"Passive" construction is an innovative building technique that reduces energy requirements for heating, cooling and ventilating up to 80 percent. The occupants are more comfortable since a passive building provides consistent temperatures, eliminates drafts and circulates fresh, filtered air. Impressive!
Would You Name Your Concept "Inert" or "Inactive"?
The name passive construction is from the German passive building movement -- PassivHaus. The term "passive" is meant to convey that the building uses mostly non-mechanical methods for heating, cooling and ventilation. This is in contrast to the typical modern building where "active" mechanical systems do most of the work.
Although scientifically correct, the name "passive" creates a poor first impression with an English speaking non-technical audience. Passive is usually used when you want to describe someone or something that is submissive, inert or inactive. Not exactly a word that triggers interest. "Passive" extinguishes any thoughts of innovation or quality.
With A Poor Name, the Consumer May Tune Out Before You Can Educate
Some may think that with solid marketing a poor name can be overcome. The effort is likely to be considerable because most of us use shortcuts to manage complexity. A name is one of those shortcuts.
• Is "Jennifer" more attractive than "Gertrude"? Yes. Researchers Willis and Henderson found an attractive name makes the person seem more attractive. When showing participants unnamed photos of two attractive women, both received equal votes when asked who is "most attractive". The results changed dramatically when labeled "Jennifer" and "Gertrude." "Jennifer" was then selected 60 percent more frequently.
• Can "free" be a poor offer? Yes. The founders of "free software" movement thought they had the perfect name. But corporate and other customers were wary of a product that was free. Free software took off when it was rebranded as "open source".
• Is "Caverject" a new James Bond weapon? No, it is an injectable erectile dysfunction drug. Three years after Caverject's launch, Pfizer planned a new approach to market directly to consumers. Pfizer's customer focus paid off. The new drug was christened "Viagra."
With limited opportunity to gain the consumer's attention, why waste a marketing effort to correct a deficit that can be easily turned into an asset?
But Is Marketing Even Appropriate?
Some may find marketing distasteful since marketing has been used to hard-sell products that may be dubious at best or outright harmful for the consumer and the environment.
Philip Kotler, the father of modern marketing, explains that virtuous "Marketing is the art of creating genuine customer value. It is the art of helping your customers become better off."
The intention is to practice virtuous marketing to get more sustainable practices and products adopted. The term "passive," used in this context, requires a detailed explanation before most people get it. In the long run, poor marketing will likely hinder and great marketing will help the acceptance of passive and other green buildings.
First Things First: Define the Marketing Strategy
The name is just one part of the marketing mix and to be most effective it should complement the overall marketing strategy.














There is a backstory to how I
There is a backstory to how I came to end up naming the federally incorporated professional non-profit organization Passive Buildings Canada. Initially it was going to be Passive House Canada but Industry Canada wouldn't accept it because it was too close in name to a sole proprietorship registered in Ontario - even though we had permission from the small business owner.
Building was the more literal translation, so that was a good fit for a last minute change, plus there were no possible trademark issues. However I didn't want to make it look like a verb, so added the plural to distinguish Buildings as a noun.
Other related terms that can be used is "Passive Energy Buildings" which also keeps it from being confused from "passive solar" which is one of the most common and persistent confusions when it comes to the name of Passive House. When I first heard of it, I too had the wrong impression.
I think it's still early enough in the game that we can make changes without significant expense, especially if it can be strongly branded. The very recent split between PHIUS and PHI might be used to take advantage of rebranding in English to the benefit of all.
Thanks David for sharing your
Thanks David for sharing your experience in Canada. Great insights. best regards, Claudia
Claudia--while I think the
Claudia--while I think the overall structure of your argument is right on, I don't think it leads to the conclusion that Passive House is a bad brand. Good branding takes into account a number of factors, including, most importantly, what investment is available to promote it. A contrived name like Viagra, with millions of dollars of marketing behind it to build consumer understanding, is a lousy example compared to a no budget concept such as PH. I fear the conclusion of your list of core benefits of comfort, efficiency, health, exclusivity leads us to some made up combo of all these concepts. Clearly, PH has some imperfections, but it has strengths too: it's provocative and descriptive, it has European cache. Most importantly, it has traction.
There is no doubt that the low energy home movement suffers from obscurity now. None of our names--Net zero, PH, Deep Energy Retrofit--have yet penetrated the mindset of the general populace. But rather than toss what we have to the wind, shouldn't we be building conviction for what is starting to have traction?
Peter - Thanks for your
Peter - Thanks for your comment. Because the Passive House has small funds for marketing, it is even more imporntant to have a great name. I don't think the momentum has captured more than a small % of the entire home building or buying market so there is still time.
Ask friends, family, colleagues, the person in line at the grocery store and others about their knowledge of PH and their first reaction. I also agree that the other energy efficient homes could also do with a renaming.
best regards, Claudia
though germany's climate does
though germany's climate does differ from the u.s., the passivhaus (passive house) standard is applicable from anchorage to miami and all points between. in fact, for most of the u.s., it's easier to achieve passivhaus than in germany due to significantly higher insolation.
passivhaus requires a minimum of ~56% reduction in source energy over a typical house - many perform significantly better. building america aims for 20% reduction in source energy today, with increasing efficiency over the next decade. they're two different programs, both applicable to the u.s. - but passivhaus far exceeds the energy goals of BAP.
which actually saves more energy - 32,000 passivhaeuser w/ ~56% reduction in energy, or 42,000 BAP homes w/ 15-20% reduction in energy usage?
Maybe we can all live with
Maybe we can all live with our parents until we hit 40, not take showers, live the European social experiment, and give up every extra electric device we have too? Didn't Wolfgang get the idea for Passiv House from America and Canada?
1979 Shurciff Press Release:
"What name should be given to this new system? Superinsulated passive? Super-save passive? Mini-need passive? Micro-load passive? … Whatever it is called, it has (I predict) a big future.”
It's too bad Shurcliff didn't have a marketing guru?
Mike, Read the paper I linked
Mike,
Read the paper I linked below. Could a European Super Energy Efficient Standard Be Suitable for the U.S.?
"The Passive House source energy consumption target could not be met in five of the six house models"
"As part of Building America research for developing and implementing zero energy homes on a widespread basis, research was initiated on how this standard could translate to U.S. climate zones, especially with respect to costs, constructability and comfort."
Zero energy wins over less energy, doesn't it?
Or read this article - http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-026-passivhaus-bec...
"As I have repeated numerous times in numerous venues, the Passiv Haus standard has many excellent features. However, there are constraints to designers that raise the cost and complexity of delivering a house that do not result in lower energy consumption. The target of primary energy consumption before renewable energy use is rather strict, and appears to over emphasize conservation over energy generation in cold climates."
Mike - Thanks for taking the
Mike - Thanks for taking the time to comment and provide more technical details about the "passive" house. I like to think of it as the "proactive" house since it achieves efficiency through better planning and design and exceeding the "active" house substantially. best regards, Claudia
Claudia you make many good
Claudia you make many good points. Yes as a long-time marketer I know that bringing a better mousetrap makes our role valuable, not misleading. Passive design can play a huge role improving our houses, but I understand the cost premium for a pure PassivHaus to be between 8% - 20%. In a purchase so large, that will only be acceptable to the 16% of the buying public which is strongly motivated by Green considerations. I just don't believe you can ignore the importance of this point. Use passive techiques yes, but ground all of them in economic value first.
Thanks Jackson for your
Thanks Jackson for your affirmation. I agree that economics is a primary consideration for this type of purchase for a large segment and hence suggested a position that allows the buyer "to stop wasting money on energy this month." best regards, Claudia
Maybe the marketing won't
Maybe the marketing won't work (or Shouldn't) because there is already a program that works all over the US (Germany's climate is vastly different than most of the US, less mold, less humidity, less showers). A Passive house doesn't solve the 12,000 kWh of electricity use by the average American. 25,000 homes built to date.
"The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Building America program is engineering the American home for energy performance, durability, quality, affordability, and comfort. 42,136 homes built to date!
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/about.html"
http://best1.thebestconference.org/pdfs/041.pdf
Thanks for your comment and
Thanks for your comment and perspective. It is great to see multiple offerings that focus on efficiency. The DOE program is great, but I believe the techniques that "passive house" and other leading edge approaches use help to drive continued improvements in mainstream programs such as DOE. It is all good!
Do you think the DOE program could use any marketing refinements? best regards, Claudia
Claudia, A good program very
Claudia,
A good program very few people seem to know anything about would seem to indicate better marketing is required.