EcoBlog

Hey, Nestle: Don’t Communicate --Eco-Innovate!

2008-11-20T15:01:00Z

If only Nestle had used good green marketing efforts and communicated its efforts to green its bottled water business sooner, it wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in now. Right? Wrong!

Contrary to what Kim Jeffery, CEO of Nestle Waters, laments to BusinessWeek, the real issue with bottled water lies in consumers’ minds (and the advocates who influence them), not in pricey carbon analyses showing that lightweighting the plastic bottle is the solution to reducing the environmental impact of bottled water. The real issue simply stated is that it’s environmentally wasteful to ship water across the country when supplies of clean fresh tap water are readily available — and legions of water bottle companies are lining up to make sure it is as convenient as branded bottled water to tote around.

For insight into Nestle’s real problems, read BusinessWeek's companion piece by Judy Estrin, CEO of JLABs and author of "Closing the Innovation Gap." Taking her thoughts one step further, I can’t help but think that Nestle would be much better positioned to compete today if they had, like Intel with its move from making memory devices to making microprocessors, considered itself to be in the "convenient refreshment" business. Rather than simply focusing on incremental ways to make drinking Poland Spring bottled water less impactful through package-focused initiatives like lightweighting and recycling, it should have invested in new technologies to make tap water more pure and convenient.

Leveraging the Poland Spring name onto Brita-like water purification systems might have been a start. Launching Poland Spring water purification tablets akin to Procter & Gamble’s "Pur" might have been another. Or putting the two ideas together into a Nalgene-type bottle that instantly purifies water on the go is yet another. Instead, by focusing on incremental environmental improvements like lightweighting, however worthy, Nestle stood by while companies outside its own industry stole its customers.

Lesson: It's one thing to communicate greening initiatives, and another thing entirely to eco-innovate the next generation of green products that can speak loudly for themselves. Now, that’s truly sustainable. Tha'ts truly good green marketing.

Does a Weak Economy Mean Weak Green Sales?

2008-10-23T17:57:00Z

Green marketers of every stripe have been asking me: "Will a weak economy weaken sales of green products?" For people who think green products cost more, the answer is yes. To (reverse) paraphrase John F. Kennedy, a sinking sea should lower all boats. And it's still a little early to tell if sales of many green products and services have been hurt quarter to quarter.

The key thing to focus on, however, is how a softening economy might not dampen your own green products sales. In some cases, it just might help.

For instance, according to The New York Times, business is booming for reusable plastic water bottles that make it easy for consumers to use tap instead of bottled water. Information Resources reports that sales of water filters increased 16% in the first half of the year; I believe they should continue to run strong given their association with health; similarly, other products perceived as healthful, e.g., organics, should hold up as well. If you are a green marketer and sell your organic food products on the basis of taste, you may want to use this opportunity to shine a stronger spotlight on your brand's health preventive advantages.

Make money in this downturn by using green marketing to show consumers how they can save money. The press is awash in articles about how consumers are flocking to Goodwill, and Wal-Mart's stock is one of the few blue chips that are up this year, as is that of Campbell's and General Mills. As reported in Business Week, since Wall Street imploded earlier this month, Freecycle.org has been registering 50,000 members per week, up from 25,000, and Freecycle and Freegans (a.k.a. "Dumpster Divers") are among the fastest growing groups on Yahoo!

Even green marketers within the downtrodden financial services industry are finding creative ways to make green from green. According to Mintel, PNC Bank now offers a home equity line of credit for those making green home improvements, and the U.S. Federal Credit Union sells auto loans with lower rates for customers with an eye on high-mileage vehicles.

Green marketing strategies like these can help your business weather today's storm while positioning yourself for growth in sunnier days.

The Power of Green Lies In Marketers’ Hands

2008-10-22T17:31:00Z

Many people think the power to restore our environment lies in the hands of technical types like scientists and engineers, even lawyers and legislators. But the real power of green lies in the hands of marketers - we, the creative folks who have the power to design and promote cleaner products and technologies and help consumers evolve to more sustainable lifestyles.

It may be hard to fathom, but over 75% of the environmental impact that a product throws off during its lifetime is determined at the design stage, when, for instance, the materials are chosen, the recyclability of a product is determined, and when the amount of toxic chemicals it embodies is decided. And it doesn't stop at the design stage. Marketers often determine the concept, too. That's where the real leverage for our innovative skills comes in!

Consider a toothbrush. Want to lessen its environmental impact? Start by making it out of recycled plastic, plastic made from corn, and educate on how to recycle or compost it. Then make the head replaceable and recyclable, too. Cut down on its packaging by only wrapping the bristly head. Think you're finished? Not a chance! That's because the toothbrush is part of a system-the water, the toothpaste and the box the toothpaste comes in.

Now multiply all of these impacts over one consumer's lifetime and then again for all the consumers on earth at one time. These cumulative impacts may pale in comparison to substituting an entirely new concept; let's say a stick of edible chewing gum laced with germ fighting enzymes.

Now strategize its way into consumer's hands. Thinks it's too much of a leap to market this idea to adults who might be set in their ways or creep out on the idea of enzymes in their chewing gum? Then start to seed the concept into society by appealing to children. Enlist the help of a "Sesame Street" character and target parents looking to end the nightmare of getting the kids to brush.

Ever heard of a chemist thinking this way? Hell no!

Marketers, start your engines! We're the ones who can dream up new product concepts, and we're the ones who can sell them to mainstream consumers (not just the deep green consumers who are born predisposed to all things "eco.")

Take the Toyota Prius. A fine car with a hybrid engine. Premium price, not too likely to be offset by fuel savings. So what gets consumers over the premium price hump as well as the risk posed by new technology? Answer: A distinctive silhouette that helps owners project their values, on-the-mark advertising that focuses upon such direct benefits as super quiet ride and fuel efficiency. And a publicity machine that engenders the priceless support of Hollywood celebrities showing up at the Oscars in a Prius rather than a stretch limo.

Want to start making a difference on your job? Consider the many other solutions that are waiting in the wings with the potential to capture the attention of consumers with your help. For instance, we already know how to design homes and offices that use energy sparingly. We already know how to make construction materials and commercial and household furnishings that reduce the threats of indoor air pollution. We know how to design kitchens to make it easy for people to recycle and compost waste. We know how to reuse water from indoor plumbing systems to make lawns and gardens thrive. We know how to grow food using fewer or no chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Some of these technologies are being embraced by deep green consumers. But to really make a difference, they need to be embraced by the mainstream. That's where marketers can come in. Ask: What will it take to: Make greener products and behaviors cool? Get all consumers paying the small premiums necessary to bring such products to market? Look to some recent green marketing history for help.

Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater wasn't cool, and it didn't motivate consumers to turn down the thermostat. But the Energy Star label is cool. Why? It relies on technology to create products that are highly efficient as well as high quality (read: requiring no trade-off in consumer habits). A decade's worth of advertising focusing on such benefits plus the attendant savings on home and office electric bills now make the Energy Star label the second most recognized eco-label behind the three chasing arrows denoting recycling.

Herman Miller's Mirra Chair is cool. It not only adheres to strict protocols for eliminating toxics in its manufacture, it can be disassembled for recycling in 15 minutes with normal tools. It is now on its way toward becoming a design icon in its own right, environmental attributes or not.

Tom's of Maine line of personal care products, now owned by Colgate-Palmolive, stresses all that consumers desire in today's personal care offerings: natural (read: safe), good-tasting, and trustworthy. (How many toothpastes do you know that come with an ingredient statement with a full explanation of each ingredient's role, as well as a letter from the head of the company?)

Take a shot at applying your own creativity to develop and market new products that allow consumers to live their lives more sustainably - and make some green marketing history yourself!

Exxon Called “Climate Friendy”…What Did You Expect?

2008-10-22T17:27:00Z

The five companies consumers consider most "climate friendly" are GE, BP, Toyota, Wal-Mart, and Exxon. Here's why I'm not surprised (ok, maybe a little).

On the surface, the results of a recent survey by U.K.'s Climate Group and Lippincott, the brand consultancy firm, seem to fly in the face of what all card-carrying sustainability pros believe - walk the walk or consumers will cry "BS!" The survey found that 76% of Americans couldn't name a single "climate-friendly" company despite significant amounts of investment by American businesses attempting to portray their green bona fides. So what's going on? Has all that investment and green marketing been for naught? I argue not.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that the five companies mentioned most often are GE, BP, Toyota, Wal-Mart, and Exxon. (Ok, I'm a little surprised at this last one.)

Take note of what the survey results are not reporting: If 76% of consumers failed to name a single climate-friendly company, then a solid 24% could. Not bad considering that global climate change has only come to the fore as an issue in the past two years.

Heed the rule of thirds: the bottom third of consumers will never be interested, the top third will influence everyone else, and the middle third will simply follow the leaders. So the critical learning here is that the corporate messages are getting through to the top one-third - right where they're ostensibly having the most impact.

That this top one-third mentioned companies in energy-related industries, suggests they - unlike their counterparts in the other two groups - understand the links between climate and energy-related industries where the potential for the greatest impact lies; normally one would expect to see familiar names like Coke and Procter & Gamble in surveys of this kind.

All five leaders have been investing significant sums advertising their environmental achievements, including Exxon, so it is not surprising that Exxon shows up on the list.

The lessons? Keep in mind that the target audience for sustainability communications is not all consumers but your consumers and other stakeholders. The test of your efforts is not whether an independent survey deems you to be successful, but your own in-depth tracking research. Is your message getting through? To whom? If not, you may need to adjust such factors as media (deep-green consumers tend to use the internet, and rely on word of mouth from other influentials), media weight and, of course, distinctiveness of your message.

Eco-Logos: A Double-Edged Sword?

2008-10-22T17:20:00Z

Eco-logos are all the rage - but how valuable are they as a green marketing tool? Are there some hidden risks that warrant a second look? Let's consider the three ingredients of an effective marketing logo - green or otherwise - and their implications for the savvy eco-marketer.

Here are the three factors at play:

1. Recognizability. Eco-logos can reinforce green messages, a welcome benefit for sure. But of the myriad eco-logos on the market, only a few are known to consumers. They consist of the, chasing arrows recycling logo, the Energy Star seal of energy efficiency, USDA Organic logo, and TransFair FairTrade certification; after that recognition drops off significantly.

2. Credibility. The more trusted logos are granted by an independent, disinterested third party. For example, logos promulgated by government organizations like EPA and USDA make the cut. Same goes for the nonprofit Forest Stewardship Council's FSC certification for sustainably harvested wood, which tends to be better received than the SFI certification put forth by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, an industry trade group.

3. Comparability. The carbon labeling system described in this article from Ethical Corporation magazine is provocative for sure -- wouldn't it be great if all products came with the carbon equivalent of an environmental nutrition label! But standards don't exist for measuring a product's carbon footprint and, until they do, any product offering one can't adequately be measured against its peers. Again, grounds for confusion.

Businesses that create their own eco-logos might be doing so at their risk. S.C. Johnson's‚ Greenlist logo, announced last week, might in the short term bolster a product's green image, but could one day be taken to task by government, NGOs, or the media for failing to include one or all of these three ingredients. For example, critics might point out that manufacturer-sponsored logos may unintentionally mislead consumers that the "certification" comes from an independent third party, rather than the manufacturer or retailer looking to sell product. Further, products with manufacturer-sponsored green logos have an unfair advantage over products that don't carry a similar seal -- consumers might infer that competitors' products failed to make the grade.

Until things shake out, manufacturers looking to reinforce green bona fides with eco-logos must tread carefully. Specifically:

Use well-recognized certifications from trusted third parties.
Ensure that consumers understand that your eco-logo is based on criteria developed by the manufacturer itself, not an independent verifier.
Use transparent processes for measuring environmental footprint.
Encourage use of the logo among other players within your industry.

The jury is still out on eco-logos as an effective marketing tool, but as consumers get increasingly savvy on environmental issues and impacts, you'd do well to make sure that, at the very least, they won't work against you.

How to Avoid the Carbon Offset “Gotcha” Game

2008-10-22T17:07:00Z

In a market that demands nothing less than completely honest, ethical, and authentic corporate communications, it can sometimes seem like no green deed goes unpunished. The NFL catching flak for its not-quite carbon neutral Super Bowl 2008 is a case in point.

For the second year in a row, the National Football League plans to offset "100%" of estimated emissions associated with the Super Bowl. Sounds pretty good, right? The NFL is taking positive climate action, from buying renewable energy certificates to replanting acreage lost to wildfires. Unlike last year, however, organizers will not tout the event as "carbon neutral," as green groups question the league's emissions calculations. Stepping back from the carbon neutral label is a smart move for the NFL, for two reasons:

1. Uncertain metrics. Determining true carbon footprint is one of the toughest challenges of lifecycle assessment. Where to draw the limits? In the Super Bowl's case, are event organizers responsible to offset emissions created by transporting the attendees or just the team and staff? There's no universal agreement here. With critics playing a constant "gotcha" game, this is no time to make claims based on metrics that lack universal support.

2. Uncertain benefits. Critics of carbon offsets contend that the environmental benefits are often overstated. Yet even if we assume that offset programs are legit, how can we be sure that consumers will understand their intended impact? Research by the U.K. retailer Boots finds that fewer than a third of shoppers know that a carbon footprint is linked to climate change. Labels like "carbon neutral" offer little marketing payoff if your terms are unfamiliar to consumers (they're likely to think you're stretching the truth anyway), and may make you a bigger target in the "gotcha" game (see #1).

To keep your company's latest ad off the Greenwashing Index, I recommend sustainable brand builders pursue the following strategies for successful green marketing:

Work positively with multi-stakeholder groups to develop standards for carbon labeling. Aim for a scheme that consumers can understand. Nutritional labels provide a good model.

Use trusted labels linked to carbon management, e.g. EPA's Energy Star and The Center for Resource Solution's "green-e" label for renewable energy.

Focus on such internal and supply chain related carbon improvements as energy efficiency and use of renewable power and communicate progress to consumers and employees.

It's hardly surprising that carbon offsets are item number one on the FTC's agenda as it revamps its guidelines on green marketing. The NFL's experience raises some thorny questions that won't be answered anytime soon.

Green Marketing: What Not to Say

2008-10-22T16:56:00Z

Don’t join the growing number of marketers throwing around phrases like “environmentally friendly,” “Earth friendly,” and “ozone friendly.” While such claims have a calming ring, they can be very misleading. Here's how to avoid some common traps.

The simple fact is, there is no such thing as an "eco-friendly" product; all use resources and create waste to some degree. To avoid such confusion in the marketplace, the Federal Trade Commission introduced its Environmental Marketing Guidelines in 1992. Some are some key takeaways.

Be specific. Marketers are liable not only for inaccurate statements but also for consumers' misinterpretations of their claims, as Shell recently discovered. So, don’t just say recycled content or show a chasing-arrows recycling logo (both of which could signal 100% recycled content). Instead, say carton made from 100% recycled paperboard, or minimum 30% post-consumer fiber.
Don't overstate. Biotas water bottle was theoretically biodegradable, but not compostable in backyard composters or even many municipal composting facilities. Bad press from this claim helped sink the company. (Watch out for Brooks Sports' "biodegradable" footwear insole, which looks poised to make the same mistake.)
Qualify terms such as refillable, energy-efficient, and reusable. Answer the key questions: How much? For how long? By whom? Where? Compared to what? Avoid saying recyclable, if products or packaging are theoretically recyclable but not collected by municipal recycling programs.

The next time you feel the itch to get a bit too friendly with your environmental claims, know that other green marketing professionals are taking note.

Apples Versus Oranges: To Compare or Not?

2008-10-14T16:12:00Z

I received an email this morning from a frantic manufacturer of laptops: "We need to finalize a green marketing claim for an ad we're preparing. Our laptops use less energy than desktop computers. Should we make the claim? Help! We don't want to be accused of greenwash!" (Note: Company name not included and category has been changed for confidentiality - but you'll get my points!)

On the surface a comparative green marketing claim such as this one looks pretty innocuous. However, dig a little deeper and you find some issues.
There are two of them: one related to comparing "apples to oranges", the other: are you telling the whole story?

On apples to oranges, laptops versus desktops. Are the desktops they are comparing the laptops to one-for-one substitutes, e.g., comparable machines? If not they could be faulted for comparing a teeny laptop with a big lunky desktop machine. (I suspect they are for different markets and different uses, so it might be a little tricky greenwash-wise.)

Note that the company wants to compare energy in use. However, the fairer comparison for good green marketing is energy consumed over the total life cycle of the products. (You may have heard stories about CFLs consuming a lot of energy in their manufacture - that's why they are so much bulkier than incandescents- it compromises some of the total energy savings over their total life cycle.) So in comparing laptops versus desktops, does one type of machine actually use more electricity to manufacture or ship? In this case, if the laptops use more energy to manufacture or ship, then a comparison claim is compromised since net net, the laptops on balance may consume more energy-hence better to compare laptops to laptops.

Are you comparing your own laptop computer to competitive desktops? All desktops? Probably need to be clear.

To put it conservatively, I think one's best bet is to compare one's laptop only to one's own prior performance - i.e., show consumers that YOU are working hard to do better yourselves. Then, next best thing is to compare laptop to laptop so it's easier for consumers to compare. And if you really want to be authentic-and avoid greenwash-be sure to incorporate total energy consumed throughout the product lifecycle, lest someone fault you for making energy use claims but then find that you're shipping the machines from a much farther place than competitors (or a previous generation of machines).

This is a tricky situation, but more common than you think in the world of green marketing. Please, let me know what you think. What are some challenging claims you've been forced to grapple with?

Jacquelyn A. Ottman
President, J. Ottman Consulting

Is There a Green-Consumption Gap?

2008-10-14T15:58:00Z

A new poll shows that 76% of consumers say they want to help others and 69% aim to provide a better life for their children, but only 26% say they actively seek out environmentally responsible products - a challenge for sure for green marketing. Paradoxically, more than 90% say that the environment influences their day-to-day purchasing decisions. What's going on?

If the environment is truly influencing as many as 90% of consumer purchasing decisions, chances are respondents are either overreporting to a surveytaker in the interest of looking worthy or, more likely, making a distinction between products that are overtly marketed as green (like Seventh Generation or Greenworks cleaning products) versus a more "silent" green products (such as the Method line). Consider the fact that the Energy Star label now appears on over 50 different kinds of products. Do consumers view Energy Star-labeled products as "green"? Likely not. However, they would admit that seeing the label influenced their decision.

If there is a genuine gap in intention and purchase behavior, there's lots that green marketers can do to close it— all we have to do is look toward the successful brands and learn from their strategies. Key among them is keeping in mind that most consumers (read: everyone but that greener-than-green 26%), don't buy green products for their environmental attributes alone, but for the value those attributes provide: the organic produce that tastes better, the fuel-efficient car that saves money on gas, and the flushable "G" diapers that are more convenient to travel with.

That's what I think is going on. What do you think? Write back and let me know!

Jacquelyn A. Ottman
President, J. Ottman Consulting/ Environmental Marketing and Eco-Innovation

A Country Divided on Climate Change: What Green Marketers Can Learn

2008-10-13T13:37:00Z

According to the 2008 American Climate Values Survey (ACVS), the American public is deeply divided on the issue of climate change. These deep rifts trace to such factors as religion, political affiliation, and even the perceived state of the economy. Understanding such dynamics creates an opportunity for green marketers to step in with relevant and targeted messages.

Although public recognition of global warming has increased greatly over the past several years, climate change still remains relatively low on the list of priorities for all but the most ardent advocates. The economy, hit hard by the recent rise in oil prices and the financial crisis on Wall Street, takes precedence over the environment for many Americans. For instance, according to the ACVS, 42% of U.S. adults feel that “since the economy is in bad shape, we need to hold off on programs to stop global warming.” Indeed, according to the latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, between February and June of 2008, public support for “expanding mining, drilling, and the construction of new power plants” increased from 35% to 47%. (Source: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Gas Prices Pump Up Support for Drilling”, July 1, 2008, [http://pewresearch.org/pubs/884/gas-prices], accessed on October 8, 2008)

Political and religious affiliations also generate strong rifts on the topic of climate change. 43% of American adults feel that “God will take care of global warming in God’s own way,” suggesting that these individuals are less inclined to consider environmental issues in their purchasing habits. Additionally, 90% of Democrats as compared to 54% of Republicans believe that “global warming is happening,” making political affiliation the single strongest indicator of feelings on climate change. In both cases, “deniers” of climate change can undermine the concern of other groups by generating a sense of confusion or doubt that makes even believers less likely to take action.

Green Marketing Opportunities

To make climate change more relevant and drive consumers to action, position climate change as a threat to more pressing issues such as national security, public health, and most importantly, the economy. Global warming is an abstract, complex, and long-term concept, while a struggling economy provides more tangible and immediate threats to consumers. Marketers can learn from the success of the organic foods industry which has been driven less by concern about environmentally sustainable farming than the appeals of better tasting food and health. GE understands this concept. The primary message of their Ecomagination green marketing campaign is not saving the environment, but leveraging forward thinking technologies to boost sales and profits.

Demonstrate that consumer environmental responsibility is consistent with the themes of religion. Instead of attempting to convince people that global warming is man-made, green marketers can reach out to religious leaders to stress the importance of respecting the natural world as part of God’s creation.

Finally, bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans by drawing on a sense of patriotism and respect for country. The ACVS found that 81% of adults think “Americans should always try to buy American products.” In fact, one of the most successful anti-litter campaigns in the United States—“Don’t Mess With Texas”—preaches remarkably little about the environmental impacts of littering in its ads. Instead, by drawing heavily on Texas state pride, the campaign has successfully reduced roadside littering by one third since 2001. (Source: Texas Department of Transportation, “Don’t Mess with Texas”, [http://www.dontmesswithtexas.org/home.php], accessed on October 8, 2008)

What’s Law Got to Do with It?

2008-09-24T18:17:00Z

An Australian law firm recently blamed fuzzy regulations by government bodies as a key source of confusion, and hence risk, for would-be green marketers. Is this a fair accusation? More importantly, is it even relevant?

While no government can be expected to stay completely current on a fast-moving green vernacular, it can be expected to define the territory in order to protect consumers from potentially fraudulent and misleading green terms. Government watchdogs such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority are working hard to establish hard definitions for the many green marketing terms in use today, from "recycled" to "biodegradable" to "natural." Unfortunately, that's still very much a work in progress.

But as a green marketer charged with promoting and protecting a brand's good reputation, it's your job to consider the potential for risk in the current regulatory landscape (even as it's shifting beneath your feet!). So what can marketers do to craft an effective green message today? For starters:

Be specific and prominent. A seemingly straightforward green marketing term such as "made from recycled content," for instance, could imply a product or package was made from 100% recycled content - or just 10%. What's more, that "recycled content" could be pre-consumer waste (e.g., manufacturing scrap) or post-consumer (curbside pickup of paper, plastic and the like). he Wheaties box on your breakfast table carries the three chasing arrows symbol with an accompanying claim, "Carton made from 100% recycled paperboard. Minimum 35% post-consumer content." This claim is specific, and because it qualifies the exact amount of recycled materials, it prevents people from thinking the box is made of 100% materials collected at curbside, or is fully recyclable.

Provide enough information. When comparing your product's environmental benefits to those of a competitor's, provide enough information so that consumers can make relevant decisions. Make sure the basis for comparison is sufficiently clear and is substantiated by scientific test results. A green marketing claim such as "This bottle contains 20% more recycled content than our previous package" is preferable to the more ambiguous "This bottle contains 20% more recycled content."

Do not overstate. A Omaha, Nebraska, marketer learned this lesson the hard way when they attempted to market their antifreeze/coolant as "essentially non-toxic" and "biodegradable." Emotionally appealing advertising heralded, "It's not just antifreeze, it's safety freeze ... safer for kids, pets, and wildlife in the environment." Such claims were based on the fact that the anti-freeze was made with propylene glycol, while other coolants contained ethylene glycol. The problem was that proplyene glycol, although less toxic in absolute terms, still poses a hazard to pets and small children. By marketing the product as "safe," the company took the risk that consumers would be less cautious with a hazardous product. In addition, the "biodegradability" claim was essentially meaningless since all antifreeze is biodegradable.

Avoid vague, trivial, or irrelevant claims that can create a false impression of a product's or package's overall soundness. Broad labels such as "environmentally safe" or "eco-friendly," if used at all, should be qualified so as to prevent consumer deception about the specific nature of the environmental benefit being asserted. Instead, try something like this: "This wrapper is environmentally friendly because it was not bleached with chlorine, a process which has been shown to create harmful substances."

Qualify green marketing terms such as "energy-efficient," "compostable," "recyclable," "made from recycled content," "refillable," and "reusable. Answer questions such as: How much? For how long? By whom? Where? Compared to what?

Tell the whole story. Decide for yourself: Do you take issue with the fact that advertising once conducted by the U.S. Council on Energy Awareness touted the clean air benefits of nuclear energy but doesn't mention the radioactive waste it generates?

Test all claims with your target audience to make sure that the intended communication is what is in fact, being communicated. Hefty trash bags was once sued by state attorney generals in seven states for claiming that trash bags headed for landfills were "photodegradable." The only problem? There's no sunlight in landfills, and consumers believed that the bags would degrade in landfills anyway.

Jacquelyn A. Ottman,
President, J.Ottman Consulting

http://www.greenmarketing.com

Play Ball with a Polluter—or Not?

2008-09-04T12:17:00Z

ExxonMobil is coming around to the fact that a green reputation is necessary to compete. Among other steps, they are investing in their R3M technology to remotely detect oil and gas and reduce drilling. From a marketing perspective, they are running an extensive campaign in major dailies and newsweeklies, and among other things, are sponsoring the Washington Nationals’ LEED-certified baseball park.

But not everyone is so comfortable with Exxon’s green marketing efforts. Sponsorship of the baseball park is drawing flack from environmental activists, who are pressing the Nationals to cancel Exxon’s contract. Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for ExxonMobil notes that [ExxonMobil] gets criticized for not doing enough for the environment, then get criticized when we do.” Does he have a legitimate beef?

Analyze the situation from all angles. Defend Exxon’s right to free speech. Think about the financial support for a LEED-certified ballpark that might not be so easily replaced if support were withdrawn. Do ball fans question, or are they even aware of - Exxon’s environmental record?

Consider any excuse for Exxon to advertise in the ballpark, but never forget that activists are leery of a former environmental transgressor’s commitment. And they’ll quickly don their policeman’s cap to protect an unsuspecting public from greenwash.

Given their history of environmental transgressions, Exxon would be best advised to pursue exemplary initiatives but not rely on paid advertising to tout them. Rather, they should defer to the power of third parties, PR efforts, the press, employees, and supportive influentials to make their case for them until its safe to “go in the water” on their own.

Still reeling from accusations of child labor abuses over a decade ago, Nike has yet to invest a penny in paid green marketing efforts. Yet, a track record of positive CSR and sustainable design innovation such as Recycle-a-Shoe and the Considered product line has garnered them much positive publicity.

Is There a gDiaper in Your Baby’s Future?

2008-07-31T16:48:00Z

Can anyone topple the disposable diaper giants? The makers of gDiapers promise an attractive, well fitting, convenient diaper that can be flushed, home composted or tossed. All parents want a diaper that is easy to dispose of, safe, absorbent, and affordable. Can gDiapers provide all of this with less load on the planet? Let’s see how the facts stack up.

Diaper Facts: Sustainable vs. Conventional

There’s no doubt that disposables are the easiest to use. All you do is undo the plastic tabs and toss the diaper into the trash. Cloth diapers need to be rinsed, then tossed into a diaper container, then wash or picked up by a service.

gDiapers takes a hybrid approach. The outside layer consists of a colorful pant with a special patented liner. Next comes a flushable insert that gets dropped into the bowl then, with a couple of twists of a “swish stick” (provided) the insert can then be flushed. It is also possible that the inside liner may need to be washed.

The average cost for disposables according to The New Parents Guide is $50 to $80 dollars a month while cloth ranges from $25 to $60 dollars a month (including at-home washing). Out of pocket, gDiapers are the most expensive of the three (about 15% more than disposable over the life of your baby).

On the absorbency front, a typical disposable can hold up to three times more moisture than both the cloth and gDiapers, but at what cost? The gel core in disposable diapers is made of a synthetic chemical, sodium polyacrylate. Disposables also have a plastic outer layer, and may have irritating fragrances. gDiapers have the absorbency of the disposable diapers but without the plastic – and therefore better breathability for the baby’s bum. They also don’t present the guilt associated with dumping so many diapers in the trash.

Environmental Impact of Diapers

Ten thousand tons of disposable diapers get dumped into landfills every day—the equivalent of 3.4 billion barrels of oil and 250,000 trees. Along with the diapers comes the five million tons of untreated biological waste that can contaminate groundwater. In contrast, the waste from both cloth and gDiapers is treated just where it should be—in traditional wastewater treatment facilities. Although gDiapers still pale to cloth in terms of the amount of waste they produce, it is still significantly less than that of disposables and doesn’t consume the same amount of energy and cleaning supplies.

Water usage for cloth diapers and gDiapers is more difficult to compare. The efficiency of your toilet and washer can greatly impact the amount of water used—up to fifty gallons per load and seven gallons per flush. But, the smaller liner from gDiapers will still likely use less water overall.

Due to their popularity, disposable diapers are the third largest contributors to landfills, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by municipalities. However, with no viable alternative, there was little that legislators could do. Now, with gDiapers presenting a feasible alternative to both cloth and disposables, there is a strong possibility that laws will emerge in the future restricting the use of disposables. If this were to happen, gDiapers would become the diaper of choice for the next generation—and it is this likely possibility that makes the gDiapers so interesting.

Address Sustainability or Risk Not Being Sustained

2008-07-22T13:55:00Z

In an age where sustainability has begun to assert itself across the consumer and business-to-business product spectrums, those managers who fail to respond to social and "green" initiatives will find their brands swiftly barred from consumers' hearts and pockets.

Films like Supersize Me and An Inconvenient Truth are radically altering the marketing landscape. In response to such media, McDonald's has launched a bevy of healthy alternatives, and the market for hybrid and alternative fuel (ethanol/bio-diesel) automobiles is booming. This method of creating change through media has consumers better informed than ever. The result? Companies are forced to shape up, or get out of the game.

Keeping Ahead of the Sustainable Products Curve

To keep one's brand on the cutting edge of sustainability, in addition to tending to the traditional tasks of "product, place, price, and promotion," today's successful product managers must now monitor advances in technology, shifts in consumer attitudes, and even projected depletions of certain natural resources that might someday represent a real brand threat. Consider Hewlett-Packard's computer and printer cartridge recycling program, which expects to eclipse 1 billion pounds recycled by the end of this year. In forming programs like this one, HP has engendered the strongest reputation for corporate responsibility among its peers as well as insurance in a renewable resource of recycled electronics.

We are now in an age of deeper deliberation in consumer choice, where brands led by socially and environmentally conscious managers will edge out their less-considerate competition. Word to the wisest brand managers now in place (and students aspiring for their jobs): If your planning is not addressing sustainability, your brands simply will not be sustained!

Déjà Vu All Over Again - Part II

2008-07-22T13:53:02Z

Last month I discussed some of the green marketing missteps that we keep repeating no matter how many times we should have learned from hard experience that such tactics fall short. I suggested that rather than repeating these mistakes, perhaps the best solution is to move forward with new product innovations that truly transcend green marketing claims and eco-labels.

In fact, pursuing a course of eco-innovation - new product concepts with the potential for significantly enhanced consumer benefits and significantly reduced environmental impact - might be just what the planet doctor has ordered.

For example, as product innovations go, creating clothes that don't need washing easily one-ups the triple-concentrated laundry detergents making headlines these days. Or how about electric cars for short hops to public transportation hubs? Chevy is considering positioning its Volt this way. And consider the possibilities for food additives that keep our teeth clean without need of a brush. Crest's Naturals is duking it out with Tom's of Maine (now owned by Colgate) for the hearts of natural ingredient-loving consumers everywhere - but what if we didn't need the toothpaste, the toothbrushes, or all that water in the first place? I'm sure Yogi would approve.