The First Ever Green Branding Class at the UO: My Takeaways

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.