← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Lack of Clarity Can Mean Lack of Credibility

Published November 2nd, 2009 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.

Procrastination, the Enemy of Sustainable Communications

Published October 12th, 2009 in communications strategy | No Comments »

It’s easy to push the maintenance part of communications work to the back burner. So many pressing things to do and so little time! You don’t keep the website quite as current as it could be. Sales has been doing fine without those backgrounders—surely they can wait a few more weeks? Ditto, refining the messaging for that new target market.

But weeks stretch into months, and soon you find that the back of the stove is so crowded you don’t know which pot to tend to first. (I’ll stop the metaphor there.) Or the competition makes a move and you find you’re not prepared to counter it. And since all the parts are connected (or should be), one small need sets off an avalanche and you’re faced with what feels like a gigantic project instead of an exciting challenge.

I see it with clients who tend to react rather than remain on the offensive. And I’m guilty of it myself. (Hence the inspiration for this post—it’s as much pep talk to self as advice.) It just doesn’t result in communications that are sustainable and well thought out. It becomes difficult to change course. And it costs you in lost opportunities.

But a little effort can go a long way. You can set aside a few hours a week (or every two) to keep your site current and make sure your collateral reflects your needs and changes in your market. Figure out if you can save time by outsourcing or delegating.

Before you know it you’ll be freed to pursue those opportunities you once had to pass up because you weren’t prepared to tackle them.

Or rather, I should say, I’ll be freed up. I feel better already!

FTC’s Draft Green Guides Set a High Bar

Published September 30th, 2009 in communications strategy, green marketing, sustainability | No Comments »

Companies making vague and poorly supported environmental claims are about to get a smackdown from the Federal Trade Commission’s upcoming revised Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (aka Green Guides), according to Victor Bell of Environmental Packaging International, which has been giving the agency feedback on the long-awaited revision. That is, if the guidelines are enforced—and Bell believes they will be.

Bell’s presentation at the recent Sustainable Packaging Forum conference in Atlanta caused a stir—many in the audience seemed taken aback by the draft guidelines’ stringency (and possibly by Bell’s delightfully vehement presentation of them). For example, Bell said, a brand name like Eco‐Safe would be considered deceptive if it leads consumers to believe that the product or package has environmental benefits that the manufacturer can’t  substantiate. A wrapper labeled “environmentally friendly” because it wasn’t bleached with chlorine would be considered deceptive if production of the wrapper created other harmful substances. And claims that packaging is recyclable will be considered deceptive unless they’re recyclable in at least 60 percent of U.S. communities.

I preceded Bell on stage with a presentation on the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient—the public debut of  the official version of our system for measuring the credibility of any communication. I was happy to see that the criteria we’re using line up neatly with the FTC’s draft guidelines. (Bell told me later that he thought I was saying essentially the same thing; I was just nicer about it. Maybe I shouldn’t have been!)

I see credibility questions popping up more and more—and I think companies that believe they can continue forever to make grandiose, unsupported claims are in for an unpleasant surprise.

Green ‘Consumers’ Want to Save the Planet? Not So Much

Published August 31st, 2009 in communications strategy, green marketing, sustainability | No Comments »

More evidence that “save the planet” is bad messaging: Suzanne Shelton of the Shelton Group reports that her firm’s recent national survey of people identified as green buyers found six myths about green “consumers,” including that their top concern is the environment and that their main motivation when reducing energy use is to “save the planet.” The stat there: “When asked the most important reason to reduce energy consumption, 73 percent chose ‘to reduce my bills/control costs’ and only 26 percent chose ‘to lessen my impact on the environment.’”

This shouldn’t really be surprising. A growing body of research suggests that we’re hardwired to focus on the immediate and undervalue future benefits. Marketing gurus have been hammering home for decades the need to answer the key buyer question, “What’s in it for me?” And really, how would you expect people who are treated and see themselves as “consumers” to behave? (A topic I ranted on recently.)

Yet “save the planet” and its variations continue to appear in marketing and advertising by sophisticated companies and nonprofits. Either they believe there are more treehuggers out there than there are; they’re committed environmentalists themselves who can’t believe that everyone else won’t see the light when it’s pointed out to them (the classic error of mistaking yourself for your market); or they just want to paint themselves as green by communicating that they think saving the planet is a good idea. Regardless, it’s time for a new pitch.

‘Know Your Audience’ Applies to Sustainability, Too

Published June 8th, 2009 in communications strategy, marketing, sustainability | No Comments »

In an article from Environmental Leader, IBM Global Business Services’ Corporate Sustainability leader, Jeff Hittner, likens companies’ approach to CSR to the early days of the Internet, when “People would come to us and say, ‘Wow. We need a Web site.’ We’d ask what their customers wanted in a Web site and they’d say ‘We don’t know. We only know we need a Web site.’”

Hittner and his colleague Eric Riddleberger talked to leaders at 224 companies around the world about CSR efforts, publishing their findings in a white paper, “Leading a Sustainable Enterprise.” Their surveys show that while two-thirds of companies focus on CSR as an integrated business strategy, most of them don’t know what their customers or partners expect when it comes to sustainability information. Thirty-seven percent of companies had done no research on customers’ CSR concerns, and 35 percent of them had done research for less than three years.

Most of them are in the dark when it comes to communicating about what the company is doing and engaging stakeholders, be they customers, partners, or anybody else. Hittner and Riddleberger found that a little over half (fewer than you’d think) are even trying to communicate with investors, business partners, government, and the community. It’s a bit better for employees, with 63 percent of companies engaging with them.

Not surprisingly, Hittner recommends that companies do customer research, find out who is most interested in sustainability, and develop programs that education and engage customers about sustainability.

That way, when you say, “We need a website for sustainability,” you’ll know not only what you need to communicate, but who you need to reach and what they want to hear from you.

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »