Green Police Redux

Just a quick follow up to the Green Police Post from yesterday. Treehugger is up with an interesting piece capturing some of the response to the ad.The trouble with the Treehugger article and even our own commentary is that it's still a little too inside baseball. What's important here isn't how those dedicated to the green movement react. What's important is how the market in general reacted, and from what I gather the reactions from those not embedded in the green community were pretty positive. What does that say about how the green movement is viewed by the rest of the nation?

The Green Police Are Coming to Get You

In case you missed it Audi ran ad some are calling controversial during the Superbowl this past weekend. Watch Below:

Honestly, I found the ad funny. The Green Police have a certain Paul Blart quality to them that I can't quite find offensive. That was my reaction of the moment. The content of the ad itself didn't strike me as offensive, as someone who considers themselves part of the green movement, I've recognized the overzealousness of some in the green community. I was able to laugh at the incandescent light bulb guy being dragged to his car. Eventually, the game came back on and I forgot about it. Then I got to thinking about it, then I got worried, very worried. 

Upon rewatching the ad, I realized that the "green police" aren't as mall cop I thought-more like all powerful goon squad. They are oppressive, they are frightening, and they are intruding on your personal life in Big Brother-style ways. What's worse is the humor I found in this ad didn't come from where I located it...I thought it was an ironic statement on the ineffectiveness of green legislation (solidifying my status as green dork), but reading the comment page on YouTube, or trolling the internet for commentary the vast majority of people who watched, even those who watched with me during the Superbowl found the ad funny because this is exactly how the green movement makes them feel. The ad played into what many (most?) Americans seem to feel every day. That a group of eggheads want to outlaw basic tenants of American life. That choice is being restricted everyday by a band of Segway-riding eco-facists and that there is no escape. (Unless of course you buy a deisel Audi)

It would be easy to throw up our hands and say "well this was the cynical act of a car company looking to push product." OK perhaps, but there's more to it than that.

When you want a person or a group of people to take on a policy or take certain actions (go somewhere) there are two methods you can employ. The first, you can push them, which in short hand says:

What you've been doing is wrong! It's harmful, and it needs to stop!

If the party in question is relatively weak (some puppies, small children, and politicians are good examples) they will back down. If they aren't weak (say 50% or more of the American populous.) Then a different strategy is called for.

That strategy is basically to get the party in question to arrive at choice you want by convincing them it was their idea in the first place. There is no good short hand for this kind of methodology. It involves a process of showing how "green" options really can be better options, and perhaps some innovation. On green choices being better choices. My entire apartment uses CFL lamps. If you came in you'd never notice, why? I buy good ones and I use them with shades in decent lamps-no visible swirlies, nice color, less electricity. When it comes up in conversation the first thing people say is "I didn't even realize." That's selling someone on a solution without trying.

Now on innovation-I cannot for the life of me figure out why our two choices at the grocery store are so bad. The environmentally horrendous (but oh so convenient) plastic bag or the eco-friendly (but difficult to carry) paper bag. Can no one out there invent a paper bag that is easier to carry? If such a paper bag 2.0 existed consumers would use it, they'd forget about plastic bags, and that would be one debate settled. They would arrive at the "better" choice all on there own...no pushing required.

The same is true in the built environment. For the record, I am in favor of stronger regulations when it comes to energy code. I also recognize that such regulation leads to a push/push back scenario. We saw it in the EU when the incandescent light bulb began it's phase out (see my previous article "How to get the Incandescent Ban Right"), and we'll continue to see it as legacy technologies are substituted for new ones. People want to feel that they have a choice not that the green police are choosing for them.

That will be the challenge for marketing teams across the green industry. It's time to end the guilt trip. It's time to respect consumer choice...and make the green choice the preferable one. Otherewise, we're inviting a riot between the public and the Green Police.

Green Is a Dead Brand

I’ve been wrestling with this post for quite some time. Approaching green branding has unsettled me for a while, but I couldn’t quite articulate why. Then, just a few days ago, James Bedell tweeted a pic of the new Sprite Green – and it hit me what’s wrong with green as a brand. 

Everything.

I may take a certain amount of flack for this post, but I adamantly feel that both the concept and the marketing activity known as “green branding” need serious re-branding. 

Before diving into details, let’s take a step back.

Consider the characteristics of a good, strong brand. It has a clearly defined benefit. It is uniquely differentiated. It has a distinct voice and experience associated with it. It consistently delivers upon its promised benefit to consumers/customers. The great, beloved brands – Apple, Target, Google to name a few – achieve all of the above in spades.

Now consider “green” and all its brand baggage. Here are 4 reasons green branding needs a re-boot:

#1 Green has no clearly defined benefit. First and foremost, the term “green” has been used and mis-used so often, in so many ways, it's lost meaning. Forget greenwashing, the term "green" itself has been white-washed to the point that brand building on green is like branding built on that nebulous benefit called “quality.”

Take Sprite Green, for example. Why is it called “green?” Turns out it’s because the soft drink is produced with an all-natural sweetener (not to mention 5% lemon juice per serving).

So, what is green now? Something made from all-natural products? Something that when used has a positive or neutral effect on the environment? Something produced in a more eco-friendly manner? All of the above?

And to what level of eco-friendliness do brands have to be in order to be considered “green” without being accused of greenwashing? The concepts of "shades of green" personally makes me a little sick to my stomach when you consider the additional brand confusion to an already confusing term, let alone the lack of standardization. Suddenly brands will have to define dark green vs. green vs. lime green? Jump right into the brand nightmare, the water is warm.

#2 People don’t trust green. Because of the effects of greenwashing and continued debate about the imperative to fight climate change and preserving natural resources, 70% of consumers don't think companies are genuine when they talk about how they help the environment and society, according to Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS). How can you build a brand around a message shrouded in doubt and misperception? Which leads us to reason #3…

#3 Green used to suck. Today’s environmentally friendly products, solutions and services have come a long way from what were first brought to market. But sadly, too many people still perceive anything “green” as more expensive, less effective, too complex and requiring too much time to install/implement/etc. The “green” brand experience has been tainted almost beyond repair. Until the market is educated to the contrary, perception will continue to be a very real barrier to adoption…and a huge piece of brand baggage that green needs to check.

#4 Green’s uniqueness has a time limit. As the market becomes more educated and as government legislation/standardization begins to take hold, there will be such demand for environmentally friendly, more efficient and sustainable products/solutions that “green” will become cost of entry for any brand. Consumers want transparency. Employees want transparency. Shareholders want transparency. And all of them want companies to do good and perform exceedingly well. Green will be a major factor in achieving these goals for everyone. So while green holds some facet of competitive advantage now, it will soon become a feature of any good brand, not the primary benefit. 

--

So, what is the re-brand for green brands? As is the case for every company or product, brands must be rooted in a tangible benefit to consumers or, in the case of b2b, businesses. Efficiency. Productivity. Cost savings. Ease-of-use. Comfort. Style. PLUS the most excellent benefit that it’s created of materials and by means that have a positive effect for the planet. Strong green brands must be strong brands in and of themselves. In the quest for the triple bottom line, we can’t forget the bottom line.

Green branding is dead. Long live green branding.

Who's Telling the Green Story Right Now?

Remember this ad? A very intelligent sounding woman explained to us the virtues of compact fluorescent light bulbs and not only that-she extolled all of the wonderful things these light bulbs will do for the planet if every Walmart shopper bought just one! If every Walmart shopper used just one per person 11 million cars come off the road! Amazing!

The tough part for all of us in the design/build industry is that we know it's much more complicated in the real world that simply changing a light bulb. If it were that easy to go green we would have done it a long time ago. True intelligent sustainable design is complex and it involves layers of decision making that would never fit into a 30 second spot for Walmart or any other brand.

That's fine, but what we need to remember about sustainability in America is that for most Americans it's major brands like Walmart who are defining what green means. Sadly, it doesn't matter how much thought we've put into our work...as more and more consumers come online and expect their spaces to be more environementally friendly they also expect them to be easier on their wallets as far as cost of energy.

It is imperative that we as a community do not shy away from this. Right now "green" building is associated with higher costs and mixed expectations. We must change our messaging and more importantly our methods to make green=more cost effective, not just because Walmart is telling people it's possible, but because if we are to make a truly scalable impact our solutions must be something any business owner or property manager will want to sign on to. Not a solution only for the affluent companies looking to make a statement. Walmart defines scalabilty...I'm not afraid to take a page out of their book.

Sustainability Defies Economic Downturn: "Shades" of "Green" to Come?

Read an excellent article on green marketing in AdAge this morning that points to a surge of new green brands/products in the face of the recession. And what variety! Everything from diapers and toilet paper made from recycled materials to more eco-friendly laundry detergents. All supported (importantly) by distribution from major retailers such as Wal-Mart.

I think that it's a good sign that there is more "mainstream" adoption of more sustainable products. The reason is, as this article suggests, successful brands are demonstrating quality and efficiency over simply the environmental benefits. This is much the case we want to make with Build2Sustain. You can indeed save more green and do more good. And, if given the choice between a product/service you know is better for the planet and your community, why wouldn't you choose it over a comparable commodity brand? "Good" is becoming a powerful competitive advantage for brands - and for the companies that create them.

Which leads me to what I believe to be one of the most fascinating points raised in passing at the close of this article. There is a clear first-mover advantage for companies that choose sustainable practices and create more sustainable products. Thomas Friedman, in his latest book, calls creating this advantage "outgreening." But what happens when there are increasingly LOTS of green alternatives? The article suggest there will be a choice beween shades -- "light green and dark green."

This article makes me feel good on several levels. First, the indication that sustainability is continuing to gain mainstream momentum. Secondly, that there will be continued competitive differentiation as the market continues to mature with sustainable options. From a sustainable build/design standpoint, it just goes to show how important best practices will be. The first-movers will need them to get moving -- and then to stay moving and moving farther than the next guy going forward. It's exciting to think Build2Sustain can help businesses see the color palette in front of them and paint the most sustainable picture for their futures.