I just finished up with my very last finals of my college career and now have time to reflect on my last term at the UO! This term stood out to me particularly because of Deb Morrison's Green Brand Strategies class. While the end has come I thought it would be a good time to reflect on my four big takeaways from this class.
1. Green "branding" is dying out: Sustainability is the new goal. In class we quickly shifted from how to talk about companies "green" efforts to talking about how a company can achieve long-term sustainability. People are getting increasingly educated about environmental issues and are no longer fooled by companies "green" claims. They are looking deeper into companies core values and practices in order to choose the company that they can agree with (and purchase products/services from). The green advertising agency is changing from "talking" to "doing" and needs to push companies to become more sustainable before they talk about it.
2. Transparency: This goes hand-in-hand with the first one. Companies can no longer hide their bad practices behind an advertising campaign or slick branding. In this age of social networking people will find out if companies are spinning information or straight-up lying. The role of the green agency is to tell people the truth. This has to start with companies doing more to be more sustainable, so an agency can then inform people about it in a truthful way. Sustainability is impossible without transparency.
3. Sustainability is not a trend: In the coming years a lot of things are going to change for business. Resources are going to become more expensive, consumers are going to become more demanding, and businesses are going to become more competitive. Sustainability is not a trend, like green branding has become. Innovation and sustainability are the tools that are going to allow separate the long-lasting companies from those struggling to stay afloat. Those adopting sustainable practices now are getting a major head start on their competition and will be business leaders in the future.
4. Cooperation is a must: Sustainability is such a big issue that one person is unable to make a huge impact. We must cooperate to achieve sustainability goals. Businesses, agencies, media and people need to re-think how they can work together to achieve their goals without sacrificing the goals of others or the environment.
The coming years are going to be interesting. Those individuals, agencies and businesses that are honest, creative, innovative, caring, and cooperative are the ones that are going to be able to adopt sustainable practices and be the leaders of tomorrow.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Energy, food, and branding
Looks like its time for another one of my connection blogs. This one is again from the folks over at Treehugger (in an effort to be more transparent, I should mention that the information originally came from The Oil Drum) and is about the energy input to calorie output of foods.
I am glad I found this, as I always have trouble explaining to people my stance as a vegetarian and this article puts it into an understandable info graphic. While I do value the lives of non-human animals and think that we have a moral obligation to not kill them unless necessary, the main reason I became a vegetarian was for energy efficiency.
Simply put we (humans and the U.S. in particular) waste so much energy, clean water, and resources to produce meat that is completely unnecessary for our survival. I don't deny that eating meat was necessary for human survival at one point in our history, but it isn't now. To me, eating meat is a luxury that too many people simply take for granted. That being said, I don't like being a preachy vegetarian and I think that people should be able to make their own decisions about what they do and don't eat.
Bringing this post back onto the topic of green branding I would like to consider two things.
The first, is that people need to be more informed about the environmental impact of what they eat. It seems to me that most people don't realize that eating meat has such a big impact. Most people eat meat because they have been raised and taught through the media to think that meals are incomplete without it. More articles like this one need to be written and expanded upon. I would like to see someone (more scientifically qualified then myself) create an extensive database on foods and their energy usage and impact. This could help people who are trying to reduce their impact make better informed decisions about what they are eating.
This information could also be used by food companies to talk about their impacts, and could be used to help brand companies that create vegetarian options.
Second, Ive noticed that the market for organic, free-range, grass fed meat is growing. While this does reduce the impact of meat I think that some of these companies are toeing the line on green washing. Like this article on Time Magazine's website, that talks about how grass-fed beef could "save the planet" I think it doesn't address both sides of the issue very well. Not eating meat is still much better than eating grass-fed meat.
Vegetables are still better to eat than cows.
To me, companies that are saying their organic, free-range, grass fed meat is good for the environment are like water companies saying their bottles are recyclable or paper companies saying their products are recycled (yet contain a small percentage of post-consumer waste). While is is true that these products are better for the environment to a small-degree, saying they are good for the environment is green washing.
I am glad I found this, as I always have trouble explaining to people my stance as a vegetarian and this article puts it into an understandable info graphic. While I do value the lives of non-human animals and think that we have a moral obligation to not kill them unless necessary, the main reason I became a vegetarian was for energy efficiency.
Simply put we (humans and the U.S. in particular) waste so much energy, clean water, and resources to produce meat that is completely unnecessary for our survival. I don't deny that eating meat was necessary for human survival at one point in our history, but it isn't now. To me, eating meat is a luxury that too many people simply take for granted. That being said, I don't like being a preachy vegetarian and I think that people should be able to make their own decisions about what they do and don't eat.
Bringing this post back onto the topic of green branding I would like to consider two things.
The first, is that people need to be more informed about the environmental impact of what they eat. It seems to me that most people don't realize that eating meat has such a big impact. Most people eat meat because they have been raised and taught through the media to think that meals are incomplete without it. More articles like this one need to be written and expanded upon. I would like to see someone (more scientifically qualified then myself) create an extensive database on foods and their energy usage and impact. This could help people who are trying to reduce their impact make better informed decisions about what they are eating.
This information could also be used by food companies to talk about their impacts, and could be used to help brand companies that create vegetarian options.
Second, Ive noticed that the market for organic, free-range, grass fed meat is growing. While this does reduce the impact of meat I think that some of these companies are toeing the line on green washing. Like this article on Time Magazine's website, that talks about how grass-fed beef could "save the planet" I think it doesn't address both sides of the issue very well. Not eating meat is still much better than eating grass-fed meat.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Food waste, its impact, and what this means for sustainable business.
Saw this article on Treehugger the other day, its about the impact of food waste.
I've worked for a number of food service places and I was always surprised how much food gets thrown out due to spoilage or "bad" quality. This seems like a "low-hanging fruit" where a business, especially a small business, could save money and have a positive impact easily. Proper food waste management isn't extremely difficult but many restaurants do a poor job at it.
This is an important and easy way for a green branding agency to reduce a businesses environmental impact and show how sustainable practices can save a business money. I wonder if anyone out in the advertising world has addressed this problem?
I've worked for a number of food service places and I was always surprised how much food gets thrown out due to spoilage or "bad" quality. This seems like a "low-hanging fruit" where a business, especially a small business, could save money and have a positive impact easily. Proper food waste management isn't extremely difficult but many restaurants do a poor job at it.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Education, creativity and sustainablity
Time for another TED talk! This one is from Sir Ken Robinson. Its about schools, creativity, and sustainability.
After watching this talk I thought back on my own public school experience and realize that I most likely had a better situation then most. I took photography, worked in our aquarium and had interesting and engaging conversations in an honors English classes throughout high school. In elementary school my parents were told that I may have ADHD because I would talk, draw, and cause a ruckus. The thing was, I didn't have ADHD, I was just bored. Elementary and much of middle school didn't engage me properly and I was not a good student. This all changed in high school.
In high school I had a number of caring teachers that pushed me and gave me more projects after I finished my class work. I also had an excellent photography class that I was lucky enough to be able to take my junior and senior year. I also was a head curator at our school aquarium, where I was constantly challenged with problems that needed creative solutions.
What I am trying to get at here is, I was on one hand challenged and on the other hand given the facilities to be creative. These are skills that have been extremely valuable as Ive gone through college and into the working world.
In essence I am living proof that what Sir Ken Robinson says is true. If my creativity was stifled I would have lashed out and most likely would not have gone to college. But since I was curious I had to go and learn about a variety of different subjects form oceanography, to philosophy, to digital art, to advertising. Now I have a knowledge-base that allows me to be creative and flexible.
Unfortunately most people don't have the luck of getting an excellent education as I have. This is where this relates to sustainability and green branding. We need people to be creative and be accepting of new creative ideas. Much of our world's problems were caused (and are continually caused) by people who are inflexible in the ways they think. Being open-minded is our best tool for being sustainable.
As advertisers we want to do things smarter, more creative, and more sustainable but we have to have an audience that these things resonate with in order to do these things. We need a society where people are creative and thankfully I see our society shifting in a way that favors the more creative.
So if Sir Ken Robinson is correct if school is basically pre-job training, shouldn't we be teaching kids to be creative so they have a place in a society that is increasingly media and content driven? We have so many new problems that are not being solved by the institutions we have previously relied on, Shouldn't we be teaching kids to solve problems in innovative and unique ways. In essence letting their creativity and special skills shine.
In high school I had a number of caring teachers that pushed me and gave me more projects after I finished my class work. I also had an excellent photography class that I was lucky enough to be able to take my junior and senior year. I also was a head curator at our school aquarium, where I was constantly challenged with problems that needed creative solutions.
What I am trying to get at here is, I was on one hand challenged and on the other hand given the facilities to be creative. These are skills that have been extremely valuable as Ive gone through college and into the working world.
In essence I am living proof that what Sir Ken Robinson says is true. If my creativity was stifled I would have lashed out and most likely would not have gone to college. But since I was curious I had to go and learn about a variety of different subjects form oceanography, to philosophy, to digital art, to advertising. Now I have a knowledge-base that allows me to be creative and flexible.
Unfortunately most people don't have the luck of getting an excellent education as I have. This is where this relates to sustainability and green branding. We need people to be creative and be accepting of new creative ideas. Much of our world's problems were caused (and are continually caused) by people who are inflexible in the ways they think. Being open-minded is our best tool for being sustainable.
As advertisers we want to do things smarter, more creative, and more sustainable but we have to have an audience that these things resonate with in order to do these things. We need a society where people are creative and thankfully I see our society shifting in a way that favors the more creative.
So if Sir Ken Robinson is correct if school is basically pre-job training, shouldn't we be teaching kids to be creative so they have a place in a society that is increasingly media and content driven? We have so many new problems that are not being solved by the institutions we have previously relied on, Shouldn't we be teaching kids to solve problems in innovative and unique ways. In essence letting their creativity and special skills shine.
Climate Change Thought Leader: Al Gore
While I am not the biggest fan of Al Gore (or any national politician for that matter) he has done much for bringing about awareness of global climate change. In a recent op-ed on the New York Times site entitled, "We cant just wish away climate change." In this article Gore attacks the um, attacks, on the science of global climate change and makes some great points in the process.
First he says that even if global warming isn't happening, their are still many reasons to develop green energy, like national security and job creation.
Second Gore says, that although climatologists sometimes make mistakes (like overestimating the melting of some Himalayin glaciers) and science is not perfect. We should , however, pay attention to the scientific consensus developed over the last 22 years that says global climate change is happening.
Third, Gore addresses the current unusual cold weather on the east coast by contrasting it with the unusually hot weather we had during the summer. He explains that climate change cannot be accurately measured locally because it is a global trend. Extremes in weather patterns are one sign that the climate is shifting. He also point out that the last ten years have been the hottest "since modern records have been kept"
Gore then explains how global warming works, but if you don't already know this you need to take a science class. He does explain that hurricanes are predicted to get worse but less frequent and droughts are getting worse and longer lasting.
Then he comes to the whopper, "our civilization is still failing miserably to slow the rate at which these emissions are increasing — much less reduce them." Ouch.
At this point Gore begin to criticize the "political paralysis" that has stopped Obama from doing basically anything, including taking the necessary steps to slow climate change. I've been following this particular issue and it is indeed frustrating how petty and non-compromising our congress has been lately, but that's another issue entirely.
Here's where it starts getting really interesting from a branding perspective, Gore explains how an economic solution (cap and trade) is the easiest to implement and has the best chances of succeeding.
So what would cap and trade do from a branding perspective? Well once companies start getting charged for their pollution, they will have to stop polluting (or dramatically decrease their pollution) to stay profitable. This would be a boon to sustainability leaders who already have solutions to emissions problems. I am confident that cap and trade would boost green markets, from solar-power to green branding, and will start all once polluting industries on the path of sustainability.
Most of the arguements against cap and trade are coming from people who want our market to stay "free." I once considered myself a free-market capitalist but have realized (especially with our current economic situation) that our idea of free market is flawed, as it doesn't take into account all the externalities of production, namely pollution. Cap and trade is one way to start accounting for one of these externalities.
And here's a cool info-graphic form Treehugger showing how the different cap and trade bills would effect emissions.
Second Gore says, that although climatologists sometimes make mistakes (like overestimating the melting of some Himalayin glaciers) and science is not perfect. We should , however, pay attention to the scientific consensus developed over the last 22 years that says global climate change is happening.
Third, Gore addresses the current unusual cold weather on the east coast by contrasting it with the unusually hot weather we had during the summer. He explains that climate change cannot be accurately measured locally because it is a global trend. Extremes in weather patterns are one sign that the climate is shifting. He also point out that the last ten years have been the hottest "since modern records have been kept"
Gore then explains how global warming works, but if you don't already know this you need to take a science class. He does explain that hurricanes are predicted to get worse but less frequent and droughts are getting worse and longer lasting.
Then he comes to the whopper, "our civilization is still failing miserably to slow the rate at which these emissions are increasing — much less reduce them." Ouch.
At this point Gore begin to criticize the "political paralysis" that has stopped Obama from doing basically anything, including taking the necessary steps to slow climate change. I've been following this particular issue and it is indeed frustrating how petty and non-compromising our congress has been lately, but that's another issue entirely.
Here's where it starts getting really interesting from a branding perspective, Gore explains how an economic solution (cap and trade) is the easiest to implement and has the best chances of succeeding.
So what would cap and trade do from a branding perspective? Well once companies start getting charged for their pollution, they will have to stop polluting (or dramatically decrease their pollution) to stay profitable. This would be a boon to sustainability leaders who already have solutions to emissions problems. I am confident that cap and trade would boost green markets, from solar-power to green branding, and will start all once polluting industries on the path of sustainability.
Most of the arguements against cap and trade are coming from people who want our market to stay "free." I once considered myself a free-market capitalist but have realized (especially with our current economic situation) that our idea of free market is flawed, as it doesn't take into account all the externalities of production, namely pollution. Cap and trade is one way to start accounting for one of these externalities.
And here's a cool info-graphic form Treehugger showing how the different cap and trade bills would effect emissions.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Meatrix- How Does this relate to green-branding?
One of the most successful viral videos of all time (with over 15 million views) promotes a vegetarian lifestyle and sustainable foods while criticizing large scale agri-business and factory farms. Its called The Meatrix.
It is aimed at educating people about the effects of large-scale factory farms in a way that is entertaining and accessible to all audiences of all ages (and most nationalities, its been translated into 39 different languages). It was created by Free Range Studios, a "messaging firm" that also created the shorts "The Story of Stuff" and "Store Wars". It seems that the goal of Free Range Studios is to get to educate and motivate people to action with their funny (if cheesy) short films.
So what does this have to do with green branding? It shows how a small independent media producer like Free Range Studios can educate large numbers of people using only the internet and viral video campaigns.
It also emphasizes a particular trend of more educated consumers, people who are starting to wonder where their food comes from. People are starting to pay attention to the impact that their food is having and are starting to think that there is a better way to do things than the "conventional" one.
This trend is gaining ground. There have been a number of documentaries discussing food origins: King Corn, Fast Food Nation and popular novels such as "An Omnivoure's Dilema".
What does this mean for us as advertisers? More educated consumers that are demanding better products from better companies.
It is aimed at educating people about the effects of large-scale factory farms in a way that is entertaining and accessible to all audiences of all ages (and most nationalities, its been translated into 39 different languages). It was created by Free Range Studios, a "messaging firm" that also created the shorts "The Story of Stuff" and "Store Wars". It seems that the goal of Free Range Studios is to get to educate and motivate people to action with their funny (if cheesy) short films.
So what does this have to do with green branding? It shows how a small independent media producer like Free Range Studios can educate large numbers of people using only the internet and viral video campaigns.
It also emphasizes a particular trend of more educated consumers, people who are starting to wonder where their food comes from. People are starting to pay attention to the impact that their food is having and are starting to think that there is a better way to do things than the "conventional" one.
This trend is gaining ground. There have been a number of documentaries discussing food origins: King Corn, Fast Food Nation and popular novels such as "An Omnivoure's Dilema".
What does this mean for us as advertisers? More educated consumers that are demanding better products from better companies.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Is Ford Legitimately Going Green?
It's out of the norm for me to praise car companies for their green efforts. Usually I am calling bullshit on "green" marketing efforts for automobiles, because if there is any industry that is unsustainable and problem causing it is the automobile industry.
I am, however, beginning to changing my tune when it comes to Ford. Talking to Adam Werbach the other day made me realize that even the most unsustainable industries can benefit from adopting sustainable practice and Ford's efforts are hard to ignore.
I'll start with their latest "green dealership program" which you can read about at TreeHugger and at the Rocky Mountain Institute (who is teaming up with Ford on this project).
I agree that this voluntary program to make Ford dealerships more energy efficient is a smart step for Ford to make. As the RMI article talks about, this is going to be beneficial to these dealerships not only in terms of energy and $$$ saving but also as a touch point for green consumers looking to support a domestic car company when they buy a new car.
When it comes to sustainability, companies need to be thinking how they can be sustainable on a large scale and one effort is really not enough. But Ford seems to be making multiple efforts. Working with William McDonough, they designed and built world's largest green roof at their Kentucky facility.
They have begun retrofitting (and spending big $$$) their Wayne, Michigan plant in order to start producing "next-generation hybrids" and batteries to go with them. They have also made a serious effort to design car software in order to have a better infrastructure for plug-in electrics. Ford is also making an effort to increase the MPG of all their vehicles and is offering more fuel-efficient models than they ever have.
Other than their "green" efforts Ford has also made efforts to become more socially sustainable. They famously declined to take bail-out money and have been moving a lot of production back to the U.S. This is creating jobs and helping to eliminate our high unemployment.
Ford, as the strongest of the American car manufacturers, is beginning to see that the future of the automobile industry is going to be much different from the past and are beginning to make efforts to embrace this new future.
I am of course not without my criticisms. Ford is talking a lot of "green" and are doing it a bit prematurely. They still produce their fair share of gas-guzzling SUVs and large trucks with low MPG and they are still a polluting car manufacturer. However, at least they seem to be making a legitimate effort to enact some sustainable changes. I hope that they will one day become a leader in green car production and will put the U.S. on the map as a producer of better automobiles.
I am, however, beginning to changing my tune when it comes to Ford. Talking to Adam Werbach the other day made me realize that even the most unsustainable industries can benefit from adopting sustainable practice and Ford's efforts are hard to ignore.
I'll start with their latest "green dealership program" which you can read about at TreeHugger and at the Rocky Mountain Institute (who is teaming up with Ford on this project).
I agree that this voluntary program to make Ford dealerships more energy efficient is a smart step for Ford to make. As the RMI article talks about, this is going to be beneficial to these dealerships not only in terms of energy and $$$ saving but also as a touch point for green consumers looking to support a domestic car company when they buy a new car.
When it comes to sustainability, companies need to be thinking how they can be sustainable on a large scale and one effort is really not enough. But Ford seems to be making multiple efforts. Working with William McDonough, they designed and built world's largest green roof at their Kentucky facility.
They have begun retrofitting (and spending big $$$) their Wayne, Michigan plant in order to start producing "next-generation hybrids" and batteries to go with them. They have also made a serious effort to design car software in order to have a better infrastructure for plug-in electrics. Ford is also making an effort to increase the MPG of all their vehicles and is offering more fuel-efficient models than they ever have.
Other than their "green" efforts Ford has also made efforts to become more socially sustainable. They famously declined to take bail-out money and have been moving a lot of production back to the U.S. This is creating jobs and helping to eliminate our high unemployment.
Ford, as the strongest of the American car manufacturers, is beginning to see that the future of the automobile industry is going to be much different from the past and are beginning to make efforts to embrace this new future.
I am of course not without my criticisms. Ford is talking a lot of "green" and are doing it a bit prematurely. They still produce their fair share of gas-guzzling SUVs and large trucks with low MPG and they are still a polluting car manufacturer. However, at least they seem to be making a legitimate effort to enact some sustainable changes. I hope that they will one day become a leader in green car production and will put the U.S. on the map as a producer of better automobiles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
