Comments on: Companies Going Green Should Ignore Green Consumer http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/30/companies-going-green-should-ignore-green-consumer/ The Executive's Daily Green Briefing Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:47:55 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Victoria http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/30/companies-going-green-should-ignore-green-consumer/comment-page-1/#comment-35594 Victoria Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:14:26 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/30/companies-going-green-should-ignore-green-consumer/#comment-35594 Greenwashing is clearly an issue, but the striking component I'm seeing besides every type of company joining on the global green bandwagon trying to get good green p.r., is the issue that every company or corporation is 'branding' their initiative with green logos and slogans intact. Much like after 9/11, all of the news agencies branded and named every Middle East military offensive or attack (e.g. "Beyond Baghdad"). Green is being overbranded. In just the past six months several corporations have announced “green” campaigns. Rather than position these as an internal initiative tied to company culture, they have been branded with logos, taglines and media support. For example, the following is a quick list of new campaigns launched over a one week period, some are within the same corporate family and others bear the same title. (Readers of this probably have several examples, as well.) NBC Corporate “Green is Universal” KGW Channel 8 (NBC Affiliate) “Go Green” KPTV Channel 12 “Going Green” Eagles NFL Team “Go Green” I believe most corporations have taken the wrong path in branding their message rather than making it a corporate "values" or corporate "responsibility" proposition. Off hand, Nike and Patagonia are companies that appear to be doing it well. Recently, the Build It Green building certification program in Colorado realized the error of incorporating the word “green” into the program brand. They have developed consumer messaging around the premise that the program should be called “Build it Better.” That's saying something about the mis-use and over-exposure of green. Greenwashing is clearly an issue, but the striking component I’m seeing besides every type of company joining on the global green bandwagon trying to get good green p.r., is the issue that every company or corporation is ‘branding’ their initiative with green logos and slogans intact. Much like after 9/11, all of the news agencies branded and named every Middle East military offensive or attack (e.g. “Beyond Baghdad”). Green is being overbranded. In just the past six months several corporations have announced “green” campaigns. Rather than position these as an internal initiative tied to company culture, they have been branded with logos, taglines and media support. For example, the following is a quick list of new campaigns launched over a one week period, some are within the same corporate family and others bear the same title. (Readers of this probably have several examples, as well.)

NBC Corporate “Green is Universal”
KGW Channel 8 (NBC Affiliate) “Go Green”
KPTV Channel 12 “Going Green”
Eagles NFL Team “Go Green”

I believe most corporations have taken the wrong path in branding their message rather than making it a corporate “values” or corporate “responsibility” proposition. Off hand, Nike and Patagonia are companies that appear to be doing it well.
Recently, the Build It Green building certification program in Colorado realized the error of incorporating the word “green” into the program brand. They have developed consumer messaging around the premise that the program should be called “Build it Better.”

That’s saying something about the mis-use and over-exposure of green.

]]> By: Matt http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/30/companies-going-green-should-ignore-green-consumer/comment-page-1/#comment-34822 Matt Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:23:23 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/30/companies-going-green-should-ignore-green-consumer/#comment-34822 I totally agree. People don't want to drastically change their lives just to make it a little more "green". And why should they, really? I mean, people do everyday all the things they need to do everyday, right? Most people aren't just randomly or arbitrarily choosing each day what they want to do or what products to use or by which methods they do them. So, marketing to them with that assumption (by trying to sell them a product that doesn't even come close to fitting their current routine or process) isn't going to come across to them as something they should by. If you want to develop a "green' product, FIRST make it something useful, practical (maybe something that could effectively replace something else they already regularly use with similar results), then find out a way to make it "green" and still effective... that's the first step. I totally agree. People don’t want to drastically change their lives just to make it a little more “green”. And why should they, really? I mean, people do everyday all the things they need to do everyday, right? Most people aren’t just randomly or arbitrarily choosing each day what they want to do or what products to use or by which methods they do them. So, marketing to them with that assumption (by trying to sell them a product that doesn’t even come close to fitting their current routine or process) isn’t going to come across to them as something they should by. If you want to develop a “green’ product, FIRST make it something useful, practical (maybe something that could effectively replace something else they already regularly use with similar results), then find out a way to make it “green” and still effective… that’s the first step.

]]>