Archive for July, 2010


Motivation and Green Marketing: We’ve Got It Half Right

A friend recently alerted me to this great video presentation about motivation based on a presentation by Daniel Pink, whose new book is Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. It got me thinking about how we make assumptions when we’re communicating about sustainability and marketing green initiatives.

Pink points out that research on what motivates people to excel at their work flies in the face of common assumptions when the work involves cognitive skill and critical thinking. Monetary rewards actually backfire; studies show that motivation comes from self-direction, mastery, and  making a contribution. I’d like to see more about motivation where sustainability initiatives are concerned. I hear anecdotes that “doing the right thing” isn’t enough to get people to act. Research I’ve seen about energy conservation behavior shows that’s true. But we don’t know enough about what does make people conduct their business in sustainable ways. It’s always assumed that the clincher always has something to do with money (you’ll save it or spend less) or effort (it’s easier) or competition (looking better than your neighbor).

It’s not that simple. In my work I’ve recently seen how sustainability goals unite employees and inspire them to go the extra mile. I also see customers making the green/sustainable choice because it’s the right thing to do. In both cases, these groups are active advocates. What can we learn about the other two factors, mastery and self-direction, that will help us market more effectively and change behavior—and bring about lasting results that will make a dent in climate change?

So I’m off to find a copy of Drive at the library. (And forgive me if this sounds like an ad for the book, which was published in December.) I’ll report back.

One last note: The video is incredibly creative—an artist draws cartoon illustrations on a whiteboard in time with Pink’s talk. It’s a production of RSA, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. RSA are brilliant (they’re British so I can say it like that), and so fun, progressive and insightful that you’d never guess the organization is 250 years old.

How Bad Comparisons Kill Credibility

A recent New York Times report notes that Growth Energy, an ethanol advocacy group, has blanketed the subway station closest to the U.S. Capitol with ads saying “No beaches have been closed due to ethanol spills” and calling ethanol “America’s clean fuel.” The article goes on to dispute that claim with a pile of data, including this nugget:

Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs from the U.S. Corn Belt are key contributors to “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. A 2008 study by independent researchers, published in the [National Academy of Sciences'] Proceedings journal, calculated that increasing corn production to meet the 2007 renewable fuels target would add to nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico by 10 to 34 percent.

Thus the ads violate at least two key credibility factors: full accuracy, not just technical correctness (beaches may not have been closed due to spills, but normal production has polluted coastal waters), and claims that are consistent with actions. (For more, see the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient™ fact sheet.) Most clean energy options have some sort of downside, and you know the old saying: if you’re a pot, don’t call the kettle black.

I can’t speak to Growth Energy’s intentions, but even the most ethical organizations sometimes fall into the bad comparison trap: seizing on current news to draw attention to your benefits is smart communications, but you have to make sure any comparisons you make will stand up to scrutiny. This may sound like an obvious point, but true believers often become blind to their solution’s downsides. Skeptics, on the other hand, will see them in high def.

CNGVC Newsletter Earns Marketing Kudos

The e-newsletter Thinkshift produces for the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition made the Q2 2010 Vertical Response 500 list, at number 264.

The quarterly e-mail marketing award recognizes top-performing Vertical Response customers. To qualify, customers must send four or more e-mails and achieve average open rates above 20 percent and click rates above 4 percent. The newsletter typically gets open rates in the mid to high 20 percent range, and clickthrough rates in the mid 20 percent to high 30 percent range. The exception: the July 12 issue had an incredible 85.25 percent clickthrough rate.

I wish I knew how to repeat that. What I do know is that the consistently high open and click rates for this newsletter are driven by rigorously targeting content (including original reporting) to audience interests.