Browse
Engage
Research
J. Walter Thompson (JWT), the global advertising agency, in its recent green consumer study ("The Recession and its Impact on the Environment") found that "... some of the terms we use to talk about being green ... are not clear to consumers, or even defined at all." JWT cites, for example, significant confusion over the terms environmental, going green and sustainability.
JWT in turn counsels marketers to "Drop the buzzwords.Talk to consumers about tangible benefits in realistic terms to avoid seeming disconnected … "
That's good advice. It certainly is wise to avoid using terms that confuse customers. But for how long? Indefinitely? Should we simply throw up our hands and resign ourselves to being perpetually unable to use the term sustainability in an advertisement? We shouldn't. And here's why.
Our goal as marketers is to access, elicit and channel the deeper motivations of consumers. A critical means of doing this is to dialogue with consumers. Nomenclature -- a clear, precise set of terms -- facilitates dialogue. And terms that are confusing and imprecise stifle dialogue.
Not using green terms certainly is a reasonable stopgap measure for addressing consumer confusion. But it severely limits our dialogue with consumers. Thus, the most effective long-term measure is to take the bull by the horns and clarify green terminology for consumers.
Therefore, I propose that we, the green marketing community, unite to develop a set of clearly defined, universally accepted green terms. And we should supplement those terms with context. We should explain, for example, that the 1987 Brundtland Commission report is the progenitor of both the modern concept of sustainability and the notion that environmental sustainability is integrally connected to social and economic sustainability. And that these concepts have driven the broadening of the definition of green, the diffusion of the corporate social responsibility movement, and the use of the triple bottom line measure of company performance.
Once we define green terms, we then should educate the consumer about them by means of public relations campaigns, news media coverage, program content and advertising.
It is in our self-interest as marketers of green products to take these actions. However, it is also altruistic. Because if these actions result in greater sales of sustainable products we will be improving our planet for future generations.
Who's with me on this?
Michael Mercier is president of Deeper Insights, a market research and consulting firm, and can be reached at Michael.Mercier@DeeperInsights.biz.
Images CC licensed by Flickr user Jeff Kubina.
proof of sustainability
Let's let the science speak - show that a product is certified or verified by a third-party independent organization, one with rigorous standards. Sustainability does cover the 3 pillars, but since every product or service isn't getting life-cycle assessment + audited for fair labor practices, it's not going to cover every aspect of sustainability.
Eco-labels have their limitations, but intelligent consumers will learn which ones to trust. Sustainability can also be looked at as a process to improve and learn (as we gather more scientific and empirical data), so various labels are a indication of a particular claim which shows that they are making positive efforts and are being transparent.
Some labels are developed for more B-to-B use, and certainly the industry buyers should be aware of the importance of independent analysis (is it really 75% recycled content?, is it really sustainable wood? USGBC says it is if it's certified FSC, etc.)
More Clarification, Not More Terms
Mr. Mercier,
thank you for a thoughtful article. I don't necessarily agree that we need new terms. I think we as marketers need to state very clearly how we define a word or term we are using - green or otherwise. Then we need to point consumers to where they can easily find more information, should they choose to delve deeper into a company's corporate behavior, or product sourcing and manufacturing details.
While I personally embrace sustainability as meaning the triple bottom line as outlined in Brundtland, I don't assume that everyone shares that point of view, or that there is only one shade of green; all the more reason to explain one's position and provide documentation.
I don't think all consumers need education [many are pretty darn savvy], just transparency and as much information available as they desire.
Jane Tabachnick
Jane Tabachnick Marketing
Founder, Green Marketing Group - Linked In
Jane: My point in the article
Jane:
My point in the article was that we have to define the existing terms, not manufacture new ones. I cite the three specific terms that the JWT study cites (all of which are common, popular terms), and then I use the term "sustainability" as an example of an existing and popular term that we SHOULD be able to use but that is causing confusion for the consumer --- and thus needs to be defined for the consumer.
Consumer ARE savvy. I don't claim that they aren't. However, the JWT study, as well as some other studies, have shown that consumers are unclear on the definitions of many terms that we use. That is a fact --- it's not a judgement of consumers' intelligence. I'm asserting that we should give the consumers the definitions. In one of my responses to another comment below, I say the same thing you say --- that consumers are very intelligent. The fact that we have Chief Sustainability Officers in the corporate world indicates that (1) there is a definition of sustainable (Lord, I sure would hope so if we give someone such a title) and that (2) human beings can comprehend that definition. We who work in the green realm have had a lot of time to think about, discuss and reflect on our terms --- and thus to fully understand them. The average consumer hasn't. So we just have to define the terms for them. They indeed will get it.
Regarding your point about the varying definitions of sustainability --- if there are a variety of definitions -- if you are correct --- then that SUPPORTS the point in the JWT research. That consumers are confused. And if that indeed is the case, we MUST come up with some standard. If we have 10 different defitinitons of sustainability then how could industry insiders even have a dialogue about it. When I learn that so-and-so is the "Chief Sustainability Officer" of a company, am I going to have to get the company's subjective definition of sustainability in order to comprehend what that person's objectives are? It's an absurd situation. That's why we need some universal definitions. So that we can talk to each other without having to pause and check for someone's subjective definition.
Mike Mercier
Walmart is proof of multiple definitions of sustainability
Mike,
I guess I and a few others misunderstood your points. Its a hard topic to write about, as I myself have experience.
I think Walmart is a good example of a company whose definition of sustainability is different than the one you propose. Their entire focus is environmental [at this time]. If and when they tackle the social side, including fair wages, not just to their employees but to those workers who manufacture their garments and products, I have serious doubts that they have a sustainable business model - at their existing retail price points.
I also want to add that I believe companies, and marketers have to do better to make existing sustainability and corporate behavior information available on websites, and it needs to be easy to find. I have visited the sites of companies running green ad campaigns to find our more, and have had to do a lot of searching around, sometimes coming up with no further information. It could be questioned at that point whether they were greenwashing, even if that was not the case.
Jane
Jane: Let me use the Walmart
Jane:
Let me use the Walmart example to exemplify how clarifying terms would help us understand each other with less wasted effort. Let's take the Brundtland definition of sustainability --- in terms of its being comprised of three pillars --- the environmental, the social and the economic. If we were to all agree that this is a basic, universal definition of sustainability, then Walmart would simply say "we choose to place greater emphasis on the ENVIRONMENTAL component of sustainability". Instead of getting into a prefatory discussion, every time Walmart talks about sustainability, regarding how Walmart DEFINES sustainability.
Here's a way for me to make really concrete the total inefficiency of not universally defining our terms, or having subjective, multiple definitions for a single term. Imagine that you attend a green product trade show, and there are 250 booths in the exhibit area. And you are walking around talking to the people in the booths about their products. Are you going to pause every time they use a term and ask "Wait a minute, could you just explain to me what YOU mean by 'greenwashing', or 'sustainability', or 'ecological'?", before you continue the conversation? All the wasted effort, the disruption of the flow of dialogue, the distraction....
Now, my point here is not necessarily to assert MY belief that the standard definition of sustainability necessarily HAS to be the Brundtland. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the standard definitions are. We just need to define them so that we stop wasting time constantly checking with people about their subjective definition, or doing what JWT proposes --- to just stop talking about fundamental CONCEPTS, such as sustainability.
To my mind this idea of defining terms isn't an odd notion. That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias and textbooks. We are driven to define our terms so that we can dialogue. This issue of having no definitions or multiple definitions for single terms is really not existent in other industries. It IS an issue in the green realm because it has evolved at an accelerated pace and nobody has really paused to take the time to organize the thinking for the public.
Regarding your last paragraph, in my article I am simply talking about defining terms so that we can talk to each other. WHAT we talk about, WHAT we claim, WHAT we assert with those defined terms is yet another issue --- one that I don't addess in my article. HOWEVER, I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH WHAT YOU SAY IN YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH. We all have to get serious about our sincerity and our credibility around this issue. Companies have to make an effort to PROVE to the public --- the make the public both FEEL and INTELLECTUALLY UNDERSTAND that they are genuine in their commitment to the long-term future of the planet, and not just jumping on a bandwagon for short-term gain.
Mike
Response To Mr. Douglas
Mr. Douglas:
Regarding your second point, I think you and I are talking about two distinct issues. The first issue --- my issue --- is defining terms so that we can have a dialogue with consumers. So that we can talk about VERY common concepts, such as being "green" or "sustainable", and the consumer will comprehend with little effort what exactly it is that we are referring to.
You raise a different point. You are talking about making claims about our products using these defined terms. That is another challenge that must be addressed. Yes, consumers are skeptical about claims that companies are "green", or that their products are "green". That is quite a different issue and a different challenge. The challenge there is for a company to establish credibility with the consumer. We all have to figure that one out too. But we certainly can't ignore the problem. We should face it square on, study it, test solutions, and figure out what works. We have to figure out what we can do to salvage our credibility in making green claims about our companies and our products.
Keep in mind that when I refer to using these terms in our "marketing" or "marketing communications", I am thinking about marketing communications broadly. I'm not thinking of using such terms just in packaging or a print ad. There are far more involving means of marketing communications in which points can be elaborated, and a dialog can be held. It could involve sales people discussing a product in person with a customer. Customer service people dialoguing with customers. Product seminars. Public relations events in which dialogues take place. Articles about our products or companies. That dialog also could apply even to things like the market research process. Spending 2 hours with 6 consumers in a focus group constitutes a form of dialogue with our customers. Are going to excise critical concepts like "sustainability" from our research dialogue forever?
Finally, there is a major disconnect here. We have an enormous number of companies that have "sustainability" initiatives, and Corporate Social Responsibility Departments that are implementing sustainability practices. Would you say that people like you --- people running these deparments and implementing these programs --- don't undertand the definition of sustainability? If your answer is no, then you are acknowledging that there indeed is a definition for the term, and that people can comprehend it if it is fully explained to them. I say let's give the consumer some credit and explain the term. They'll get it. Let's not excise the term --- and thus the concept --- from the language and the dialgue.
Respectfully,
Mike Mercier
Response To Mr. Koopman
Mr. Koopman:
I'm not suggesting that we create another word --- or a set of new words. I agree that this would further confuse consumers. For example, some people are trying to launch "The Blue Movement". In my opinion that is a waste of time because if you read their definition of the movement it is really the same as the Green Movement (the modern green movement) and the Sustainability Movement. Rather, I'm suggesting that we simply define the terms that are commonly used.
It doesn't throw me for a loop when someone uses the term "sustainability". Sustainbility has a clear definition. But I know this because I have researched and investigated the definition of sustainability. I have read that definition in "Our Common Future", the Brundtland Commission's Report of 1987. And this is the common, authoritative definition today. THE PROBLEM for consumers --- the reason that the JWT study found that consumers were confused about that term --- is because nobody has defined it for THEM. The average consumer hasn't done the basic research to define the term, and, unfortunately, nobody has spoon fed it to him/her.
To your point that these words alienate consumers. I acknowledge this. I report this in my article --- I convey to the reader that JWT found this. But my point is to say "Hey, let's not bury our heads in the sand and avoid in perpetuity discussing a critical concept like sustainability. Let's just solve the problem by defining the word for consumers. THEN it won't be confusing and it won't alienate them".
Another point here, which is implicit in my mind and not fully expressed in the article, is the notion that these terms aren't JUST to be used in marketing communications. Our society must have an ongoing, collective dialogue about global warming, climate change, etc. And that dialog will also take place outside of the strict marketing communications realm. It will take place on news shows, in The New York Times Op-Ed pages, on college campuses, among neighbors and co-workers, among policy makers. We have to be able to talk about strategies for combating global warming --- strategies such as sustainability. So if OUR community --- the marketing community--- takes responsibility for defining these terms, and adding some little bit of context to those definitions, we will facilitate the LARGER societal dialogue. This in turn will deepen the consumer's thinking and understanding of global warming, and increase their motivation to buy green, conserve, curb their energy consumption, etc.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the debate and welcome further discussion.
Mike Mercier
confusing article
Dear Mr. Mercier,
Please take a look at your own article, and the jargons you are using. Your article has confused me, a marketer. I am sure it won’t confuse consumers,
Green Marketer
Response To Mr. Green Marketer
Mr. Green Marketer:
Sorry about that. Can you give me a hint as to which "jargons" you're referring?
Mike Mercier
Don't Underestimate Consumers
Two thoughts:
1. I believe that consumers innately exhibit triple-bottom-line purchasing behavior. They want to purchase from good companies that don't trash the environment, give back to the community, and will be around for the long term. We may not be happy with how much weight they give each of these, but consumers have shown that they will punish misbehaving companies at the cash register. Triple bottom line didn't come into being because consumers didn't get it, it came into being because companies historically didn't get it.
2. Consumers don't trust marketing, so even if there is no ambiguity at all on meaning, they aren't going to trust qualitative statements.
David Douglas
Chief Sustainability Officer
Sun Microsystems
Response To Mr. Douglas
Mr. Douglas:
I respond to your post in a separate entry. I forgot to use the "Reply" form. See response above.
Mike
Consumers beg for definition
The article's thesis runs contrary to what consumers are asking for.
Our firm, Koopman Ostbo, is a marketing communications company that specializes in brand development for natural/organic-postioned CPG companies.
When rebranding/repositioning a company the most consistent feedback we get from our test consumers is, "why do we need another word." They want clear, definable benefits when it comes to the messaging of sustainability. Ambiguous terms like "natural" and "Sustainable" do more to alienate consumers than nearly any other message. Consumers consistently tell us they become more skeptical of brands who use these terms and are more likely to think a company is "greenwashing."
Ted Morgan
Director of Account Service
Koopman Ostbo, Inc.
Response To Mr. Morgan
Mr. Morgan:
I responded to your comment in a separate comment entry --- I forgot to use the reply button. You can see my response above.
Also, I accidentally addressed you as Mr. Koopman. Sorry about that. I must have read your signature too quickly.
Mike