November 9th, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
sustainability, Thinkshift news |
No Comments →
We are excited to announce that Thinkshift has become a Certified B CorporationTM.
“What’s that?” you might be asking.
A B Corporation is a new kind of company that works to have a positive social and environmental impact (“B” is for benefit). B Corps meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance. They also amend their governing documents to require consideration of all stakeholder interests—employees, suppliers, the community, consumers, and the environment—in company decision making. The long-term vision is for the B Corporation to become a legally recognized corporate form (like a C or an S corporation) in all 50 states.
The B Corp ethos lines up squarely with Thinkshift’s mission: to help sustainability-oriented businesses and nonprofits achieve their goals by communicating about their work in ways that motivate action. Ultimately, we aim to help create a more just, sustainable world by supporting enterprises dedicated to clean technology, resource-conserving products and services, management for social benefit, and environmental conservation.
We became a B Corp to join a community of businesses that share those values and hold one another accountable to them. By exchanging resources with fellow B Corps, learning from them, and promoting them, we hope to help change the way people think about business.
Find out more about B Corps.
See our B Corp profile.
October 6th, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
Miscellaneous |
No Comments →
I don’t usually write about politics in this blog, but there’s a proposition on California’s November ballot that would be so damaging to green, sustainable, and clean tech businesses, I just have to speak out: if you’re a California voter, please vote no on Prop. 23, aka the Dirty Energy Proposition.
If passed, Prop. 23 would essentially repeal AB 32, California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (Technically, it would suspend implementation of AB 32 until unemployment reached 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters—but that has occurred only three times in the last 40 years, and it’s highly unlikely to occur in the next several years.) Prop. 23 is funded largely by Texas oil companies that don’t want to clean up their act in the state or face competition from clean energy sources. The companies and others have engaged in a long-term, multipronged effort to delay, repeal, or disable AB 32 (we covered this back in March, before the proposition qualified for the ballot, in the newsletter we produce for the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition).
Prop. 23, their latest effort, is a cynical and dishonest effort portray AB 32 as a job killer. UC Berkeley researchers Carol Zabin and Lisa Hoyos do a good job of explaining why that isn’t so in their op-ed in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “Setting the record straight on AB32 and jobs.”
The real job killer is Prop. 23—if it passes it will stall California’s clean energy and clean tech sector, which is growing 10 times faster than the state’s economy as whole and enabling California to attract 67 percent of clean energy venture capital invested in the United States. (Get even more facts on the Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition website.) Prop. 23 will also lead to increased air pollution, threatening public health.
But the effects of Prop. 23 would extend beyond California and its sustainable businesses, bad as its results for our state would be. The passage of AB 32 spurred other states to adopt climate regulations and it jump-started the Western Climate Initiative. It also put pressure on the federal government to at least consider climate legislation, an uphill battle that almost certainly will be lost if California backs off its commitment. And if the United States continues to do nothing, other major greenhouse gas emitters will follow suit, leaving us in an ever-deepening climate crisis.
Many of us feel helpless in face of climate change and environmental disasters. Here’s something positive and incredibly easy you can do: vote NO on Prop. 23. And tell your friends.
October 5th, 2010
by Carolyn McMaster
in
green marketing |
No Comments →
My in-box is filled with Google alerts listing blog posts and articles that tout the benefits of green marketing, but the phrase is losing its shine. Careful analysis revealed this: the thinking seems to be that “green marketing” is a magic potion, whether or not the company or its products and services are truly sustainable and helping to reduce our collective carbon footprint.
Here’s the pitch that sent me reeling: “Thе Green Marketing Book fοr the Kindle іѕ thе ultimate guide tο ѕhοw you hοw tο mаkе money аnԁ cash іn οn thе popularity οf going green bу using proven ecological niche marketing techniques…” No wonder green marketing is becoming synonymous with greenwashing. Even when companies have a green product or internal environmental program, there’s often no genuine sustainability commitment, and offerings are simply a gambit for more market share.
Truly green marketing doesn’t need a label. If a green/sustainable organization is marketing, it’s just marketing. If someone has a green or sustainable product or service, they may want to reach a green market segment like LOHAS consumers or sustainable or cleantech businesses. But it’s still just marketing.
I’m not saying that promoting sustainable products and services isn’t different. It does require a critical difference in substance—providing transparency, being credible, and backing up claims, as well as using environmentally friendly methods (post-consumer recycled paper, more electronic communications, and so on).
That requires a genuine commitment to sustainability and the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit. Wouldn’t it be great if all marketing displayed these values? I’d like to be an optimist: one day sustainable, credible communications will be the norm, and we can to do away with using “green marketing.”
September 28th, 2010
by Sandra Stewart
in
alternative transportation, communications strategy |
No Comments →
The e-newsletter Thinkshift produces for the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (CNGVC) has once again made the quarterly Vertical Response 500 list, this time at number 17—up from 264.
The 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 CNGVC 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 consistent success of this newsletter just goes to show that substantive content, carefully tailored to audience interests, will shine through the clutter.
September 14th, 2010
by Carolyn McMaster
in
messaging |
No Comments →
Thinkshift recently completed messaging work for several clients, which got me thinking about what good messaging is all about.
Good messaging is credible and exact. It handles the communications task at hand, whether it’s a pithy quote from the CEO in a press release, a boilerplate description of the company, or the brand voice and framework for a report, presentation or website. A messaging document should provide messages that are as close to plug-and-play as possible, with examples for as many contexts as makes sense.
Good messaging gets used. Reporters use it when writing about the company. Partner organizations use it when they describe you on their website. Employees use it, not just in presentations and formal communications, but also on their LinkedIn and Facebook pages and when they talk about their work with friends. For one client, the test came with the release of significant company news requiring media outreach and a new partnership. It was extremely gratifying to see the messaging work take hold and appear in newspaper articles, customer blog posts and on the partner website. Meanwhile, employees used it on their LinkedIn pages and elsewhere.
This doesn’t just happen naturally. We don’t just create messages, toss the client a guide and expect them to get it right away. Introducing the messaging, explaining how to use it and when, showing examples and providing training for written and spoken use are key.
Good messaging is flexible. Messaging should be used consistently, but shouldn’t be rigid. It should grow and change with the organization, and be adaptable to the person using it, the communications vehicle, audience or a other factors.
The key test—and I find this especially satisfying—is whether people genuinely like the messages. They won’t unless the messages are written in natural, ordinary language, so that people are comfortable using them without rewriting. When that happens, employees and others become advocates. They are able to provide the right message and information succinctly.
And that kind of communication brings an organization to life. You can’t do that with jargon, corporatespeak or vague and imprecise phrases.
