user frequently making single cups of tea/coffee);
  • The kettle hasn't changed much - probably the most significant thing was the sticker on it about energy - now gone;
  • As flat element kettles are getting more common, anyone could measure out a cup of water. Even with a traditional element kettle, you can use less water with a bit of care.

For the defence:

  • The labels clearly said that the savings would be down to you being able to use less water;
  • The nature of a kettle is such that the amount of water is the key factor in energy consumption;
  • Philips are bringing the water factor to the attention of the user;
  • The 66% figure came from a DEFRA study, so has third party validation.

So, you, the jury, what verdict would you give? Guilty, or not guilty?

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 4 responses

19 September 2011

Promises don't count

Yesterday I opened my Sunday supplement to find a double page ad featuring these two quite incredible looking BMW electric cars. "Wow!" I thought, until I noticed they were both concept cars. Digging a bit deeper, I found that BMW hope to have a production version ready by 2013.

Hmmm. Is this greenwash I asked myself (and Twitter)? Is it within the rules of green marketing to show a work in progress in such a prominent way? After all, the project could be quietly shelved before it comes to fruition, but the reader would be left with the impression that BMW is "doing something green".

But the bigger issue is the difference is whether promises count, as opposed to results. As I explain in The Green Executive, the green business battle line has moved past promises, commitments and speeches to delivery, results and installations. It is no surprise that Toyota has topped Interbrand's Top 50 Green Brands 2011 - they've had the iconic Prius hybrid on the road since 1997, not floating around in concept land.

As that battle line inches forward, what used to be regarded as good green performance is now seen as old hat. And it is not what you intend to do that matters, but what you have done.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 3 responses

9 September 2011

Is this the worst green marketing slogan ever?

I spotted this billboard for a Hi-tec walking boot a few months ago and I used it on Wednesday's Green Marketing webinar as an example of how not to do green marketing. I am both a green consumer and a keen rambler, so I am a prime target for this product and its marketing message, yet it left me cold.

The obvious flaws are the uninspired imagery and the lack of any justification for the claim that this boot is in anyway greener than normal boots - and with rivals as ambitious on sustainability as Timberland, they'd need have to have a good story to tell.

But the real damage is done by that incredible strap-line:

"The environmentally considered walking boot".

Urgh! Apart from the dodgy grammar, and its sheer clunkiness, it means nothing. Where's the wit, where's the insight, where's the passion? Did someone actually get paid to produce this?

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

30 August 2011

Classic Greenwash


I saw this refrigerated trailer at Stranraer while waiting for the ferry to Belfast last week. If you can't make it out, it is marked with a large green footprint shape proclaiming that it is 99% recyclable.

This is a classic case of green wash as:

1. Most trailers are made of steel and aluminium and will be almost entirely recyclable. So what's the big deal with this one? Trying to make normal look green is a classic form of greenwash.

2. At an educated guess, the significant components of this trailers' life cycle impact will the fuel use to move it around and the energy to keep the contents cool. So a green trailer would be lightweight, aerodynamic, very well insulated and have a very efficient compressor. These big issues seem to have been ignored in favour of a lesser factor - another form of greenwash.

Two greenwashes for the price of one. As users of twitter would say, #epicfail.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

16 August 2011

Green Academy September Sessions

Here are the details of the two Green Academy on-line sessions on 7 Sept 2011:

11am BST: Basic level: Get off to a flying start

Contents:

  • Putting a team together;
  • Gathering data while avoiding ‘paralysis by analysis’;
  • Identifying quick wins in energy, raw materials, waste & recycling, water and transport;
  • Building on initial momentum.

Cost: £45+VAT. To register for the basic level session click here (Paypal)

 

2pm BST: Advanced level: Green Marketing & Communications

Content:

  • Creating a compelling marketing message;
  • Beyond preaching – engaging stakeholders;
  • Avoiding eco-cliches;
  • Avoiding greenwash.

Cost: £45 + VAT. To register for the advanced level session click here (Paypal)

 

Each session lasts for one hour. You need access to a computer with sound or a computer and a telephone. You will receive a workbook to apply the learning to your organisation prior to the start of the session.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

27 July 2011

Avoiding Greenwash: How Green is Green?


Greenwash is widely regarded as the greatest sin in the green business world. The term was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in response to those "hang up your towels and we won't wash them everyday" cards you find in hotel bathrooms. It's a portmanteau of 'green' and 'whitewash', meaning covering up lots of non-green activity with a token green gesture.

So, the question is, if greenwash is so evil, how green do you have to be before you can say you are green? This is a tricky one as it is a subjective judgement and the bar is constantly rising. Here are your options:

1. Be extremely ambitious: make sure your performance is so far ahead your peers that your reputation is unassailable.

2. Meet a third party standard, for example one of the many eco-labels available.

3. Get a third party respected judgement - for example Marks & Spencer use Jonathan Porritt as an independent assessor of their Plan A sustainability programme. But you must take their criticism as well as their praise.

4. Avoid the self-justification and let the observer decide: simply present your achievements and shortcomings without declaring yourself the saviour of the planet. This is dangerous as it can lead to greenwash by default, unless you are extremely honest.

Whichever approach you take, honesty, openness and transparency are the key guiding principles.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

20 April 2011

Are brands really bad for the planet?

I'm not a mainstream environmentalist for one very good reason - like any tribe, you need to sign up to a set of beliefs that are taken as gospel, but are often over-simplistic when you're dealing with the real world. One of these beliefs is "Brands are bad" - brands are a symbol of consumerism and consumerism is killing the planet.

Well, yes and no. If you look the average Joe or Joanne's carbon footprint it is dominated by the mundane - heating our homes, getting around, cooking, eating, lighting. With the exception of booze and soft drinks, these markets aren't dominated by brands - no-one buys mains gas from one company because it has a better brand - and it's all the same gas at the end of the day. You get on the train that's at the station, rather than waiting for your favourite brand - you might specify a train provider because it is more comfortable or has wifi, but not because of the brand. The choice of petrol for your car is usually made on price and convenience factors rather than Shell, BP or Esso (unless you are actively boycotting one).

But let's go onto consumer goods and look a what a brand is. Why do companies develop brands? Because they add intangible value to the products. That value has no carbon footprint - it is ephemeral. That intangible value is an aspect of human nature - we want stuff that makes us feel good whether it's a designer label or an extremely expensive bicycle.

From an environmental point of view, it is actually better for a consumer to spend £300 on a pair of designer jeans (and look after them) than blow the same amount in a cheap highstreet clothing store and chuck the clothes when they get the slightest bit of wear and tear. Likewise, a posh champagne has roughly the same carbon footprint as a bog standard bottle of cava (and certainly less than the equivalent bottles you could buy for the same money), yet the former is seen as consumerism and the latter, not. It doesn't make sense.

Branding can be a force for good. Many of the companies that are leading the way in going green are doing it to protect and enhance their brand. Marks & Spencer, Timberland and Apple spring to mind. Others like Body Shop, Patagonia and Natural Collection are brands which were founded with green/ethcis in mind. So never feel guilty about working for, developing or purchasing a big brand - there's nothing immoral about it. Just make it a green brand and watch that intangible value grow even higher!

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 5 responses

18 April 2011

Green Marketing: Audi vs Fiat

Saw this Audi ad yesterday and thought it was all wrong from a green marketing point of view - click on it to see it in all its glory.

This just isn't a compelling message - the car is small and the CO2 is very large. Does "13% less" really motivate the man in the street to act? How does the fact that 3 out of the 5 main 'words' in the ad are 'scientific' (CO2, 129g/km, 13%) captivate potential buyers? Very weak, in my opinion.

If we compare this with the Fiat ad that I snapped a few weeks ago (below), the difference is quite noticeable - setting aside the more dramatic early morning lighting. This campaign associates green with fun, not just 'less'. The bold typography and colours reinforce the fun and the car is centre stage. Simple, but effective.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

13 April 2011

Sexing Up Sustainability

Sustainability story of the day must be Marks & Spencer's launch of a carbon neutral bra, knickers and suspender belt set - certainly taking the hair shirt out of corporate social responsibility. Interestingly, the most popular news story on last month's edition of The Low Carbon Agenda was that the WWF had signed up a top lingerie model as an ambassador. One of my favourite quotes is from Ashley Lodge of Harper Collins who said their staff engagement strategy is "more stilettos than sandals". Has the sustainability world gone sex mad?

The oldest marketing maxim in the world is "sex sells" - and sustainability is no different. And why shouldn't sustainability be sexy? The industry has a tendency to fear that "sexy" can mean "sexist" and that all communications have to be worthy and dull.

But when you're trying to catch someone's attention - the average joe, not a treehugger - ranting at them doesn't work, being boring doesn't work, being smug doesn't work, and a pair of hands cupping a sapling certainly doesn't work. You have to really grab them - and sex is one way of doing that. Marks & Spencer know that carbon neutral suspenders will gain more column inches in the mainstream media than carbon neutral socks. WWF know that a top lingerie model will get more attention from non-greens than, say, Jonathan Porritt (no offence, Jonathan). It works, so why not?

Can you put a bit more va-va-voom into your sustainability programme?

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

5 April 2011

The Green Graveyard - A Requiem

Back in 2002 I saw US green marketeer Jacquelyn Ottman give a presentation at a conference in London entitled "The Green Graveyard" - the place where clever but ill-conceived green products and services go to die. It was one of those rare moments that really blows your mind on a subject - and The Green Graveyard was such a powerful metaphor for me that I have quoted it in both my books (fully attributed of course). Thousands of people have seen me wave an early model (not so-) compact fluorescent lamp around as I speak - that case study is straight out of The Green Graveyard (with permission).

So when Ottman's latest book, The New Rules of Green Marketing, came out I ordered it right away and sat down to read with relish. One problem. No Green Graveyard. Not a whiff of it. I was going to review the book in depth here, but I can't objectively - it's like going to see Motorhead and them not playing The Ace of Spades - no matter how good the rest of the gig is, the omission is going to leave a deflated feeling. It's a fine book, very accessible, nice case studies, good summaries, comprehensive, particularly suitable for someone new to green marketing, but I would like to have seen a bit more on how and why the case studies work. I'll leave it at that.

But The Green Graveyard is/was an concept of genius - simple, powerful and memorable - and a stark warning to everyone and anyone trying to bring green products and services to market. The Graveyard is full of such products and services that have failed in their marketplace, usually because they assume that the customer will accept a compromise on price, performance, convenience, aesthetics or prestige in return for green credentials when only a tiny minority will. No-one wants an ugly light bulb in their living room - no matter how energy efficient it is - so to avoid the Graveyard, you must develop a bulb which is aesthetically pleasing as well as efficient.

I would love to have created such a metaphor - and I hope Ottman will resurrect it.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

9 March 2011

Fiat's Green Marketing

I saw this ad for a new eco-friendly Fiat 500 on my way through Newcastle early this morning – I’m on my way to facilitate sessions at the Low Carbon Best Practice Exchange in Birmingham.

I like their approach – simple, bold and positive. The slogan “Less emissions, more fun” makes the case that low carbon does not mean sackcloth and ashes and there isn’t an eco-cliché to be seen. Looks as if advertisers are starting to get a hang of green marketing.

 

Tags:

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

6 October 2010

Cost or opportunity?

There's a story in the Independent this week that upgrades to the UK's electricity grid will cost £32bn, part of an estimated £200bn that will be required to hit the country's climate change targets for 2020. The £32bn will add £6 per year to the average electricity bill, yet it is being portrayed as an obstacle or some great painful sacrifice.

Just £6 a head a year to make such a huge leap forwards in tackling climate change? Is that all? Given the risks of doing nothing, I'd say that was a bargain.

And just think, that's a £32-200bn clean tech market to deliver the transformation. Just when we need to build a greener, more robust economy to get us out of the current economic pickle.

What's not to like?

On the wider scale, this shows once again we have got to flip our attitudes from seeing the problems to seeing the opportunity. Optimism is a rare commodity in the environmental movement, but whether we are looking at one country's infrastructure or one company's environmental strategy, we have got to get much better at, as sausage manufacturers would say, "selling the sizzle."

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

15 September 2010

It'll all come out in the wash...

When I speak in public, I like waving tangible objects (aka 'realia') around to break up the dreaded monotony of Powerpoint slides. At the LloydsTSB event last week I used two different clothes washing products to illustrate some points. The thinking behind the two products, Ecover washing liquid (the picture shows fabric conditioner, but humour me) and Ariel Excel Gel, comes from two completely different perspectives, so I thought it would interesting to share.

Ecover is the archetypal 'green product' and is branded as such with all those trees and blue skies. It is made completely from natural, biodegradable materials in a solar powered factory in Belgium. It is branded green and does its job pretty well, but not as good as a mainstream product in my experience. So effectively Ecover is asking the consumer to accept a compromise on performance in return for a lower environmental impact. The caveat is that it contains palm oil so there are question marks over how sustainable the sourcing of the raw materials is in reality.

Procter & Gamble, who own the Ariel brand, tried the Ecover approach in the 1990s, producing a range of branded green products, but they failed in the marketplace. So instead they adopted a 'no-trade offs' rule - their products had to compete on price, performance and sustainability. They also took a life cycle assessment approach, identifying the energy used in the washing process and the extraction of raw materials as the key issues. The result is Ariel Excel Gel, recently named the best clothes washing product Which magazine had ever tested. Its gel nature means it is compact (ie it uses fewer raw materials) and that the user is more likely measure out the correct amount compared to a powder or liquid. But the big breakthrough is that it can work at 15°C, halving the amount of energy used in washing clothes. It is not branded green - just the 15°C on the front and a web URL for more info on the back.

Which is better? That's a difficult question to answer. Apart from the palm oil issue, Ecover is probably more green (being almost solar, cyclic, safe*), but the user takes the hit in performance, meaning that it is unlikely ever to escape its green consumer market niche. The Ariel product takes an eco-efficiency approach* and it gives the user the opportunity to use less material and a lower wash temperature, but its green credentials are dependent on that consumer behaviour (the temperature dial on my washing machine creeps magically upwards over time). Its excellent performance and mainstream branding means that it is a mass market product, so if that shift in consumer behaviour does happen in practice, Ariel will probably have a bigger positive impact.

* If you want to know the difference between solar, cyclic, safe and eco-efficiency, check this video out.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

3 September 2010

Green Business Confidential Ep2: It Ain't Easy Being Green

Here's the second Green Business Confidential podcast, entitled "It Ain't Easy Being Green", for your listening pleasure:

Audio MP3

Or, you can download it here and listen on your MP3 player:
GBC2: "It Ain't Easy Being Green

Play

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

1 September 2010

What Makes Me Mad...

... OK, lots of things make me mad, like the Daily Express, wheel bender cycle stands and and people putting 'off' milk back in the fridge, but what really gets me exasperated in the sustainability field is useless advice, mindlessly pumped out to the masses. Here's a classic I saw on Twitter the other day:

If you reduce the amount of bottled water you consume by 2 litres a day, you’ll save around 10kg of CO2 each year.

Right, let's take a closer look at this:

1. How many people consume more than two litres of bottled water a day? A quick Google shows that the average Brit consumes 34 litres of bottled water a year - less than 0.1 litres per day. The Italians seem to top the list with 200 litres per person per year, just over half a litre a day.

2. 10kg of carbon a year. Back on Google, I get a variety of estimates of the average UK citizen's carbon footprint and if I average those, it seems to come in around 10 tonnes per annum. Now I reckon it is much higher, because few of these footprint measures include overseas emissions 'embedded' in the products we import and consume, but let's go with 10 tonnes. I don't even have to get the calculator out to see that this saving is 0.1% of our annual carbon footprint.

3. If you combine the two factors together - if the average person in the UK cut out all their bottled water consumption, they would save 0.005% of their carbon footprint. Hardly worth typing the tip, was it?

So the advice is effectively "stop doing something you're not doing, and you'll make a negligible difference". Great.

Coincidentally, 0.1% is about the proportion of our carbon footprint taken up with that other eco-pantomime villain, the disposable plastic bag. These two things are drummed into us - bottled water bad, plastic bag bad - that one daren't be seen with either, even though they are relatively insignificant from a carbon point of view. I'm not immune to these memes myself - I recently found myself at a Green Festival choosing a bottle of flavoured water rather than plain water as I didn't want to be seen with the latter, even though the former is almost certainly more carbon intensive.

So why the big rant? Because we get limited chances to communicate the green message and it kills me when that bandwidth is filled with such utter rot. If you want to green your lifestyle, you need to insulate your house, adjust your diet and change your travel patterns. Fairly straightforward, but usually avoided in favour of pointless tips.

And similarly with business, you must deal with the big ticket issues. Measure your footprint - no matter how crudely - and identify the hotspots. For many products, these hotspots occur in materials extraction and production and energy required in the use phase. So get on with tackling these rather than worrying too much whether your paper invoices should be electronic or vice versa.

There. Said it. Feel better now.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

19 February 2010

Audi Green Police Ad

This ad for the Audi A3 was shown during the Superbowl in the US and has kicked up a real kerfuffle. I can't decide whether it is reprehensible or genius. It has certainly got the green lobby's nose out of joint with its satire on the perceived self-righteousness of the "eco-police", but going back to John Grant's definition of Green Marketing - it's about making green look normal. This ad is aimed at people who are in the middle third of the green market segments - those who might buy green, but not as a default - by trying to persuade them that this green product is a good product full stop. From this point of view it works.

I still find it a little annoying though...

Tags:

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

27 January 2010

Making Green Look Normal...

I was quite harsh on John Grant's Green Marketing Manifesto when I reviewed it, but while I'm doing the zillionith edit to The Green Executive, I've been having a think about his main maxim:

"Green Marketing is about making green stuff seem normal, not about making normal stuff seem green"

The first part is really quite powerful and chimes with the need to aim green products at the mass market rather than the green niche to get any worthwhile impact from and environmental point of view. And the second part really skewers greenwash - that if you want to be green, you've really got to break from the norm, not put a green prism in front of what business does as a matter of course.

I like it. I like it a lot.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

11 January 2010

Clever green branding

On Friday I had a lovely, warming lunch in Blackfriars cafe in Newcastle. I was very taken with their placemats that showed the local suppliers they use. This is a fantastic piece of green branding.

First of all, it doesn't scream green which would be out of place in a mid-market eatery. But it gets across a key message - "we source locally and from a lot of organic farms".

Secondly, it demonstrates green rather than claiming green. It says "here are the facts - you make up your mind".

Thirdly, it grabs your attention in the time between ordering and being served, providing a conversation piece. Restaurants which put food sources on the menu are competing for attention when customers are trying to choose a dish.

Very clever indeed.

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

Free monthly bulletin:

By Gareth Kane

Everything you need to know to integrate sustainability into the DNA of your business.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.

Submit button

Learn how to help your business go green from the comfort of your desk..

View events