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.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Adam Werbach in Person (kinda)
Wednesday in class we got to meet face to video screen with Adam Werbach. Here's a couple of takeaways I got from our interaction:
So closely that maybe the agency model needs to be changed. I think that in the years to come we will see that internal client-side advertising/sustainability initiatives will take off as opposed to ad agency-based external ones. It seems that Saatchi S, Enviromedia, etc. are now occupying a niche in the agency world that is going to soon go mainstream and may even disappear. Just a thought, but I am interested in seeing where things are going to go!
Thank you Adam Werbach for the inspiration and insight!
- Like record companies and purveyors of gas-guzzling SUVs (Ahem..GM), The old advertising industry is dying a rapid death. Due to the availability of information and the ability to broadcast your opinions to the world, people are calling bullshit on advertising to the point where it is affecting sales. People just don't want to be "sold" to anymore. Sustainability has the potential to save the advertising industry by making agencies the purveyors of change, not pushers of products.
- "The best tool you have is knowing nothing" Werbach emphasized having an opoen mind and that the new generation of advertsing (us) have an advantage because we are not stuck doing things "the old way." We can be mentally and creativly flexible. These are essentails if you want to push change.
- "Greenwashing is bad marketing" and is also dying a rapid death for most of the same reasons that the old ways of advertising are dyding. You just cant trick people anymore.
- Sustainability starts within a business long before they should communicate about it. The time to communicate about a companies sustainability is at the "point of no return." This is when a company has integrated sustainability deeply in their business and have made capital investments which guarntee they follow through. The "point of no return" is a different time for every compnay.
- While Werbach said there are a few industries that are "inherently evil" namely, oil, tobacco, and bottled water companies, the majority of currently unsustainable businesses can benefit from adopting sustainable practices. Yes, even companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds.
- Regarding sustainable practices, companies are not asking the question, "should we do this?" but "how do we do this?" This is a big shift from just a few years back.
- Despite is flaws, our current industrial/economic model has done much to bring about social/economic justice and well-being to large numbers of people. This model needs to be "re-energized" with sustainability (social, economic, environmental, and cultural) guiding it, if it is going to continue being successful.
So closely that maybe the agency model needs to be changed. I think that in the years to come we will see that internal client-side advertising/sustainability initiatives will take off as opposed to ad agency-based external ones. It seems that Saatchi S, Enviromedia, etc. are now occupying a niche in the agency world that is going to soon go mainstream and may even disappear. Just a thought, but I am interested in seeing where things are going to go!
Thank you Adam Werbach for the inspiration and insight!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Green Branding Beer
I am a huge fan of micro-brews and particularly Oregon ones. I do the beer buying at my job and have noticed recently that more and more breweries are branding themselves, or particular beers, as green. Not surprisingly Portland, home of more breweries than any other city in the nation (source), is leading the charge with sustainable breweries, notably Hopworks Urban Brewery and Laurelwood.
Hopworks Urban Brewery (HUB) brings together three things I love, bikes, beer, and sustainability. They call themselves an "eco-pub" and source local and organic ingredients to make their beer (and serve at their restaurant). Wuth HUB being founded by a bunch of bike nuts, its not surprising that sustainability is one of their core values. They have even created a pedal-powered "bar-bike" so they can support events without having to drive to them.
HUB has an additional list of things they are doing to be more green, besides being organic, listed on their website. It seems that have put considerable thought into making thier brewery as sustainable as they can.
Laurelwood was the first Oregon brewery to produce 100% organically certified beers. While not striving to be a sustainable brew-pub like HUB is. They are leaders in the organic beer movement and make one of my favorite beers Free-Range Red. On a social sustainability level, Laurel wood also produces Prevail IPA, with proceeds of this beer going to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
Both of these breweries are exceptional and in perfect positions to brand themselves as green. They are 100% organic from the ground up and have sustainable thinking throughout their businesses. Its not surprising that, even though their beer are a bit more expensive (about $4.70 for a 22oz bottle), they have been very successful and both breweries have recently expanded their bottle and keg distribution areas.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Yet Another Interesting Transportation Trend: Car Sharing is Booming
When gas prices hit a record high in 2008 people began to think a bit harder about transportation. To deal with this unexpected rise in oil prices some people bought more fuel efficient vehicles, some people started using public transportation, some started riding a bike, and others began to car-share. According to this article at Treehugger a lot of people began to car-share. Most people did it to save money but others were interested in helping the environment and lengthening the time we have before oil runs out.
I found this really interesting because Portland has a very successful car share program, Zipcar, with strange and awesome branding. They mostly highlight how Zipcar can save you money and help the environment but they are doing some quirky things like naming their cars and giving them personalities. Zipcar is definitely one sweet green brand with an eye on sustainability.
To go along with my last post they are also a kick ass service-based company that decreases consumption of one of the biggest purchases people make, automobiles. If that Treehugger article is right I see big growth for the Zipcar folks.
I found this really interesting because Portland has a very successful car share program, Zipcar, with strange and awesome branding. They mostly highlight how Zipcar can save you money and help the environment but they are doing some quirky things like naming their cars and giving them personalities. Zipcar is definitely one sweet green brand with an eye on sustainability.
Kevin Tuerff from Enviromedia: How do we sell less consumption?
Last Monday Kevin Tuerff from Enviromedia came and spoke to my Green Branding class and I just wanted to touch on a few of his insights.
First off Kevin is the founder of the first "green branding" agency, EnviroMedia. He came to our class with challenges relating to the future of sustainable advertising/business and asked the question: How would you sell?
Wine in a keg (to eliminate the waste of glass wine bottles)
Boats powered by hydrogen (to eliminate water pollution related to boat fuel)
Lawn irrigation that uses treated waste water (to conserve water)
A brand of electric car charging stations (to build a electric car infrastructure)
Roof top shingle-solar panels (for home power generation)
And perhaps the toughest question of all:
How do you sell less consumption?
This is the question that has had my attention a lot lately. I don't think it is a contradictory idea. It would require in how business does business but I think it is a possible goal. These are the two biggest changes that need to happen before we can start to sell "less consumption."
The first thing that would need to change is how products are produced. In a time of rapid technological change companies need to start designing products that can be upgraded, thus creating products that never become technologically obsolete.You could then advertise not the new product, but the new upgrade, thus not advocating for more consumption. This could virtually eliminate "e-waste" and would create greater customer loyalty to a particular brand. A win for business and the environment.
The second thing, a concept discussed by Paul Hawken in Natural Capitalism, is a much needed shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy. To explain this I'll use my favorite example: Zerox. Zerox doesn't really sell copiers anymore, they rent them and provide service for them (and do upgrades). The Zerox copier has shifted from being a manufactured product to a service product. again this is a win win. Zerox saves money in the manufacturing process, businesses save money and time (not having to purchase a copier, and not having to call that repair guy in a week to fix it). Again it, is a product that can be advertised for its ability to decrease consumption and provide a win-win for businesses and manufacturers.
So that, Mr. Tuerff, is the answer to your question about how we sell less consumption. By being more creative, of course!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Organic Ceritifications: What Do They Mean?
So I've been curious about organic certifications and how/if the different ones use different criteria. This was prompted by my interest in doing a campaign for Oregon Tilth with a few colleagues and we needed to find out what differentiates one organic certification from the next. So I did a bit of research, and here are 4 of the major organic certifications that are used in the western U.S. and how they are different and the same.
OTCO: Oregon Tilth uses the Organic certifications laid out by the USDA's National Organic Program and certifies crop production, wildcrop harvesting, livestock production, and handling production (such as restaurants). Oregon Tilth also provides certifications for a number of different organic certification programs including the European and Canadian ones. Oregon Tilth, however, is more than just a certification agency they are also a nonprofit organization that provides education and advocacy for organic farms and farmers. Some of the companies certified organic by OTCO include: Organically Grown Company, Kettle Chips, Annie's Homegrown, Organic Valley and Laurelwood brewery.
CCOF: California Certified Organic Farming was one of the first organic certification programs. It has its own guidelines for organic certification but it is also recognized by the USDA program. CCOF also has a trade association and a foundation which is concerned with education, research, and advocacy. Interestingly CCOF was originally a group of farmers that had their own published standards and certified each other. Also their standards were the foundation for the USDA ones.
QAI: Quality Assurance International is a U.S. based organic certification program and is "the leading provider of organic certifications worldwide." Again it uses the USDA's criteria for certifying organic products. They certify a (very) long list of different companies.
OCIA: This is one that I'd never heard of before starting my research. The Organic Crop Improvement Association provides Organic certifications and "access to organic markets." They seem like the most international of the organic certification organizations I looked at and are accredited by the USDA, IFOAM, JAS, CARTV, and MAG. They have been around since 1985 and are a non-profit, and member owned "agricultural organization" which is again concerned with education and research. They also certify a huge number of different producers and products.
Conclusion: Well by comparing these four programs I yielded way more similarities than differences (at least with the criteria that I chose to compare them with). They are all non-profits, they all go by USDA organic standards, have active research and education campaigns and are all member controlled. This is awesome becasue it means that the different organizations are all cerifying to the same standards, guarantying that the porducts are actually organic. They seem like they are unified in their quest to produce better organic products and educate consumers and are not in direct competition with one another. They also all seem to serve their own regions even if they are international.
I think that if I dug a bit deeper I would find bigger differences associated with costs, scale and etc. but at least the most important fact to consumers, quality of certification, seems to be excellent across the board.
OTCO: Oregon Tilth uses the Organic certifications laid out by the USDA's National Organic Program and certifies crop production, wildcrop harvesting, livestock production, and handling production (such as restaurants). Oregon Tilth also provides certifications for a number of different organic certification programs including the European and Canadian ones. Oregon Tilth, however, is more than just a certification agency they are also a nonprofit organization that provides education and advocacy for organic farms and farmers. Some of the companies certified organic by OTCO include: Organically Grown Company, Kettle Chips, Annie's Homegrown, Organic Valley and Laurelwood brewery.
CCOF: California Certified Organic Farming was one of the first organic certification programs. It has its own guidelines for organic certification but it is also recognized by the USDA program. CCOF also has a trade association and a foundation which is concerned with education, research, and advocacy. Interestingly CCOF was originally a group of farmers that had their own published standards and certified each other. Also their standards were the foundation for the USDA ones.
QAI: Quality Assurance International is a U.S. based organic certification program and is "the leading provider of organic certifications worldwide." Again it uses the USDA's criteria for certifying organic products. They certify a (very) long list of different companies.
OCIA: This is one that I'd never heard of before starting my research. The Organic Crop Improvement Association provides Organic certifications and "access to organic markets." They seem like the most international of the organic certification organizations I looked at and are accredited by the USDA, IFOAM, JAS, CARTV, and MAG. They have been around since 1985 and are a non-profit, and member owned "agricultural organization" which is again concerned with education and research. They also certify a huge number of different producers and products.
Conclusion: Well by comparing these four programs I yielded way more similarities than differences (at least with the criteria that I chose to compare them with). They are all non-profits, they all go by USDA organic standards, have active research and education campaigns and are all member controlled. This is awesome becasue it means that the different organizations are all cerifying to the same standards, guarantying that the porducts are actually organic. They seem like they are unified in their quest to produce better organic products and educate consumers and are not in direct competition with one another. They also all seem to serve their own regions even if they are international.
I think that if I dug a bit deeper I would find bigger differences associated with costs, scale and etc. but at least the most important fact to consumers, quality of certification, seems to be excellent across the board.
FTC Takes Action Against Companies Making False Green Claims
I just saw this article on The Greenwashing Index and thought that it was deserving of a little discussion.
Here is the first paragraph of the article, which lays down the situation:
"The Federal Trade Commission has charged four sellers of clothing and other textile products with deceptively labeling and advertising these items as made of bamboo fiber, when they are made of rayon. The complaints also charge the companies with making false and unsubstantiated “green” claims that their clothing and textile products are manufactured using an environmentally friendly process, that they retain the natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, and that they are biodegradable."
So basically these four companies were greenwashing to the extreme and flat-out lying to their customers.To highlight just how ridiculous these companies claims are I suggest you check out their websites: Pure Bamboo, Jonano , Bambooza and Mad-mod (whose website is conveniently unavailable).
Yeah I am sure that your bamboo is organic, sustianable, and whatever but YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO USE IT in a pure form and not turn it into RAYON to make your "bamboo" clothing.
And just in case you were unsure here's a visual:
I just don't quite understand how companies making false green claims expect to get away with it. Wake up this is the information age! If you lie sooner or later someone is going to dig up the dirt on your company, especially if you are trying to pull a fast one on consumers buying green products (one of the more educated groups of consumers.)
Cheers to the FTC for going after these companies and I hope they continue the trend of ferrating out the unethical liars which have no place making any environmental claims.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sustainable Business Practices-Talking With Tom Osdoba
I would have posted this earlier but Ive been dead sick all weekend.
Anyway, Tom Osdoba , the director of the center for sustainable business practices at the UO, came and spoke to my green branding class last Wednesday, it was nothing short of inspirational.
After we hashed out some definitions of sustainability, he began to outline what a sustainable economy looks like. A sustainable (or alternatively conservation) economy is equally balenced on all sides by social capital, natural capital and economic capital. It uses all these capital resources wisely and gives back to all of them at the same time.
He also explained that we need to approach our environmental problems with humility and realize that we are not going to be able to "fix" every problem we created. Instead we need to start acting like the "native species" that we are. he further emphasized that how we are living currently is "incongruous with being native."
Tom then began to show us how the biggest challenges to sustainability are institutional. He emphasized how, if businesses started thinking long term, sustainable practices become more than cost effective, they become profitable. Tom also emphasized that change doesn't some about easily and it needs 3 major steps before someone (or more importantly, some business) will take action: concern + best practice+ institutional capacity= action.
I found Tom's speech inspiring on two levels.
One it showed in concrete ways how business and economic powers are the ones that have the ability to change things for the better. This is similar to what Adam Werbach talks about in "Strategy for Sustainability" and it begins to show me that maybe through business and economics (and of course advertising) we can begin to make some of the positive changes we so desperately need.
And two, it touched on ways to effective communicate to people about sustainability issues. Tom talked about getting residents of Vancouver to ride their bikes one day out of the week and instead of framing this as a sacrifice (which of course riding a bike never is) he used value messages to compel them. The key values he emphasized were: quality of life, natural environment, more time with family and friends. I believe this is important because we need to stop telling people to "make sacrifices" for the good of the environment and show them how living sustainably drastically improves your quality of life.
This is the message we need to drive home with all of our communications about being "green".
Anyway, Tom Osdoba , the director of the center for sustainable business practices at the UO, came and spoke to my green branding class last Wednesday, it was nothing short of inspirational.
He also explained that we need to approach our environmental problems with humility and realize that we are not going to be able to "fix" every problem we created. Instead we need to start acting like the "native species" that we are. he further emphasized that how we are living currently is "incongruous with being native."
Tom then began to show us how the biggest challenges to sustainability are institutional. He emphasized how, if businesses started thinking long term, sustainable practices become more than cost effective, they become profitable. Tom also emphasized that change doesn't some about easily and it needs 3 major steps before someone (or more importantly, some business) will take action: concern + best practice+ institutional capacity= action.
I found Tom's speech inspiring on two levels.
One it showed in concrete ways how business and economic powers are the ones that have the ability to change things for the better. This is similar to what Adam Werbach talks about in "Strategy for Sustainability" and it begins to show me that maybe through business and economics (and of course advertising) we can begin to make some of the positive changes we so desperately need.
And two, it touched on ways to effective communicate to people about sustainability issues. Tom talked about getting residents of Vancouver to ride their bikes one day out of the week and instead of framing this as a sacrifice (which of course riding a bike never is) he used value messages to compel them. The key values he emphasized were: quality of life, natural environment, more time with family and friends. I believe this is important because we need to stop telling people to "make sacrifices" for the good of the environment and show them how living sustainably drastically improves your quality of life.
This is the message we need to drive home with all of our communications about being "green".
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Ogilvy Earth: Green Branding or Green Washing? PT.3
My conclusion about Ogilvy Earth: Are they a true, transperant, thoughtleading green brand agency or run-of-the-mill-being-green-for-better-PR green washing extroidinars? Well neither and a little of both at the same time. While I would never call Ogilvy Earth "sustainable thought leaders" I do think that they are on their way to becoming a decent green branding agency.
They need to pick up some tougher clients, ones that would surprise me with a reinvented sustainable ground work. They should tackle someone tougher, how about Kraft, Frito-Lay, Johnson and Johnson or Crest? Ogilvy Earth is in a position to take on big non-green clients that small agencies would never be able to touch. They need to work on not just making brands look "more sustainable" but changing the way brands do business to make their practices sustainable.
Ogilvy Earth also needs to work on becoming more transparent and relevant to the audience that will be the most critical of its green agency claims, gen-y college students and young professionals. They need to steer away from the business jargon and explain, in layman's terms, the tactics they are using and how they are effective. I know when I see a buzz-word packed proclamation about how great their "Eco Audits" are, I immediately tune out and suspect them for trying to hide behind their sweet-sounding but little meaning words.
But they are doing some good things, and with the power (and $$$) that Ogilvy has, they are in a position to pave the way for other monolith agencies. So here's to you Ogilvy Earth for trying. I am sure to clients trying to "go green" you seem like a good choice but if you want to be believable to us, your audience, you need to take it to the next level.
They need to pick up some tougher clients, ones that would surprise me with a reinvented sustainable ground work. They should tackle someone tougher, how about Kraft, Frito-Lay, Johnson and Johnson or Crest? Ogilvy Earth is in a position to take on big non-green clients that small agencies would never be able to touch. They need to work on not just making brands look "more sustainable" but changing the way brands do business to make their practices sustainable.
Ogilvy Earth also needs to work on becoming more transparent and relevant to the audience that will be the most critical of its green agency claims, gen-y college students and young professionals. They need to steer away from the business jargon and explain, in layman's terms, the tactics they are using and how they are effective. I know when I see a buzz-word packed proclamation about how great their "Eco Audits" are, I immediately tune out and suspect them for trying to hide behind their sweet-sounding but little meaning words.
But they are doing some good things, and with the power (and $$$) that Ogilvy has, they are in a position to pave the way for other monolith agencies. So here's to you Ogilvy Earth for trying. I am sure to clients trying to "go green" you seem like a good choice but if you want to be believable to us, your audience, you need to take it to the next level.
Ogilvy Earth: Green Branding or Green Washing? PT.2
On to part 2 of my Ogilvy Earth examination. Although looking at their clients gave me some good insight into how Ogilvy Earth is operating, I think that its even more important to examine their tactics. Their tactics or "capabilities" as they refer to them are listed on the Ogilvy Earth site here.
They consist of an Eco Audit, Landscape Audit, The Lab, Earth-View Software, the Three Pillars Employee Survey and IQ Mapping. I would like to take a deeper look and see what all these fancy words really mean and delve further into Ogilvy Earth to answer my question of "Green branding or green washing?"
Eco Audit: "Collects, analyzes and synthesizes perspectives on sustainability goals, possibilities and realities, according to key stakeholders within the participating brand."
They do this by conducting interviews that (hopefully) "leads to key insights and ideas that already exist in a company’s operations and culture."
Well I guess interviews are a good start and a good way to get a feeling for how the company already thinks. I dont really see how this audit is "eco" other than it gives Ogilvy Earth an idea of what the company thinks about "sustainability." But how effective is this if the "key stakeholders" don't know jack shit about sustainability? How does Ogilvy Earth tell them that their goals are misguided if they are?
Landscape Audit: "By analyzing both online and offline news, information and cultural cues, we create a snapshot of sustainability as it relates to a particular industry or niche."
So this one seems pretty similar to the Eco Audit, but I don't really understand how this is effective for green branding. What if the "snapshot of sustainability" shows them that no one in that particular industry is addressing "sustainability?" What then? And aren't we really talking about reinvention to make your brand more sustainable. Who cares what your competitors or journalists are saying about "sustainabilty in your industry" I think this one is misguided because brands need to focus inward to be sustainable and not get their ideas of "sustainability" from others in their industry or journalists. How about scinetists instead?
The Lab: this one sounds creepy and awesome but what is The Lab? Ogivly Earth's website says "A living library of the world’s greatest thinkers on sustainability. Full-day Lab immersions include client and agency access to members of the Lab for workshops focused on defining a sustainability vision, a messaging platform, new product development, potential partnerships, packaging ideas and more."
this one sounds cool and in-line with green branding. Education of clients is vital in this process if they really want to reinvent their brand and "sustainablize" it. I would, however, like to see who are Ogilvy's "greatest thinkers on sustainability" though. A little more transperancy on this one would be good.
Earth-View software: "State-of-the-art technology offering a radar-style map that allows users to self-assess their current position in sustainability, for a visual presentation of a gap analysis."
that description is just too damned filled with agency jargon for me to make out what this really is. I assume its a visual representation of the Landscape Audit-showing where the client is in relation to other brands in term of sustainability. If that is the case, I have the same criticisms for this as the Landscape Audit, but I bet it looks really cool.
Three Pillars Survey: "A sophisticated tool used to engage the organization’s employees around the economic, social and environmental actions and reputation of a business."
This capability also seems to be on the right track by identifying how the employees of the client view them. Again a good starting point to reinvent a brand and a way for the "suits" to find out about how their employees think. I do question how honest and unbiased this is though. I mean I wouldn't bad mouth the company that pays my bills too much. Again, what if the employees of said company dont know anything about sustainability and environmental issues? I think this needs to be paired with some employee education to be effective.
IQ Mapping: "A technique with both quantitative and qualitative benefits that helps identify key influencers who can make or break a client’s entry into the sustainability conversation particular to a brand’s category or industry."
Basically introducing a client to the thought leaders in their industry. Cool. But this sounds a bit like PR spinning to me. I think a client's "make or break into the sustainability conversation" depends more on their business practices (and how sustainable they actually are) then who they know in the industry.
With this I've finished my examination of Ogilvy Earth and I feel I have a pretty good idea of where they stand as a green branding agency. I may have been a bit harsh in my criticism but standing up to harsh criticism is what a client (an agency) has to do if they want to make it in the "sustainable" business world.
See part 3 for my final conclusions!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Ogilvy Earth: Green branding or Green washing? PT.1
I love to see large multi-national advertising agencies getting involved in green branding. I really do. But sometimes I am skeptical of their intentions. Are they just hopping on the green wagon or are they really trying to change things for the better. In order to answer my question, I decided to look at OgilvyEarth and examine their green branding strategies.
First I looked at their clients:
Environmental Defense Fund: OgilvyEarth did a campaign to help raise awareness about the correlation between driving and global warming. They promoted the idea of "ride don't Drive" with inflating polar bears placed around new york. A pretty cool guerrilla marketing idea but did it really promote sustainability? They also ran PSAs that directed people to the Environmental Defense Fund's website fightglobalwarming.com.
I think that this campaign was too easy and doesn't show that OgilvyEarth are really thought leaders. It is grossly unoriginal (oh Polar bears and global warming, that's never been done before) and it was preaching to the choir a bit. Although it did win a bunch of rewards, did it really cut down on driving?
Qantas Air: A little bit more challenging company to "green up". OgilvyEarth instituted a "be green" sustainability program that helped Qantas employees to take "localized action" on environmental issues they found pressing. This campaign was interesting because it focused mostly on Qantas Air employees "greening" up to meet "reduction targets" to help reduce Qantas' environmental impact. This is a kinda cool approach and hopefully encouraged employees to green up their own lives outside of work.
Tetra Pak: Another client that seems a bit too easy. OgilvyEarth ran a campaign to educate TetraPak's audience on how their product is "more Sustainable" than other packaging companies. Yes Tetra Pak is better for the environment, and arguably a good green product, but this campaign begs the question, "can any packaging company call themselves sustainable?" Are consumers of Tetra Pak really doing something "something positive for the planet?" or just something less negative?
Du pont: Alright, cool OgilvyEarth I am with you taking on this one. Du Pont was already doing "sustainable" building practices though, and they were already working in Greensburg befor Ogilvy stepped in. Ogilvy brought much needed awareness to Du Pont but again, this client is too easy.
In summary, I think that while OgilvyEarth has done some good things for already "green" clients, what it really needs to do is to take on clients that aren't already "green". It has the power as a large agency to step in and start changing how companies do business to better address environmental issues. I wont know where OgilvyEarth's intentions lie, whether they are in the business of making Ogilvy look good or whether they are passionately trying to chnage things for the better, until they start taking some risks and changing how some not so environmentally friendly companies do business.
I will continue this examination in PT.2 with a look at OgilvyEarth's tactics.
First I looked at their clients:
Environmental Defense Fund: OgilvyEarth did a campaign to help raise awareness about the correlation between driving and global warming. They promoted the idea of "ride don't Drive" with inflating polar bears placed around new york. A pretty cool guerrilla marketing idea but did it really promote sustainability? They also ran PSAs that directed people to the Environmental Defense Fund's website fightglobalwarming.com.
I think that this campaign was too easy and doesn't show that OgilvyEarth are really thought leaders. It is grossly unoriginal (oh Polar bears and global warming, that's never been done before) and it was preaching to the choir a bit. Although it did win a bunch of rewards, did it really cut down on driving?
Qantas Air: A little bit more challenging company to "green up". OgilvyEarth instituted a "be green" sustainability program that helped Qantas employees to take "localized action" on environmental issues they found pressing. This campaign was interesting because it focused mostly on Qantas Air employees "greening" up to meet "reduction targets" to help reduce Qantas' environmental impact. This is a kinda cool approach and hopefully encouraged employees to green up their own lives outside of work.
Tetra Pak: Another client that seems a bit too easy. OgilvyEarth ran a campaign to educate TetraPak's audience on how their product is "more Sustainable" than other packaging companies. Yes Tetra Pak is better for the environment, and arguably a good green product, but this campaign begs the question, "can any packaging company call themselves sustainable?" Are consumers of Tetra Pak really doing something "something positive for the planet?" or just something less negative?
Du pont: Alright, cool OgilvyEarth I am with you taking on this one. Du Pont was already doing "sustainable" building practices though, and they were already working in Greensburg befor Ogilvy stepped in. Ogilvy brought much needed awareness to Du Pont but again, this client is too easy.
In summary, I think that while OgilvyEarth has done some good things for already "green" clients, what it really needs to do is to take on clients that aren't already "green". It has the power as a large agency to step in and start changing how companies do business to better address environmental issues. I wont know where OgilvyEarth's intentions lie, whether they are in the business of making Ogilvy look good or whether they are passionately trying to chnage things for the better, until they start taking some risks and changing how some not so environmentally friendly companies do business.
I will continue this examination in PT.2 with a look at OgilvyEarth's tactics.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
An interesting trend.
I just saw this article linked over at bikeportland.org and thought it was an interesting trend that could effect the future of green branding.
This article basically says that more cars were scraped last year than purchased (thus shrinking the number of US cars by 4 million) and it explains some of the trends that may have caused this. I
So the question, from a branding perspective is, How do you deal with statistics like this if your client is a car company? How does a car company stay afloat when there is less demand for cars and more competition from other car companies and transportation alternatives, like bikes? How do you appeal to younger people who are losing interest in cars and would rather ride their sweet fixed-gears than drive? Is it high time for the automakers' herd to be thinned (ohh sorry Chrysler and GM )?
I don't have the answers to these problems (yet!), but I think these are interesting and necessary questions to ask as the US' love affair with cars begins to head south.
This article basically says that more cars were scraped last year than purchased (thus shrinking the number of US cars by 4 million) and it explains some of the trends that may have caused this. I
So the question, from a branding perspective is, How do you deal with statistics like this if your client is a car company? How does a car company stay afloat when there is less demand for cars and more competition from other car companies and transportation alternatives, like bikes? How do you appeal to younger people who are losing interest in cars and would rather ride their sweet fixed-gears than drive? Is it high time for the automakers' herd to be thinned (ohh sorry Chrysler and GM )?
I don't have the answers to these problems (yet!), but I think these are interesting and necessary questions to ask as the US' love affair with cars begins to head south.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Small things to go Green
With all the talking we've done about Green branding and trends, I wanted to post something a little more relevant to people's daily lives. I would like to share some little things that I do to reduce my impact on the environment and support green businesses. I am by far not the Greenest person in the world but I think that I do fairly well for my lack of resources, being a super broke college student and all.
1. Ride a bike: I think bikes are awesome.
They are easily accessible and are a great way to reduce your impact on the environment, get to know your community better, meet great people and stay in shape. I do about 90% of my errands on my bike and use it as my primary means of transportation. I do own a car and drive it as well, but if I have to get anywhere within 15 miles or so its on the trusty two-wheeled steed.
2. Eat local food: Eating local produce and locally produced food is a great way to support your local economy/community and reduce your carbon footprint.
Its even better if you live in a wonderously eco-conscious place like eugene because most of the locally produced food here is Organic. We also have some great locally produced beer so I can cover that base easily. I feel like the "buy local" movement is a great thing and I believe that we will see it gaining ground in the next few years.
3. Eat more plants: As you can see, I think what you eat (and buy) is a key environmental issue.
I am a vegetarian because producing meat is a wasteful drain of natural resources and terribly inefficient. The more plant based foods you eat the smaller your impact. Now being vegetarian is easier than ever as more and more companies are producing vegetarian alternatives that are cheap and easy.
4. Buy things from companies you agree with: Voting with you dollar is a great way to help change things for the better.
I try and buy things from companies and businesses that i agree with, ones that support community and are conscious of their environmental impact. To go along with this, I also try and buy things used whenever possible or make things I need myself. New products use new resources and are not usually necessary. The more we support good companies the more good companies there will be.
5. Re-use and recycle: I know that these are cliches nowadays but seriously they are still great ways to help conserve resources.
I see current trends that are furthering this mindset like reusable water bottles and people buying more durable goods both things that I try and do also.
This is by far not a complete list but i didn't want to ramble on. I am not big on making huge sacrifices to help the environment as I don't think this is a way to change things. The things Ive chosen don't take away from ones quality of life, they make life more interesting if anything. I also believe that change will come about from people's lifestyle and buying choices and here is where these things become relevent to advertising and "green" branding.
1. Ride a bike: I think bikes are awesome.
2. Eat local food: Eating local produce and locally produced food is a great way to support your local economy/community and reduce your carbon footprint.
Its even better if you live in a wonderously eco-conscious place like eugene because most of the locally produced food here is Organic. We also have some great locally produced beer so I can cover that base easily. I feel like the "buy local" movement is a great thing and I believe that we will see it gaining ground in the next few years.
3. Eat more plants: As you can see, I think what you eat (and buy) is a key environmental issue.
I am a vegetarian because producing meat is a wasteful drain of natural resources and terribly inefficient. The more plant based foods you eat the smaller your impact. Now being vegetarian is easier than ever as more and more companies are producing vegetarian alternatives that are cheap and easy.
4. Buy things from companies you agree with: Voting with you dollar is a great way to help change things for the better.
I try and buy things from companies and businesses that i agree with, ones that support community and are conscious of their environmental impact. To go along with this, I also try and buy things used whenever possible or make things I need myself. New products use new resources and are not usually necessary. The more we support good companies the more good companies there will be.
5. Re-use and recycle: I know that these are cliches nowadays but seriously they are still great ways to help conserve resources.
I see current trends that are furthering this mindset like reusable water bottles and people buying more durable goods both things that I try and do also.
This is by far not a complete list but i didn't want to ramble on. I am not big on making huge sacrifices to help the environment as I don't think this is a way to change things. The things Ive chosen don't take away from ones quality of life, they make life more interesting if anything. I also believe that change will come about from people's lifestyle and buying choices and here is where these things become relevent to advertising and "green" branding.
Monday, January 11, 2010
How Green is the Toyota Prius?
I should first preface this article with my views on hybrids so you see where I am coming from. I think they are dangerous, expensive, and by far not the "greenest" vehicles you can drive. Their silent engine is hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists (I know a few people that have been hit by Priuses while cycling). They cost more than $20,000, cheap for a car but equal to the cost of about 20 bikes or 4 used Honda civics and their environmental impact is questioned. I found a few articles about the environmental impact of the Prius, here and here. These articles question the life cycle of the Prius and the toxicity of its batteries. Although some of the research is questioned it gets one thinking about Toyota's transparency and begs the question, "how green is Toyota as a company?" As brands making green claims should be green across their company.
If we look at the Prius with the "green" guage that most people look at (MPG) than the Prius looks great with an EPA MPG rating of 52 city 45 Hwy. However if we look at some of Toyota's other cars we can see that this is not the case. Toyota also produces the Tundra (15/19 MPG), The Land Cruiser (13/18 MPG), Sienna (17/23 MPG), and FJ Cruiser (17/22 MPG). Not exactly the most environmentally friendly fleet if you ask me.
Perhaps the car company that should be touting their "greeness" is not Toyota, but Volkswagon.
My band on the other hand by band, Fueled By Oppression, has quite a different opinion about the Prius. Just take a listen to our song End All Be All (shameless plug).
Saturday, January 9, 2010
DIY is on the rise
The TED talk we watched in class http://www.ted.com/talks/john_gerzema_the_post_crisis_consumer.html
got me thinking about good things that resulted from our current recession. One thing that interested me was the return of the DIY (do it yourself) movement. The current DIY movement really started in the 80s during our last really big recession and was mostly an underground anti-consumerism movement closely associated with the Punk Rock and underground music scenes.
Today the DIY movement has evolved to the point where it is almost a mainstream past-time with websites like Insturctables and publications like Make Magazine providing DIY insturctions to make everything from portable hard drives, to bike racks, to recycled shopping bags (and pretty much anything else that could be useful and cobbled together from a trip to Home Depot).
So what does this have to do with green branding? a lot. I think that this trend shows how people can use their creativity, ingenuity and the internet community to avoid making purchases of things that they dont really need. People are starting to realize that they dont neccesarily need a company to make everything for them, that they can make things themselves and save resources in the process. I feel that the rise of DIY is due in part to people wanting to save money but also due to people being more aware about resource depletion and how many resources go into pre-packaged products.
Green Brands can capitalize on recognizing the reasons this movement is becoming more popular. They should start paying more attention to how their products get from their warehouses to the stores and address whether their products are actually needed or if there are DIY alternatives to the things they are selling.
I just thought that creating campaigns for brands that address DIYers may be an innovative way to talk to people about stuff that matters to them. Waddaya think?
got me thinking about good things that resulted from our current recession. One thing that interested me was the return of the DIY (do it yourself) movement. The current DIY movement really started in the 80s during our last really big recession and was mostly an underground anti-consumerism movement closely associated with the Punk Rock and underground music scenes.
Today the DIY movement has evolved to the point where it is almost a mainstream past-time with websites like Insturctables and publications like Make Magazine providing DIY insturctions to make everything from portable hard drives, to bike racks, to recycled shopping bags (and pretty much anything else that could be useful and cobbled together from a trip to Home Depot).
So what does this have to do with green branding? a lot. I think that this trend shows how people can use their creativity, ingenuity and the internet community to avoid making purchases of things that they dont really need. People are starting to realize that they dont neccesarily need a company to make everything for them, that they can make things themselves and save resources in the process. I feel that the rise of DIY is due in part to people wanting to save money but also due to people being more aware about resource depletion and how many resources go into pre-packaged products.
Green Brands can capitalize on recognizing the reasons this movement is becoming more popular. They should start paying more attention to how their products get from their warehouses to the stores and address whether their products are actually needed or if there are DIY alternatives to the things they are selling.
I just thought that creating campaigns for brands that address DIYers may be an innovative way to talk to people about stuff that matters to them. Waddaya think?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Cradle to Cradle
To go along with the TED talk we watched in class today I wanted to highlight another thought leader, William McDonough, that was a co-author of the book Cradle to Cradle http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm. The book itself is McDonough putting his money where his highfalutin mouth is. It is made of a polymer and is 100% recyclable (and waterproof to boot.) He is another thought leader, this time a designer, who believes that there is an economic and design solution to many of today's problems.
Here's the link to his TED talk (sorry but the video wouldn't embed). Its a little bit lengthy but I think you'll find it entertaining and pertinent to some of the discussions we've had in class.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html
This TED talk was first shown to me by John Park in his ARTD252 class and it was one of the first design/architectural/economic solutions to some of our contemporary problems that I felt had legs. Enjoy.
Here's the link to his TED talk (sorry but the video wouldn't embed). Its a little bit lengthy but I think you'll find it entertaining and pertinent to some of the discussions we've had in class.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html
This TED talk was first shown to me by John Park in his ARTD252 class and it was one of the first design/architectural/economic solutions to some of our contemporary problems that I felt had legs. Enjoy.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Adam Werbach knows whats up.
After reading the Birth of Blue Speech, I am stoked again to be in this industry. Adam Werbach, calls it like it is. I have always thought that an economic and capital change is what our country really needs. It allows us to escape the bureaucratic quagmire that is our political system and puts power where it should be, with consumers and their wallets. I guess I should have prefaced this by explaining that I am a capitalist through and through. I feel that, however flawed it may be, our economic system has done way more good than harm and it can be used as a tool to make the world a better place.
I was stoked to find out that Adam Werbach worked with Paul Hawkin on his Wal-Mart project. I read Paul Hawkins book "Natural Capitalism" http://www.natcap.org/ about four years ago and it played a big part in shaping my view that ecological improvement can be achieved through a re-tooled economic system. I may have never chose Advertising as a major and career if it wasn't for me reading Paul Hawkin's work and it excites me that our industry is building on his ideas.
Another Werbach idea I thought was cool was the PSP. It goes along with the idea of the environmental movement that little changes can make a big difference and that setting small achievable goals (and achieving them) can make you a happier and better person. SO I think we should all make our own PSP for them term and try to stick with it. I'll start.
My PSP is to be a stricter vegetarian. I've been Vegi for about 6 years now but have slacked off within the last year or so and have included fish and sometimes turkey into my diet. I think its high time to cut those out again. So there's mine, what's yours?
I was stoked to find out that Adam Werbach worked with Paul Hawkin on his Wal-Mart project. I read Paul Hawkins book "Natural Capitalism" http://www.natcap.org/ about four years ago and it played a big part in shaping my view that ecological improvement can be achieved through a re-tooled economic system. I may have never chose Advertising as a major and career if it wasn't for me reading Paul Hawkin's work and it excites me that our industry is building on his ideas.
Another Werbach idea I thought was cool was the PSP. It goes along with the idea of the environmental movement that little changes can make a big difference and that setting small achievable goals (and achieving them) can make you a happier and better person. SO I think we should all make our own PSP for them term and try to stick with it. I'll start.
My PSP is to be a stricter vegetarian. I've been Vegi for about 6 years now but have slacked off within the last year or so and have included fish and sometimes turkey into my diet. I think its high time to cut those out again. So there's mine, what's yours?
First Post: My color branding definitions
I'll get this thing rolling in a way that any ex-philosophy major can appreciate: my own definitions of "color" branding.
Green: Environmentally, sustainable, Eco-conscious etc... any branding attempt that applies some area of the environmental movement to a product, service or company. I view Green branding as a good thing overall, I think the trend is helping companies become environmental leaders and requires them to be open and transparent (as there is nothing that and environmentalist loves more than digging up dirt on companies). Most attempts to "green" brand a company, unfortunately, fall short. It isn't enough to tell me your company is "enviornmentally conscious" you better have the facts to back it up. I'll attempt to highlight some companies that do this well.
Blue: Although I am completing stealing this term from Adam Werbach (let's say I am re-appropriating it, not stealing, it makes me sound like a friendlier person.) "Blue" branding is the next step in the process. Blue Branding is where an agency and client partnership changes the way a company does business, for the better. The easiest example off the top of my head is the pedigree and TBWA/Chiat/Day dogs rule campaign http://www.dogsrule.com/ in which Pedigree took the extra step to improve the lives of their employees and their pups by allowing pets at work, and helping to get pets adopted among other things. Blue branding is next level thought-leader branding. It should be the ultimate goal for an agency and I will try to post examples when I find them.
Black: These branding attempts are, unfortunately, going to be the easiest to find. "Black" branding is my new term for "green washing" or a way to label companies that make branding attempts that I feel are untruthful, racist, sexist, outlandish, or inappropriate. Black branding is what puts people in the advertising industry at the level of used-care salespeople and lawyers in the minds of 90% of the public. These branding attempts need to be called out into the public square, put in stocks, and drawn and quartered if they don't cease and desist. If we, as an industry, ever want to achieve positive change we need to distance ourselves from these aganecies and companies. Ill do my best to call them out when I see em.
I'll use these definitions to tag my posts, giving me a way to categorize them. I hope this will make everything clearer for everyone.
Green: Environmentally, sustainable, Eco-conscious etc... any branding attempt that applies some area of the environmental movement to a product, service or company. I view Green branding as a good thing overall, I think the trend is helping companies become environmental leaders and requires them to be open and transparent (as there is nothing that and environmentalist loves more than digging up dirt on companies). Most attempts to "green" brand a company, unfortunately, fall short. It isn't enough to tell me your company is "enviornmentally conscious" you better have the facts to back it up. I'll attempt to highlight some companies that do this well.
Blue: Although I am completing stealing this term from Adam Werbach (let's say I am re-appropriating it, not stealing, it makes me sound like a friendlier person.) "Blue" branding is the next step in the process. Blue Branding is where an agency and client partnership changes the way a company does business, for the better. The easiest example off the top of my head is the pedigree and TBWA/Chiat/Day dogs rule campaign http://www.dogsrule.com/ in which Pedigree took the extra step to improve the lives of their employees and their pups by allowing pets at work, and helping to get pets adopted among other things. Blue branding is next level thought-leader branding. It should be the ultimate goal for an agency and I will try to post examples when I find them.
Black: These branding attempts are, unfortunately, going to be the easiest to find. "Black" branding is my new term for "green washing" or a way to label companies that make branding attempts that I feel are untruthful, racist, sexist, outlandish, or inappropriate. Black branding is what puts people in the advertising industry at the level of used-care salespeople and lawyers in the minds of 90% of the public. These branding attempts need to be called out into the public square, put in stocks, and drawn and quartered if they don't cease and desist. If we, as an industry, ever want to achieve positive change we need to distance ourselves from these aganecies and companies. Ill do my best to call them out when I see em.
I'll use these definitions to tag my posts, giving me a way to categorize them. I hope this will make everything clearer for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
