Archive for the ‘branding’


Getting Energy Efficiency Out of the Granny Panties Zone

Why don’t energy efficiency technologies and strategies get people as excited as a Tesla roadster? On the face of it, duh. It’s the brains of it that make it a head-scratcher.

As the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy reported last year, economic data and the historical record suggest that “energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the needed greenhouse gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and the year 2050″ and “investments in more energy-productive technologies can also lead to a substantial net energy bill savings for the consumer and for the nation’s businesses.” In other words, energy efficiency is probably the single most effective greenhouse gas reduction strategy we have, and it saves you money. What’s not to get excited about? Are people that distracted by bright shiny objects?

Yes, we are. Advocates have been lamenting the unsexiness of energy efficiency for some time: it’s the granny panties of the green economy. Many see the solution in language—what we need is a new term, one less evocative of slide rules and more inspirational. I’m all for motivating, send-the-right-message language—that would typically be my go-to solution. But I think what we need here is something more physical.

Energy efficiency faces two obstacles that strike me as more serious than its nerdy name: invisibility and implausibility. The beauty and the downfall of many energy efficiency measures is that they work in the background, without anyone being aware that they’re happening. And the potential savings from these measures often inspire skepticism more than any other reactionremember how President Obama’s campaign opponents mocked him for suggesting proper tire inflation as a way to save gas?

People think that if a solution like that really were effective, it would already be standard practice—someone would have told us about it already. That assumption ignores the powerful forces of inertia and the culture of heedless consumption (most Americans haven’t worried much about saving energy because we haven’t had to—even the simplest strategies are easily missed if you’re not looking for them), but it’s powerful nonetheless.

I suspect that we need to make energy consumption a thing: people need to be able to see it happening. It has to come out of the background and be made concrete through web interfaces, dials, beeps, texts from your tires, whatever. That might compromise design simplicity (another efficiency value), or even slightly reduce energy savings, but what’s more effective—a theoretically perfect solution that few use, or something a bit too tricked out that gains mass acceptance?

It may pay to remember that out of sight often means out of mind.

UL Needs to Do More with UL Environment Certification

Underwriters Laboratory’s UL Environment, which is certifying green products and verifying green product claims, has just announced the first product to be rated: Serious Materials’ EcoRock drywall. The product appears genuine, based on the excellent information on the company website, and it’s also got Cradle to Cradle certification.

While the UL assessment has UL’s brand clout behind it, they could add assurance and help alleviate consumer confusion over what’s truly friendly for the environment by providing complete disclosure about what their certifications mean on their website. Right now, there’s nothing on the UL Environment website that makes the label credible (except for the aforementioned brand power). By comparison, the Cradle to Cradle site has full disclosure.

Some questions they can answer: How and what are they testing? What is the process? What are the benchmarks and standards? Are they only looking at claims made or are they also comparing the product to similar ones? Do they consider what’s possible, so that if a company is only doing the bare minimum, it counts less?

Eco-labels are proliferating at a pretty fast clip. If they’re going to clear up confusion and help consumers sort out conflicting environmental claims and know what makes one thing greener than another, certifiers (and product marketers) need to help educate.

For more on the UL rollout, see Sustainable Industries’ excellent article. It was also covered at GreenBiz.com.

The Thinkshift Credibility Quotient Goes Beta

I’m excited to report that the Thinkshift® Credibility Quotient™ is ready for public consumption: we are beta testing it now, and would love your feedback.

We’ve been working on the CQ (as we call it in-house) for some time, and it’s exciting because as far as we know, this is the first system for measuring the credibility of communications—and letting people see how they stack up against competitors.

Why credibility? It’s a huge issue for companies trying to get people to adopt clean technology or a new approach, and for any company or institution promoting sustainability initiatives. (Don’t want to be accused of greenwashing? You’d better be credible.) It’s essential to being persuasive, whether you’re trying to convince people to buy a product or service, support your endeavors, or take action on an issue. And it’s just too important to assess based solely on insider impressions.

The CQ rates the credibility of any type of communication (websites, reports, marketing collateral) on a weighted 100-point scale. The system considers 10 factors integral to credibility and scores for each, with the most important receiving the most weight. The CQ rating (or grade) is the sum of those scores.

Thinkshift can provide a Credibility Quotient for a single communications vehicle or an entire program, or benchmark an organization’s communications against others in its field.

You can download a PDF that tells you more about how the CQ works and includes sample ratings (short versions) here: http://www.thinkshiftcom.com/ThinkshiftCQ_beta.pdf.

We’d love to know what you think: Do you see the value? Is it something your organization, or one you’re familiar with, could use?

Simplicity at the Academy of Sciences

I played hooky earlier this week to visit the California Academy of Sciences’ new building in Golden Gate Park. It’s a beautiful, airy construction, a model of sustainable architecture from the lower level “water planet” of aquariums teeming with amazing sealife to the undulating 2.5-acre green roof of native plants. Critics are justifiably gushing. (See Nicolai Ouroussof’s review in the New York Times and the extensive coverage in Metropolis magazine, which examines all the sustainability aspects of Renzo Piano’s creation.) It’s expected to be the largest building to receive LEED Platinum status.

But the building and its exhibits aren’t the only things that amaze me. I love the clarity and simplicity of the academy’s communications. Language is plain and direct—it’s like a person is talking to you. Concepts aren’t dumbed down, they’re just distilled. (In the case of the video explaining climate change, it’s practically poetry.) It makes science accessible and fun.

This conversational style is an integral part of everything they do, from the exhibit signage and museum map to their website and member publication—it’s even reflected in their mission statement, “to explore, explain and protect the natural world.” It matches the spare, inviting visual design (by the creative folks at Pentagram).

The Academy of Sciences is taking its communications seriously—and having fun with it. It’s a great example of how words can deliver a brand—and fulfill a mission to simply explain.