Comments on: The Green Bandwagon

By: Jay Hamilton-Roth

Jay Hamilton-Roth — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:54:40 +0000

Saying you’re “green” is simply riding the current bandwagon (true green is much harder – see: http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm)
Green isn’t for most consumers a primary differentiator nor benefit. Yes, true green is important/vital, but that’s long-term thinking, when most people in our culture have short-term attention spans.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:04:37 +0000

Michael, great article.
Money quote from the article:
“Much of the advice we hear is from people or businesses that seem to define “going green” as going after the green in your pocket, preying on your impulse to do good.
Some businesses are capitalizing on people’s desire to splurge with a clear conscience,” says Erica Sandberg, the author of “Expecting Money.”

By: Michael Lombardi

Michael Lombardi — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:51:22 +0000

Funny you should mention that Neil, I was just reading an article yesterday that was not only on your point, but also on point with the whole post. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney/6FoolishWaysToGoGreen.aspx

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:57:48 +0000

Good points, Dusan, a lot of people will go green when they can at *least* break even doing it.
There are certain areas where that is possible right now and more to come…

By: Dusan Vrban

Dusan Vrban — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:46:55 +0000

Ups, how did i miss this debate. Have to add something.
“That being said, do we buy laptops because they’re biodegradable? I’m curious to know how important this is, given the many other factors that drive a several thousand dollar purchase decision.”
This is an absolute top of the questions here. And I can’t express enough how this is being underestimated in marketing from my point of view. The answer is in attitudes from my point of view. They have 3 components:
- cognitive (yes, I am a person that wants to buy green)
- emotional (I feel good about buying green)
- affective (Well, I don’t actually want to pay more for green)
So yes, people want to buy green, they feel good about it but when it comes to the purchasing point, they often don’t. Why? Because the affective component of their attitudes is just too strong. It overpowers the cognitive and emotional component.
Green (or anything else) makes difference if all the other purchasing factors (functions, design,…) are alike for 2 products.
That was a general perspective. It can be different for specific situation.

By: Michael Lombardi

Michael Lombardi — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:35:56 +0000

Stephen,
Yes, the point is that marketers and salespeople (if they’re effective) are the ones who give value to environmentally friendly options. And that, in turn, allows companies to give people what they want; in this case more green solutions.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:21:00 +0000

Good post, Stephen. While it’s fashionable to “go green”, businesses that position themselves as environmentally minded, have to not only be authentic, but transparent. Otherwise, in this day of instant information, frauds will be outed very quickly. There are many ways businesses of all sizes can conserve energy and precious natural resources, recycle or purchase recycled materials. If every business owner chose to do one or two things right now, we’d all be better off. Then they can truly say they are working toward becoming green–and that is the truth–moreso than saying they are green. Being honest and being real are very important aspects to running any business. Consistent honesty builds trust in the customer, and that in turn, helps build equity in the company brand.

By: Sunil S Chiplunkar

Sunil S Chiplunkar — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:38:58 +0000

Going green is indeed the in-thing now, both in marketing and politics! Israel is planning to phase out oil imports in a decade’s time by creating an ecosystem of battery charging points and solar energy and encouraging electric cars.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:30:16 +0000

You have it right, Stephen.

By: Stephen Denny

Stephen Denny — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:02:10 +0000

Sorry to be late! Thanks to all for your comments.
Again, to reiterate the real points, as I see them:
1. Responsible, economically justifyable investments in green-ification are good. Heavy investments for little return are bad business.
2. Jumping on bandwagons because they’re hip and cool can make you look very foolish. Calling yourself “green” after launching a thin veneer of environmentalism when you’re a gross polluter is a PR stunt. Citizen Marketers will find you.
3. Framing helps build credibility. Saying you’re “green” implies a commitment that you need to prove to a skeptical audience. Saying you’re the greenest used car dealer in Death Valley is easier to believe.
Michael: I’d argue that going green starts with manufacturing, engineering, operations, and facilities — all starting with the CEO and Board, who embrace responsible investments in environmental stewardship. It is communicated (responsibly, again) by marketing when there’s a story to tell — and not before. If it starts with marketing and the products and processes don’t deliver the goods, you’re just spinning and everyone loses credibility.
Perhaps your point is that marketers ultimately persuade consumers of the green-ness of their products and that their green-ness is a valuable point of differentiation? If so, I’m with you.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:52:42 +0000

Yes, Cam, as I think you have pointed out, it has to make money and save money to work.
Technology is getting us to that point. That is good news.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:16:28 +0000

“I have to say that going green is not necessarily an expense. In fact, in many cases it can save the company and the consumer money.”
Bingo. Neil’s 2/2 (at least).

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:50:43 +0000

Michael, I see your point.
It is probably much the same reason that Americans do not invest enough, on average, in their retirement funds.
I do not think it is a matter of intelligence as much as a combination of human nature and our popular culture teaching us to want everything now, this instant.
Even the smartest of us can fall for that one.

By: Michael Lombardi

Michael Lombardi — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:49:43 +0000

Neil,
Why don’t people buy CFLs?
They use 1/4th as much energy as incandescents.
They last ~6 times longer.
Because they are more efficient, they don’t output as much heat making temperature control costs lower.
And yet you walk into any house in America and you won’t find every possible light fixture with a CFL in it (if any).
In this case, going green is more costly–upfront–which is what most people see. Most people can’t–or won’t–see the bottom line. “Why pay $4 for a light bulb now, when I can pay 79 cents?” That’s what most people see. Not reduced heating and cooling bills, less gas spent driving to buy more lightbulbs, etc.
And that’s not the fault of people who are intelligent like you and I–it’s just frustrating as all get out.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:55:10 +0000

Amy, that is hilarious. I remember when Atkins was all the rage and it seems every type of food or drink was low carb for a while.
Low carb beer. LOL.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:50:54 +0000

I have to say that going green is not necessarily an expense. In fact, in many cases it can save the company and the consumer money.
For example, being more energy efficient can save a company money. There are many other examples.

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:09:46 +0000

All really good points. I’ll throw two cents of “my” reality into the mix. Going green is similar to practicing corporate philanthropy. I don’t believe that businesses would be all that committed if there were no ROI for shareholders and owners. In fact, in corporate philanthropy, we use the return in our cases for support.
Whether the boardroom motive is to sell more products or services versus being altruistic and caring about our world shouldn’t even matter. If we’re focused on doing good and it’s a symbiotic relationship between business and consumer, we all win.

By: Michael Lombardi

Michael Lombardi — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:54:17 +0000

As you can see, even after proofing my own post, I still have errors too!

By: Michael Lombardi

Michael Lombardi — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:52:21 +0000

Stephen,
I’m going to take a different tone and approach to my reply that you’ve gotten from the others.
Going green starts with marketers. Consumerism drives our society. Advertising (if it’s good) drives our money. If people don’t get behind the idea of environmentally friendly products, they won’t support initiatives by companies to become green.
Becoming a green company top to bottom is an expense. Where do companies get money? Buy selling product or themselves (in the case of stock). If stockholders and consumers don’t buy into putting money into sustainability and reducing other environmental impacts, they won’t allow companies to do so.
If companies can drill into our head that we should be driving cleaner cars, using biodegradable cleaning solutions, and getting more hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear energy programs started, then maybe people will be willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Being green doesn’t have to be expensive, but being bad can be lucritive. Have you seen the profits and share prices of ExxonMobile and Altria lately? How many people who invest in ExxonMobile not only complain about gas prices but don’t put their money into alternative energy companies?
If we don’t promote eco-friendly products, the scales of economy will continue to keep alternative solutions expensive, misunderstood, and unsupported by the general public.
(Also, you should change “CBS” to “NBC” and can then delete this part of my comment.)

By: CK

CK — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:33:16 +0000

Very good/sane/sensible post.
‘Twas having this talk with a colleague a month ago where I said that I look forward to green no longer being a differentiator, but a standard. We just weave green-ness into whatever we can and wherever we can. Because anything less becomes the differentiator(a bad one).
Yes, many will use it as a trendy for months to come. And Lewis has a good point, it does good. But it does need to be authentic (and it needs to go to standard, already).
And, in full transparency, I will say that I don an Irish Brogue most anytime I’m in an Irish Pub (it needn’t be St. Pat’s Day and it doesn’t even take me a couple beers). But we’ll just file that under “brand experience,” k? And they are authentic NYC Irish Pubs (and in Boston, too).
PS: All the green glory of today doesn’t bug me half as much as all the “we’re human!” that co’s like Dow is touting about “the human element” after all their pollution to, um, humans. Oh, and then we have Chevron positioning itself around “human energy” (which hopefully doesn’t mean they’re using humans as an alternative energy source…or maybe that’s what the ‘human element’ is).

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:24:08 +0000

Toyota is a perfect example of Neil’s point.
On the one hand, they promote themselves as “green” because they sell the Prius (discounting, for the moment, whether simply increasing the fuel efficiency of the vehicle overcomes the other factors that went into building it and will play into disposing of it), but on the other hand Toyota still sells the Sienna, Land Cruiser, and all of these other vehicles that are, by comparison, less efficient on a MPG basis (although they serve different purposes).
Note: I’m not posting this link because I agree with the owners of the site, but just to demonstrate the same point Stephen and Neil are making: http://www.truthabouttoyota.com/

By: Amy Vercruysse

Amy Vercruysse — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:22:25 +0000

This trend somewhat reminds me of the food industry going haywire over low carb. Some things are just not meant to be part of the latest trend. Bread and beer are not meant to be low carb. Likewise, batteries and solvents may not be meant to be “green”.
However, we can all at least be better informed by the trend and then companies can be more responsible in their manufacturing and consumers can be more educated in their choices.
Hopefully.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:25:55 +0000

I will say that I do make my buying decisions partly based on environmental considerations. I do it does matter and yes can make the difference for me and a lot of other people. It is obviously not the only factor.
That said, your point is well taken. It is unwise for companies to casually stroll into green because a lot of green consumers do research before buying and will call bullshit.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:19:07 +0000

Good post. We exchanged ideas on this subject at your place, so I won’t repeat myself. Just let me say two things: Doing good is good for everyone and let’s encourage all businesses and individuals to reduce their footprint on the planet.

By: Matt Heinz

Matt Heinz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:09:23 +0000

Nice post, Stephen. Using green in our marketing is certainly a double-edged sword. I wrote about this for iMedia recently, link below. This opportunity will continue to evolve, but it’s clear that those who most authentically are dedicated to the solution – in their products, not just their marketing – are those who will succeed.
http://mattonmarketing.blogspot.com/2008/01/going-green-to-make-green.html