January 25th, 2010
by Carolyn McMaster
in
green marketing |
No Comments →
A recent piece in the New York Times reveals that living green is driving couples into therapy when one half of the couple is greener than the other. One partner might sneak unsustainably produced meals, set the thermostat too high or drive too much—chiding and guilt ensue. If it goes on long enough, the happy couple is no longer happy. Even families are tense as greener children clash with their not-so-green parents.
This seems a bit ridiculous (for a number of reasons), but it got me thinking about what does work when trying to convince someone (or some company) to change their unsustainable ways. This is the topic of an annual conference called Behavior, Energy and Climate Change; among its lessons:
- Information alone doesn’t work. People usually need some other motivation. Money saved is good; money earned is better.
- The payoff (or bad result from inaction) needs to be relatively immediate. The threat that your town may be under water when the glaciers melt or knowing that you’ll break even on that solar system in a mere 15 years doesn’t get many to change.
- Competition helps. If you know what your neighbor is doing, you want to do better.
- Tracking progress also motivates, especially if you can see how much money you’re saving.
It’s hard to change behavior, and harder still to communicate in ways that make a difference. When I consider these campaigns, the successful ones have this in common: they lead by example. A company credibly demonstrates that they are walking the talk, and others follow or do business with them. Or a campaign fosters friendly competition, so participants naturally follow one another.
Meanwhile, my former housemate will be pleased to know that I’ve drastically shortened my shower times….
January 17th, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
Credibility Quotient, marketing |
No Comments →
Organizations tend to extremes when it comes to the presentation aspect of marketing communications. Some obsess on it to the point of overlooking other important needs—like having something compelling to present. But many others seem to believe, like the woman who went to an executive job interview in flip-flops (true story), that people will dig for the diamond beneath the rough. That sounds nice and egalitarian—substance over style and all; trouble is, it’s delusional.
Presentation is one of the key components of credibility (and thus, one of 10 factors we analyze for the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient™). Ample research with website users, for example, shows that people make snap judgments about a company’s credibility based on its site’s design and usability. Note “usability”; people often get caught up in how something looks, but that’s only one aspect of presentation. A credible communication gets all these things right:
- An aesthetic that’s appropriate for your industry and market.
- Accessible information. If I’m looking for information about sustainability, or about a particular product’s qualities, can I find it easily?
- Appropriate materials. If the communication is making sustainability claims, does it use appropriate materials? Any print collateral, for example, should use the lowest-impact materials and processes possible. This applies to packaging, too. Excess or high-impact packaging on a sustainable product undermines the product.
- Writing quality. Overall, is the communication clear? Do individual statements make sense? Was it proofread? (Yes, I do need to make this point; see “flip-flops” above.)
Sloppy presentation communicates a sloppy approach overall; strong presentation lays a foundation for trust.
November 19th, 2009
by Sandra Stewart
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.
November 5th, 2009
by Carolyn McMaster
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.
November 2nd, 2009
by Sandra Stewart
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.