Archive for February, 2009


Exaggeration Is Not Your Friend

When you’ve got a new product or service you believe will change the world—or at least your industry—naturally, you’re excited. And it’s tempting to slip into exaggeration about what you can or will do—but don’t.

Presenting goals as facts, stating best-case scenarios without qualification, hyperbole (“best,” “cleanest,” “most advanced”), and other forms of exaggeration are credibility killers.

Why? They trigger BS detectors, subjecting you to extra scrutiny. When people realize the statement is not quite true, they’ll doubt everything else you say. And they set you up for failure if you can’t deliver the best case.

Stay credible and create confidence in your enterprise by making the strongest claims that you can support. Don’t say you’ll have product on the market next year unless you absolutely know you will—give a conservative target date, and explain (briefly) what needs to happen for you to meet it. And don’t say your technology delivers the “world’s lowest emissions” or some such unless you’re prepared to back it up with an honest comparison of your performance with everyone else’s.

In short: if you can prove it, say it; if not, don’t.

Article Shows How Credible Content Delivers

Think that substantive, credible content goes unnoticed? Just check out this article opener: “Should anyone question Stanford’s commitment to sustainability, point them to the ‘Sustainable Stanford’ website. Then watch their jaw drop.”

The article, the cover feature in the current issue of Sustainability: The Journal of Record, goes on to repeat Stanford’s sustainability messages—verbatim in some cases—and quotes liberally from key facts and figures on the site.

Strong website content serves two purposes: it gives the sustainability program a high degree of control over information, and it provides a deep resource for writers. And strong information architecture makes that content easy to find: the Stanford site presents information in ways external audiences expect rather than according to internal categories.

Needless to say, we’re extremely proud of our client for getting such great PR, and happier still that the website we developed for them last year is serving them so well. Kudos, too, to the creative team at 1185 Design, which partnered with us for design and development.

Credible Green Information in Short Supply, Says Survey

Clear, credible, complete communications about green products and services is in short supply, according to recent research by the Boston Consulting Group. In the report “Capturing the Green Advantage for Consumer Companies,” they write:

There is considerable confusion around the world about what being green really means. Because the industry lacks clear definition and standards, some companies have been able to make sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about their environmental credentials. That has caused many consumers to become skeptical about green products, and companies to become wary of offering them.”

Further, consumers don’t know how to tell if a product is green or what benefits it provides, researchers found. In seeking this information, people trust independent consumer reports most, followed by academic and scientific publications and family and friends. Manufacturers and retailers are less credible, but despite that, one-half to three-fourths of people surveyed said they rely on advertising and product labels for information, even though most don’t understand the labeling or mistrust it.

Companies need to step up with credible green claims, and show how and why green benefits are relevant. Otherwise, they’re missing a huge opportunity: Researchers estimate that companies lose nearly 20 percent of potential business when they fail to adequately inform consumers about green offerings. The consumers surveyed want to be green and sustainable and they value those benefits—but they are wary of greenwashing, and few are willing to pay more for green. “Both retailers and manufacturers need to improve consumers’ awareness of green products and the choices available,” concludes the report. 

Read more about the survey findings in BCG’s press release.

Sacrificing Clarity and Detail for the Sake of Brevity

An astute letter to the editor led me to go back and read a Feb. 9 San Francisco Chronicle article featuring this choice quote from a UC Berkeley spokesman: “We sacrificed clarity and detail for the sake of brevity.”

When I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that the problem is far more widespread than the university’s statements about a controversial personnel matter. Companies making green and sustainability claims—and even advocacy organizations pushing policies—are often guilty of the same communications crime. And consumers and watchdogs are increasingly seeing through it: four out of five scoring criteria for the Greenwashing Index relate to lack of clarity or detail with intent to mislead.

Where there is intent to mislead, the malefactors deserve our derision. The sad thing is, often there is no such intent—just a poor understanding of what makes communications credible. Organizations may mistakenly assume that everyone knows the background, so they can use shorthand. They may be so sold on the excellence of their product or program that they fail to realize that others need proof points. They may lack clarity themselves on the foundation for their claims. They may believe the false notion that slogans are sufficient to persuade. But whatever the real reason behind their communications vagueness, they’ll be perceived as misleaders.

The upshot: never sacrifice clarity or essential details for anything.

Open Space Report a Big Hit With Media

We’re really proud of our clients, Greenbelt Alliance and the Bay Area Open Space Council, for their success with the publication “Golden Lands, Golden Opportunity.”

The San Francisco Chronicle’s Sunday editorial says, “The case for a regional approach to land use has rarely been spelled out so eloquently.” The piece quotes the report liberally, which tells us that “Golden Lands” is doing exactly what’s intended. The Chronicle also used the report as the basis for a February 4 news article, “Report Urges Preserving Bay Area Outdoors.” An editorial in Monday’s San Jose Mercury News supported the report’s goals as well, and it’s being covered in publications across the region.

Thinkshift worked with the two organizations and graphic designer Karen Parry of Black Graphics to develop “Golden Lands” as a core communications tool for use with the media and policy makers at state, regional, and local levels. The report, based on two years of intensive research and analysis involving land experts across the nine-county Bay Area, argues that  saving Bay Area open spaces, parks, and agricultural lands will benefit the entire state and is essential to maintaining the region’s social and economic vitality.

Thinkshift developed a fledgling idea into a full creative concept, refined messaging, outlined the report, identified content needed to tell the story and make the case, and wrote most of the copy. Focus and consensus-building were critical: the project brought together stakeholders from about 30 organizations.