Archive for November, 2009


What Works When Communicating About Climate and More

Published November 19th, 2009 in communications strategy, green marketing, resources, universities | No Comments »

I wrote in April about what decision science research tells us about how people respond to environmental issues and what that means for communicators. Now the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia University has released an illustrated guide to the psychology of climate change communication—handily summarized by Grist blogger Jonathan Hiskes here.

Even if you’re not communicating directly or specifically about climate change, take a look. There are nuggets here that can be useful to people trying to influence behavior on a spectrum of environment-related topics—from clean tech companies trying to get staid industries to adopt new technologies to universities trying to boost participation in campus sustainability efforts.

Much of the advice boils down to the fundamental communications truth—it’s not about you; it’s about your audience. Know who they are, speak their language, put problems and solutions in their context, be concrete, don’t exaggerate, and give people easy ways to act. You’ve no doubt heard these rules before (we certainly can’t shut up about them), but this guide gives you the science behind why you ignore them at your peril, and may give you fresh ideas on how to to apply them.

How to Spot Greenwash

Published November 5th, 2009 in green marketing | 1 Comment »

It can be easy to spot greenwashing when others are doing it, but often it’s harder to know how your own communications will stack up under scrutiny. One reason can be that you’re so close to the material you can’t see the problems. Here are four key symptoms we look for in a Thinkshift Credibility Quotient assessment—if you can spot these (and correct them), you’ll be less susceptible to greenwashing accusations.

Irrelevant or unprovable claims— Statements like “world’s best,” “leader in the field,” and “greenest” are unprovable, and are used so often they are meaningless. It also doesn’t help if you’re making comparisons to very ungreen products or practices.

No proof— No matter how solid your claims are, you need to back them up with hard evidence. (And making people read a white paper doesn’t necessarily count.)

Not walking the talk—Do what you say you’re doing. It’s a sure credibility killer if you’ve only got one small, greenish effort and the rest of your business has a huge carbon footprint.

Jargon or fluffy language—Vague statements without detail or backup, language only a scientist could grasp, or meaningless marketing puffery make you insincere at best and guilty of greenwashing at worst.

To heal these afflictions, make easily understood claims in plain language; back them up with facts, third-party verification, and context; and make sure you’re as green as you say you are. People are more skeptical than ever of green claims, and a key part of the solution is credible communications.

Lack of Clarity Can Mean Lack of Credibility

Published November 2nd, 2009 in Credibility Quotient, marketing | No Comments »

We love engineers. We work with a lot of them, and appreciate their analytical minds and openness to well-supported suggestions. But engineers should not be writing marketing copy. Alas, in the world of clean tech (and sometimes other sustainability sectors) it seems they often do.

The result for most readers is a lack of clarity. Symptoms of engineer-driven copy include an overabundance of technical detail up front, inadequate explanations of complex technology and processes, and a failure to show benefits and results. This that can translate to a lack of credibility with the target market in number of ways:

  • When you hit people with technical details right off the bat, many will give up trying to understand and go away.
  • If you can’t explain what you do clearly and concisely, it may send the message that you aren’t quite up to the task of execution.
  • If you don’t show people how they will benefit and what results they’ll see, you give them no reason to engage you.
  • Lack of clarity is increasingly associated with greenwashing (see an earlier post on this).

Communications that are clear and credible explain the  solution and technology as simply as possible, keeping audience needs in mind; provide technical details and specifications separately from core messages whenever possible; and keep benefits and results front and center.