Think Big, Bet Small: Inspiration from Compostmodern

The Compostmodern conference in San Francisco March 22–23 tossed designers and like-minded thinkers together for one day of TED-like talks and one of hands-on creative work, all focused on design and sustainability. Like the event in 2011, it was amazing—you could practically see glowing light bulbs (LEDs of course) floating above participants’ heads.

The theme was resilience; we got excited about all the great examples of how much branding contributes to the success of a new project, whether it’s for an underserved community, getting people to eat local sustainable crab, or creating a cool café in a small town. I’m still digesting the inspiration and ideas. Here are a few bits of advice from conference speakers who made a big impression.

John Bielenberg, Project M
Make small bets. One of the biggest things that gets in the way of innovation and new ideas is fear of failure or looking dumb. So make the risk small, act fast, adjust, and repeat. The steps of his Future Blitz Cycle of Rapid Ingenuity are: Be bold > Get out > Think wrong > Make stuff > Bet small > Move fast.

Ezio Manzini, DESIS Network
Centralized systems are very fragile and brittle. Designing for resilience means designing distributed systems, pursuing collaboration and innovation, and focusing on groups of people with capabilities, not individuals with needs.

Tiffany Shlain, filmmaker
“Courage is a muscle you constantly need to exercise.”

Terry Irwin, Carnegie Mellon School of Design
“Humans’ propensity to produce monoculture is amazing.” Designing appropriately has as much to do with how we think as it does with skills. Designers tend to impose order—grid systems become an obsession. But entropy eventually dissolves the order. So, design to take advantage of that, and take cultural and social systems into consideration.

Madeleine Lansky, psychiatrist
Relationships and unconscious dynamics determine a project’s success—80 percent of all projects fail. People are passionate, diverse, and competitive. They come to projects with different knowledge, facts, and expectations. When people feel unheard or undervalued, they go into fight or flight mode. Acknowledge group fractures and use them as a way to grow.

Julie Sammons, chief community officer, Hylo
Resilience is not about bouncing back. It’s about adaptation and response, and having more than one option available. Design can adjust, adapt and maintain. Look to nature. Reshuffle, remix.

Howard Brown, co-founder, dMass
Everything in our built environment is the earth’s crust redesigned. Products are a medium, not the benefit: we don’t need batteries; we need portable energy devices. Most products are mostly waste. Consider products’ naked value: what they deliver to the user minus their embodied mass (all the resources used to make them).

David McConville, resilience-design.org
“The universe we design for is the one we’re going to get.”

One speaker said that design is a gift of seeing the world as it could be. At Thinkshift, we’re more inspired than ever to be bold, get out, act fast, collaborate, and be resilient.

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.

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

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.

How Sloppy Presentation Kills Credibility

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.

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.