March 28th, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
Miscellaneous, resources, sustainability |
1 Comment →
We’re looking forward to joining Hub Bay Area with the May 1 opening of its new San Francisco space—8,600 square feet in the Chronicle building, encompassing offices, coworking spaces, meeting rooms, event spaces, and an art gallery.
Hub Bay Area is part of a loose organization of Hubs around the world designed to provide people who are working on or with sustainability-related enterprises (or “social innovators” in Hub parlance) with work spaces and access to mentors, partners, resources, and inspiration.
As the Hub site puts it: “We need new models that blend social and environmental value with economic viability. The system is broken. Together we can build a better alternative. When faced with a task of this magnitude, why not assemble great talent into a common space?”
We’re intrigued by what could come out of this community, and urge all you locals to check it out.
March 8th, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
Miscellaneous |
1 Comment →
I usually blog about bigger-picture communications strategy issues, but my alter ego the Grammar Queen has been fighting to get out over the weird obsession with word repetition.
We hear from clients all the time, when reviewing all kinds of writing—articles, marketing copy, taglines—”But isn’t it bad to repeat a word?” Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s good. And sometimes it just doesn’t matter.
I suspect that confusion on this points stems from a misunderstanding about why word repetition is sometimes bad. It’s not necessarily that repeated words make for monotonous writing (though they certainly can); it’s that repeated words often signal hazy ideas. Here’s a a simple example: The sentence, “We had a great meal at this great restaurant in a great neighborhood,” is obviously lame. Many people would think the way to fix it is to find synonyms for great. But is “We had a great meal at this excellent restaurant in a fabulous neighborhood” really any better? (Hint: no.) That’s because word repetition here is only a symptom of the real problem. “We had a great meal at this new restaurant in my favorite neighborhood” is a better expression of the thought because the new adjectives are not synonyms—they’re more precise information.
If you read something that repeats words and seems bland and uninformative, it’s usually not because the writer failed to use a thesaurus; more likely they failed to think through what they wanted to say and communicate that precisely.
When is word repetition good? When you want to convey the same information about different things: “Great for kids. Great for parents.” When you want to emphasize a subject: “It was the most fabulous shoe I’d ever seen. It was the shoe of my dreams.” (Substituting footwear for the second shoe would only drain the ardor.) Or when you want to create a transition: “The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. That plain is where two-thirds of Spain’s … .” (Substituting flatland for plain would not aid comprehension.)
As the Grammar Queen has frequently observed, the first prerequisite of good writing is good thinking.
February 25th, 2010
by Carolyn McMaster
in
green marketing |
No Comments →
Greener World Media’s State of Green Business 2010 report is out, and, as it did last year, this excellent report drives home the need for companies to communicate credibly and completely about their sustainability efforts and back up green claims with relevant information.
One reason is “radical transparency”—people are using Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms and mobile apps to instantly disseminate news and opinions to desktop and smartphone alike. If you’re not credible, you’ll be called on it—and everyone will know about it. This is good news—it’s making all kinds of companies be more sustainable, and it seems to be prompting better communications (albeit more slowly than I’d like).
But it’s also making heads spin. We’re being overloaded with information, and it’s hard to know what’s credible and what isn’t. In one egregious example, most consumers think “natural” is better than “organic.” Third-party ratings such as Green Seal, the Green Good Housekeeping seal, and Underwriters Laboratories’ UL Environment are helping, but each rating organization looks at things differently, and there’s a plethora of labels.
I hope these rating efforts achieve something close to market consensus and get up to some kind of critical mass this year. The FTC isn’t helping—it’s been foot-dragging for two years or more in its efforts to review and revise its “Green Guides” for environmental marketing. (If anyone knows how to get them moving, I’ll help you any way I can.)
The FTC’s inertia reminds me of a recent New Yorker cartoon in which an executive says to his colleagues, “Let’s never forget that the public’s desire for transparency has to be balanced by our need for concealment.”
I’m not that cynical, but as Joel Makower points out in the State of Green Business, change is coming about in no small part due to pressure from lawsuits, Congress, and activists. Companies need to step up, to be on a truly sustainable path, and to communicate credibly and transparently, all the time, not just when it serves their purpose.
February 23rd, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
Credibility Quotient, green marketing |
No Comments →
Sometimes I imagine all the companies claiming to be the “the world leader,” “best,” “greenest,” and most whatever having a smackdown in some sort of marketing Thunderdome to see who’s really on top. OK, so I’m a communications geek. But the point remains: almost certainly, none of these companies is the ultimate, and if any of them are, they can’t prove it.
What of it? Some would say (and I’ve heard some green gurus say) that these kinds of claims are “just marketing”—people know it’s hype. True, and that’s how companies that make unprovable claims start teaching their customers that they are untrustworthy and their marketing is B.S.
Probably not a huge problem if you’re selling diet snack cakes (your customer has agreed not to question the implausible), but if you’re selling sustainability, think again. This kind of marketing can undermine a great product by inspiring skepticism and overshadowing claims that are well-supported. It can also raise the suspicions of greenwash monitors (see Carolyn’s earlier post on spotting greenwash).
To be credible, claims first have to be provable (that’s why this is a highly rated factor in the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient™). And provable claims are both specific and verifiable. Make the strongest statement you can support, be specific, and back it up. Then you’ll have some support when you get challenged for a smackdown.
February 14th, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
Miscellaneous, green marketing, sustainability |
No Comments →
The phrase “put your money where your mouth is” has been coming up a lot here lately—in part due to our work with New Resource Bank, which lets sustainability-minded businesses, nonprofits, and individuals do just that, and in part due to our decision to join 1% for the Planet.
If you’re not familiar with it, 1% for the Planet is an alliance of businesses of all sizes that commit to give one percent of their yearly revenues to environmental nonprofits. And the organization holds members to it–you have to submit tax documents and proof of donations to maintain membership.
We’d been thinking of doing this since learning of 1% via a Fast Company interview with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, who co-founded the organization with Craig Mathews, fisherman and owner of Blue Ribbon Flies. What finally kicked us into gear was hearing Hunter Lovins give her “The Business Case for Sustainability” speech at New Resource’s bimonthly speaker/networking event, re:think.
Lovins includes an apt quote from Interface chair Ray Anderson: “What’s the business case for destroying the planet?” But what really got to us was her parting question, “What are you doing?” Somehow, “helping sustainable businesses and environmental nonprofits” didn’t sound like enough. So here’s another chip on the table.
Try it—it feels good.
