Filed under: Business + Politics | Tags: green spin, Jeni Rogers, relieve "pain"
Sending a message that’s both compelling and meaningful while still giving direct information seems to be a tough one. After listening to Jeni Rogers speak today to the topic of getting buy-in for green programs I’m armed with some key points to lead me along the path.
I much appreciated Jeni’s take on the internal and external messaging since it’s often tougher to convince your colleges to listen than it is to convince a client to listen. We’re taught to question each other in our daily work environment, constructive criticism and feedback is what keeps us on our toes. However, trusting our colleges to all be on the same page so that we can lead our clients is sometimes a tough pill to swallow. Jeni reinforced the idea of making sure that we are educated in the topic at hand (in many different angles) before trying to educate someone else. Then, once we have the information needed, crafting that into a statement that is meaningful and not just another generic pitch. However, to make this even more tricky, making sure that the brand’s identity isn’t lost in the “green spin.” So now that we have all these balls to juggle, how do we do it? Well, it sounds like the best way is to tell them what they want to hear!
It sounds simple but to identify each group’s “pain” as Jeni put it and help them understand how this new concept will address that concern. It makes us sound a little bit like a camp-counselor but I think that’s ok because it’s so true. It’s human nature to want your problems fixed and to help someone understand how your product/service will help relieve that “pain” is the quickest way to tug at their heart strings. It’s a great way to put it in perspective to know how to craft a message that’s both compelling and meaningful. With some careful execution we can be just what the doctor ordered!
Michelle M.
Filed under: Business + Politics | Tags: authenticity, David Clark, Interface Inc, mistake, the Gap, transparency
David Clark told a story in his conference call yesterday about his experience working with a nurse and what she said to do if you make a mistake.
She said that it’s not the mistake that matters; it’s what you do about it that does.
Now we’ve talked in class about a few examples of companies who are doing just this—taking responsibility for “mistakes” they’ve made. After the Gap was found to be using child labour, they’re now hyper-aware of their production practices. Interface, Inc. developed FLOR modular flooring tiles to reduce the amount and impact of carpeting in landfills.
Companies like the Gap, in this case especially, are really putting themselves out there—almost saying sorry for what they’ve done, showing they’ve learned their lesson and that it won’t happen again.
Don’t get me wrong, the mistake the Gap made was heinous. But their commitment to fixing it and preventing it from happening again is a step in the right direction. They’re doing something about it and I think it’s a good example of authenticity, transparency and what to do after making such a serious mistake.
David talked yesterday about what it means to be believable; to communicate with integrity and to honour all aspects of your communication—even (and maybe especially) the hard stuff.
I think the Gap has been so successful with their new social responsibility mandate because they took the bull by the horns and really talked about and took action on it.
Marisa B.
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: conversations, David Clark, dirt, global warming
When I Google “global warming is a lie,” things get real messy, real fast. There’s a lot of dirt being kicked up out there in the online ecosphere, and sometimes, I find it hard to breathe. Are we capable of a good, clean conversation?
Yes, and I think a little dirt isn’t always bad. Just make sure it’s organic and authentic, says David Clark, an Orchard Advisors sustainability consultant. He’s referring to the power of common ground: the dirty, organic, elemental, personal stuff in which to plant ideas.
Take a look at the “dirt” under others’ shoes. What’s clinging to the soles of the business exec, the rancher, the teacher, the stay-at-home mom and the blue-collar worker? What kind of rich, fertile, common compost of beliefs do they stand on?
Be curious, says Clark, because what you find there is the key to talking about the environment. Sift through the soil of their human experience and recognize children, hunting, profit, faith or a passion for trout fishing. These are the pockets where you will find the place to grow green.
I think the best conversations about nature are going to be… well, more natural. Imperfect, more honest, more organic. Dirtier.
Are you ready to talk dirty?
- Cheri
Bumper sticker sold at Zazzle.com.
Filed under: Business + Politics, Society + Media | Tags: GfK Roper Green Gauge, green, trend
Every good marketer knows that the first step to communicating a message is to know thy audience. Thus it comes as no surprise that Jeni Rogers’ presentation emphasized the importance of addressing your audience’s cares and concerns when creating compelling “green” messaging.
Sometimes your audience will be more concerned about budget, quality, and convenience than what’s good for the environment. This doesn’t mean that marketers can’t communicate to these consumers about their green initiatives, but as Jeni put it, “It’s the cherry on top.”
I would argue that as long as going green is the cherry on top, the majority of consumers are unlikely to commit to going green for the long haul. Over my rather short lifetime of 27 years, I have seen the popularity of “going green” come and go in a cyclical pattern. Whether marketers are following the tidal wave or creating it, I’m unsure. But it’s hard for me to believe that every teen to twenty-something who buys a trendy bag or shirt from Target or Threadless is truly committed to making the environment better.
Although the 2007 GfK Roper Green Gauge® study found 87 percent of consumers are “seriously concerned about the environment,” it seems that many face difficulty in turning concern into action. I would argue that if 87 percent were truly “seriously concerned” that we would see more action and that green initiatives would no longer be the cherry on top but rather the ice cream in the sundae.
I do not doubt that the study above accurately presented its findings, but self-reported data is often unreliable because people report how they like to think of themselves or would like others to think of them, rather than their true behavior.
What does this all mean? Green communicators need to work harder to educate consumers about the impact we have on the environment, so becoming more responsible for the environment becomes one of consumers’ main concerns.
In the same study by GfK Roper, 50 percent of consumers said they “do not have the information to be personally involved in increasing their green behavior.” Education is clearly an issue. Until the general public has a better understanding of environmental issues and what they can do about them, I believe “going green” will remain in its cyclical pattern. The trick will be turning green education into common knowledge that consumers do not have to actively seek out.
-Hilary Wright
The average city dweller today is hit with more than 5,000 advertising messages a day. 5,000! The same NY Times article notes many consumers thought it was a little out of control. You think!?
All that messaging can get a little overwhelming and confusing. From low and reduced fat to no sugar added and sugar free, how are consumers to decipher it all? Taking this into consideration, it isn’t hard to understand why the individuals surveyed in BBMG’s study said what they did. Health and safety, honesty, convenience, relationships and doing good were the elements that were top priority to them as socially-conscious consumers. Consumers just want to get in, buy safe products from companies that aren’t totally sketchy and go on with their lives. Is that so hard? Apparently, it is.
I’ll be honest. I buy the product with the green message with the bigger price tag simply because it’s easier for me. I’m concerned about the environment and the impact on health. If I buy the dish soap with the “green” message it’ll be safe. Right? Turns out it’s probably packaged in a number seven plastic bottle so I’m up a contaminated creek again.
How many of those 5,000 advertising messages the average American sees a day are “green?” Will green get lost in the shuffle and consumers will grow frustrated and disenchanted? Are consumers already confused … or is it just me?
Jill W.
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: communication, David Clark, fads, greenwashing, Nike
Weird, long or big hair, add-a-bead necklaces, and wearing your polo collar up. Each was a fad of the 1980’s. After fads pass, we often look back at how stupid we looked and wonder “What were we thinking?” Is “green” just the fad of the moment?
A picture from the past
I often wonder about the internal motivations of companies that claim to be green. Are they genuinely motivated by a desire to be better or are they just jumping on the bandwagon? Statistics about greenwashing indicate the consumer should be skeptical. In the information age, the days of “talking the talk” and not “walking the walk” are over. Eventually, the truth will be found out. Ask Nike and Senator Craig how stupid they felt after being “exposed”. Still, this doesn’t dissuade many.
Now, more than ever, because of this growing skepticism, we must be honest, authentic, transparent, and personal in our communications. David stated these to be keys to effective communication. Jeni’s presentation echoed and mirrored many of these sentiments. I might summarize it by saying we need to communicate with integrity. The BBMG study reflects these in what people state to be important to them. No surprise that the most effective messages invoke things of or appeal to items of personal importance.
We must also be authentic in our own lives. New American Dream has some interesting information on how to be more green in our daily lives. If we walk the walk in our own lives while communicating with integrity, we can make sure “green” isn’t a fad.
Shawn
Filed under: Design + Architecture, Society + Media | Tags: green building, LEED, Packard Foundation, ROI
Is there a business case for sustainable buildings? Do “green” buildings cost more? That depends on how the answer is framed (knowing your audience). But if your goal is to obtain buy-in, the business/ROI angle can be clear and effective way to get your message across.
The USGBC calculates that most buildings have an average lifespan between 50 and 100 years. This bit of data is important because under current market standards, construction costs represent less than 1% of building costs over a 100-year operational model.
On the call I had mentioned the Packard Foundation as a great source of information related to the true cost of sustainability. They released a report in 2002 that looks at first costs and compares them to overall costs over a 30, 60 and 100 year period. The results showed that while there was a higher initial cost for sustainable buildings, one could expect small returns as quickly as in 30 years, with significant savings at the 60 and 100 year marks.
This is where the issue of framing and knowing your audience becomes important, because as one begins to craft a message the focus must be kept on long term savings. This message can be especially effective if your audience is business managers and building operators. Anecdotally, I have noticed that “executive-types” tend to be more concerned with capital costs and it is imperative to understand their threshold for long returns when creating a message that appeals to them. To that effect, the charts created by the Packard foundation are an excellent tool to help reframe the conversation on the issues that create a sustainable environment and help save the company money.
This conversation is also particularly interesting in light of the assigned readings. Yes, the USGBC acts as shield to protect building sustainability claims against greenwashing, but that is not the point I wanted to make. With all of the discussion and the documentaries and advertising about how green buildings make fiscal sense; triple bottom line studies like the Packard Foundation’s are not as widespread as you may expect. It is immensely easier to obtain “marketing-type” material about green buildings than it is to find data that is actually useful to make a business case. Ultimately my criticism is that although entities must speak in easy terms in order to connect they must also be able to back what they say with factual information and make this data easily accessible. This will become the basis on which audiences will become more educated and ultimately the best catalyst for change.
—
On a side note:
While I agree with the notion that even small things can help. Dunkin Donuts could go through the steps to streamline their coffee production and reduce the waste in their disposable cups. But buildings are a very large ticket item when it comes to the environment: They account for 72% of our electricity (which comes from coal), 38% of all CO2 and 30% of all waste. So, while that may not be part of the main “mission” for someone like DD (unlike coffee); it is a great place to try to generate change.
Alex O.
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: environment green politics communication issue
Talking to people who disagree with you about an issue is always a challenge. In this crazy election year with high emotions and flaring tempers, David Clark provided some great advise to talk to people across the aisle or across the dinner table.
I loved his circle imagery – it made me think of a swimming pool. What’s more effective, shouting to someone across the pool, or walking to one end to talk face-to-face? Whether the issue is global climate change, the economy, or healthcare, common ground can be found in the things we all hold dear. Family. Health. Money. Nature. These issues are too important to discuss while shouting at each other. I find not much listening happens when people shout, anyway. I’ve been trying a softer approach recently when discussing politics – keeping my emotions at bay and trying to listen and ask questions instead of yelling. I also find it helpful to use very non-partisan sources like factcheck.org, procon.org, and dividedwefail.org in my discussions. It’s easy to just dismiss an argument that comes from Fox News or MSNBC as being too partisan, so I don’t go there.
David’s comments about how to talk to people about climate change who might not believe it exists reminded me of a marvelous, frightening video I saw on YouTube called “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See.” The creator of the video uses humor and common sense to address an issue that should be important to everyone, and he tells us why. Ultimately humor and listening, not shouting and high emotions, will help us unite.
-Mindee Forman
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: consumerism, David Clark, Story of Stuff
“We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children” This Native American proverb is a perfect example of what David Clark said about connecting and communicating as it relates to sustainability. It makes an emotional connection, and it’s persuasive. There’s a lot of hullabaloo out there about “going green.” People don’t understand it, and if my assumption is correct in thinking the majority of people in the world are like me, they don’t know where to look to find simple answers. So what do they do? They either ignore it or are slow to adopt change. This is why communication is so important, and David’s time was so valuable to us on Friday.
I found this cool site called The Story of Stuff, a great storytelling piece that not only lays out that the green movement as not just environmental, but social. It’s authentic, emotional and simple. But maybe most importantly, it engages its audience with a different viewpoint, which is something else David stressed is of enormous importance when communicating about these issues, or for that matter, communicating in general. The Story of Stuff focuses on how consumerism in the U.S. is out of control and how the system behind it is in no way helpful. I guess it’s not surprise, then, to see the increased interest in green products. But to truly be sustainable, our consumer-driven society needs clear and direct communication to help aid us in purchasing the right green products. There’s a curiosity out there, so people are listening, but it’s people like David and sources like the Story of Stuff that can help craft and deliver the message the right way. And, the simple way.
Matt J.
Yesterday’s discussion with David reaffirmed two key concepts we’ve discussed in class and why it is so hard to convince people to be “green”. David reaffirmed that you will be more successful in having a discussion about being green or on sustainability if you can understand the person(s) you will be discussing the issue with. To know the person(s) you must do your research but you must also listen to them to understand what is important to them. David also reaffirmed the concept of being transparent. When it comes to being green no company is 100% green and as a result a company must be upfront about what they are doing right and wrong to gain trust and to allow the dialog to remain open.
David also reaffirmed something else; there is no silver bullet that will make people want to understand the issues. We are in this class because we want to gain a better understanding of these complex issues but, what about the people that don’t have a desire to know? If they’re not motivated now what will it take and is the overwhelming amount of green advertising making it harder for them? According to an online Time magazine article greenwashing is the practice of making a product seem green when it really isn’t. The six sins of greenwashing can be found at http://www.terrachoice.com/. There is also a website that allows consumers to rate the level of greenwashing of a product or advertisement (http://www.greenwashingindex.com/). All of this forces me to ask myself; are greenwashed products doing more harm to the environment than the companies that aren’t doing anything at all?
Vanessa Ruperto
