Three Key Elements in Supporting Green Claims

May 24th, 2010 by Sandra Stewart in Credibility Quotient, green marketing | No Comments →

We touch on support for claims in this blog with some regularity—it’s a key factor in communications credibility (and thus the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient™). But with BP’s epic greenwashing staring us in the face every day (remember the green oil company? beyond petroleum?), the credibility of green claims generally may be more suspect than ever. Now feels like the ideal time to unpack what it means to support claims.

Here are three major elements we look for:

Data or testimony from credible third parties. Support from any believable source (fully attributed customer testimonials, for example) can enhance credibility, but verification by a trusted third party is the gold standard. Eco-seals can be a good shorthand way to support claims, but be careful: They have to be well-recognized—if people don’t know what a symbol means, they’re not going to put a lot of trust in it—and they have to have real standards behind them.

Details. The support should be specific and detailed enough to be understandable—and verifiable.

Relevance. To be credible, support has to be relevant to the claim at hand. A great company recycling program isn’t support for a claim that a household cleaning product is green. Nor is a statement that the product is free of some chemical that no product of its type contains. (This is a reverse use of the old advertising ploy of highlighting some common product characteristic so that it appears to be a special feature of your product—Mad Men fans will immediately flash on “Lucky Strike—It’s Toasted.”)

Any time you can’t muster this kind of support is a good time to think about whether you should be making that claim.

Notes from Europe: Bicycles, Windmills, and a Volcano

May 1st, 2010 by Carolyn McMaster in Miscellaneous | 1 Comment →

Spending three weeks on vacation in northern Europe—mostly Amsterdam and Berlin—made me think about the ways we can pretty easily live a little “smaller.” Europeans live in smaller spaces, use less stuff, and reuse much more. They don’t seem as obsessed with green and sustainable as I thought they might be, but it could just be they don’t shout about it as much. They just do it, as they have been for years. For instance:

Bikes are a main form of transportation. Everybody has one, sturdy and utilitarian. In the city, bike paths are ubiquitous. And they aren’t in the road—they typically run between the sidewalk and parked cars. Makes it safer (for cyclists, anyway; I found it a bit perilous as a pedestrian).

Lights for public areas are on timers that switch off after 10 minutes. I’ve wondered for years why we don’t use these in our own apartment and office buildings.

Smaller appliances are the norm, like fridges that hold a week’s worth of groceries (or less) and washing machines that are smaller and front-loading. Air-drying clothes is common, and even families with children don’t always have a clothes dryer. (This is based on very limited observation.)

None of this is news to anyone who’s been abroad, but the climate change imperative threw it into sharp relief for me. In the bigger scheme of things, I also noticed that wind power is taking hold. Old windmills are an icon of the Netherlands, but new wind turbines are also becoming a part of the landscape. I saw some wind farms but was most impressed by the fact that many farms have their own wind turbines. In the northern part of the country it was amazing to see ancient farmhouses coupled with new turbines.

On the transportation front, cars are much smaller overall than on this side of the pond, but I still saw a lot of big SUV-type vehicles, and diesel is in wide general use. On the upside, most filling stations I saw sold biodiesel, and I saw not a few natural gas vehicles and fueling stations.

Finally, I spent my time away without my own computer or cell phone. And since the Iceland volcano kept me in Berlin an extra six days, I was almost unconnected for over three weeks. It was a little freaky, especially toward the end. But ultimately it felt great. Without electronic ties to where I came from, I felt more a part of where I was.

Accuracy Is Essential (That’s Not As Obvious As You’d Think)

April 30th, 2010 by Sandra Stewart in Credibility Quotient, communications strategy | No Comments →

Accuracy is essential to credibility. Duh, right? Yet organizations miss the accuracy boat all the time. And even one or two innocuous slip-ups can cast doubt on everything you say.

Just look at the “climategate” kerfuffle, where a few questionable (stolen) e-mails between scientists were taken to indicate rot at the heart of all their work. Or at how the inclusion of an unsubstantiated speculation on the melting rate of Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report brought forth a barrage of claims that all climate science is bunk.

Sure, these reactions came from people who are climate science skeptics (at best)—but that’s the point. Every business making a benefit claim for its products or services and any advocacy group promoting a policy solution faces skeptics. Inaccuracy encourages doubt to spread.

So why is there so much inaccuracy in communications of all kinds? Anyone who’s not actively trying to deceive realizes that factual statements should be correct; when they’re not, speed and sloppiness are usually the culprits. The rule: check every statement. Then check it again.

The more slippery (and common) problem is claims that are inaccurate by implication—for example, packaging that can be recycled only at rare, specialized facilities but is simply  labeled “recyclable” with no explanation. Companies that do this may earn greenie points from the uninformed, but once people find out their recycling can’t actually be recycled, they tend to get peeved—and massively distrustful. Credible claims are realistically correct, not just technically correct. The rule: if you’re implying something untrue, then you’re not telling the truth.

Tips for Writing Better Bios

April 23rd, 2010 by Sandra Stewart in marketing | No Comments →

We’ve been working with clients lately on bios/profiles for websites and backgrounders, and it’s reminded me of how difficult it is for most people to write about themselves—or even get comfortable with what someone else writes about them.

Faced with a bio request, people often retreat to the safe familiarity of resume-style recitations: jobs,  accomplishments, education. That’s not wrong; it’s just not great—especially for networking via social media. Ideally, a bio will evoke a real human (not some kind of business bot) and will communicate something about how you approach your work and what makes you stand out (note to modest types: there’s always something).

A few tips that can make it easier:

  • Have someone interview you (or your team)— it’s often easier to talk about we do than to put it in writing.
  • Develop a list of questions for bios (our colleague Kelly Parkinson has a great one here) and answer them stream-of-consciousness style. People often have a hard time writing because they try to edit while they write. Write first, then edit.
  • Think about (and write about) the ultimate results you deliver—not just what you know how to do.
  • Talk about why you do what you do.
  • Having a hard time pinning down that extra something you bring? Think about what others have said about  you—friends, a former boss, your mom.
  • Include something about what you like to do in your off time—it gives people a way to relate to you. And be specific: “I walk dogs for the SPCA,” not “I like animals”; “I’m addicted to gritty crime novels,” not “I like to read.”

In general, think about what you like to know about others; they want to know that about you, too. And try not stress about it. You may never get comfortable with your bio, but that doesn’t matter—you don’t have to read again until it’s update time.

Business Alliance Supports AB 32 Global Warming Bill

March 30th, 2010 by Carolyn McMaster in resources | No Comments →

Thinkshift has added its name to the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy, joining more  than 750 businesses, small and large, that have signed on with the organization. (As has our client, New Resource Bank.) It’s a nonprofit, “created to amplify the business voice in support of policies to help move us toward cleaner energy, less dependence on fossil fuel, and to help us avoid the economic and social disruptions associated with climate change.” The organization supports AB 32, California’s groundbreaking Global Warming Solutions Act.

The Alliance website has good background info, including the March 24 news that the California Air Resources Board analysis of AB 32 shows that it will have a positive effect on the economy and a roundup of op-ed pieces from around the state, both pro and anti.

Go ahead, sign on with the Alliance—it’s an easy way to show your support for a growing, more sustainable economy in the state. Of course, this is a simple step, but every little bit helps, and we think that taking action to develop a clean energy economy is one of the most important things anyone can do to fight pollution and climate change.

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →