Super Bowl Ads – The good, the bad and the green.

Creative Director, Larry Washington, weighs in on last night’s entertainment.

Another year, another round of super bowl commercial hits and misses. I was excited to see that a few more creative concepts broke through this year. Of course there were still an overwhelming amount of bad ideas propped up by expensive production (hello, Bud Light) but the balance between substance and style seemed pretty good. I was a little surprised at the small amount of any online pushes from the spots aside from the obligatory website on the end frame. There were a few that drove us to their site to “see what happens next” but not many social community building efforts.

The one spot that did jump out to me was Audi’s “Green Police” It was really the only commercial that had an environmental focus (which I found interesting as well).

Audi is basically telling us that this car makes green feel good even though being green takes away pleasure in our lives and is generally awful overall. But isn’t the target for this car a little more green-leaning? (Our research would say yes.)  This idea, then, says to a potential customer, “You have green leanings and being green sucks. Our car makes it suck less.” They seem to have gotten carried away with a cool creative idea that was super entertaining but insults the target audience. If you’re positioning a product as green, why degrade the general idea of green? That’s like walking up to someone and saying “Hi. I think your clothes are hideous, your lifestyle disgusts me and you’re pretty much a moron. Wanna go out?”

This spot has gotten mixed reviews online. I’d love to hear your comments on it.

Posted in Green, Uncategorized | No Comments »

What if everybody stopped believing in global warming but kept buying green products?

You know the old philosophical question:  if a tree falls in the woods and nobody’s around to hear it, does it make any noise?  Well, we may have a similar existential conundrum around global warming.  Our 2010 Eco Pulse study is just in from the field and we’re furiously analyzing the data.  One big finding:  the number of people who believe global warming is happening and caused by man has dropped 10 points from last year’s study to only 48%,  In fact, this is a 14 point drop from our Energy Pulse study, fielded in August.

The reason?  Climategate, in part.  Though only a third of our respondents were aware of the emails from climatologists questioning whether or not global warming is happening, nearly half said it had somewhat-to-greatly reduced their belief that global warming is happening and caused by man.

Here’s where it gets really interesting, though:  on the surface (remember that we’re still analyzing the data) it appears that green purchasing behavior and propensity is actually up.  We’ve been advising our clients and our blog readers for years that most folks don’t go green to save the planet, and this is just more data to that effect.  We’re seeing comfort and convenience continue to take precedence over the environment, and we’re seeing health and safety concerns continue to gain ground in priority in some categories.

We have a lot more analysis to do, but the initial takeaway for all of you marketing green products and services:  people will keep buying green regardless of what they believe about global warming.  The trick, as always, is to identify the reason they want green in your category and build product innovations and marketing strategies around that desire.

Posted in Green | No Comments »

Is No Nukes Good Nukes?

Our Director of Insight Karen Barnes wades into the nuclear debate. Is nuclear a renewable energy? What are mainstream consumers now saying about nuclear?

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama pledged more than $50 billion in federal loan guarantees for the nuclear power industry. That’s about half of what industry leaders asked for, and it’s a drop in the bucket when you compare how much money the federal government used to prop up other sagging industries like banking and auto manufacturing.

Why does the nuclear industry need federal loan guarantees? Turns out that Wall Street banks won’t touch financing for nuclear projects due to massive cost overruns and a default rate that hovers near the 50% mark.

Why does the government want to spark more nuclear energy development? Because in the words of Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Monday, “Nuclear energy provides clean, safe, reliable power and has an important role to play as we build a low-carbon future. The Administration is committed to promoting nuclear power in the United States.”

Nuclear powers about 20% of domestic consumption, so it’s a major player. Proponents cite job creation, workplace safety (apparently fewer people die in nuclear power plants each year than in coal-fired, natural gas or hydroelectric workplaces), affordability and no greenhouse gas emissions.

Opponents cite expensive construction costs (a new nuclear reactor carries a $9 billion price tag), our dependence on foreign countries for uranium, water use, no long-term plan for radioactive waste, industry consolidation and nuclear weapons proliferation.

So it’s no wonder that when we talk with consumers about energy, we often hear a lot of confusion about nuclear. In Energy Pulse 2009, 5% said nuclear was a renewable energy source. In focus groups, people aren’t sure what to do with it and often we have to ask them a series of questions like, “Well, isn’t there a mineral that’s used in generating nuclear power and is that mineral a finite resource?”

Last year, Gallup also found that public support for nuclear power was at an all-time high at 59%, including 27% who strongly favor its use.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received 26 requests for permission to build new reactors, as of last March. There hasn’t been a construction start of a nuclear power plant in this country since 1977.

Proponents say in order to keep up with increasing consumer energy demand, the US will need to build 25-30 new reactors by 2030. At $9 billion a pop, that adds up to a $2.7 trillion investment in the next 20 years. Opponents advocate spending that money on creating truly scalable, truly renewable energy like wind and solar.

What are you hearing out there? How are utilities best positioning themselves if nuclear is in their future plans? Should nuclear be considered an “alternative energy” since it’s not a truly “renewable energy?”

Let the discussion begin…

Posted in Utilities | 4 Comments »

The consumer conundrum: consume or conserve?

I spoke at the International Builder’s Show last Thursday and started my day with a run on the treadmill.  Warren Buffet was being interviewed on the TV in the fitness room and he said, as have countless other economic experts, “We need to get people spending money again.”  I didn’t think much about it until I walked into the Convention Center a few hours later and saw several “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” banners hanging throughout the hall.  In essence, we’re telling consumers, “you need to go out and buy new stuff so we can bring the economy back and create jobs for your neighbors,”but then at the same time we’re telling them, “Oh don’t go buy a bunch of new stuff, it consumes resources and that’s bad…think about your grandchildren.”

So what’s a consumer to do — save their neighbors’ jobs or save their grandchildren? And as marketers, how are we to strike the right balance?

For now, the emphasis needs to be on recycling.  Consumers understand it (for many green = recycling), they give manufacturers brownie points for it (in our Eco Pulse study they consistently rank companies who recycle as highly green), and we’ve still got a lot of room for improvement in this area (in short, we still make a lot of products that can’t be recycled).

A company who’s striking the right balance is Preserve Products. This company was created as an answer to the question, “what do they do with all that plastic I put in my blue bin every week?”  Specifically, they make personal care, tableware and dinnerware products out of it.  And should any of those products wear out (a toothbrush eventually will), they take those back and make even more products.  They have take-back stations set up at retail all across America for number 5 plastic, and they have deals struck with manufacturers whose products go in plastic (Stoneyfield farms yogurt, for example) to recycle all that, too.

On the Reduce side of the equation, they have a line of dinner plates that look a bit like the sturdier plastic plates you might use at a picnic…and throw in the trash at the end of your meal.  Only you don’t throw Preserve’s plates away.  They’re dishwasher safe (and lightweight), so you just toss them in your picnic basket, take them home and wash them and use them again at the next occasion.

In short, this makes them a consumer products company who would actually like people to consume less.  Some might think this is an unsustainable business model.  Actually, it works just fine.  There are billions of us on this planet, and billions more on the way, so there are plenty of people to buy, it’s just a matter of a shift in the marketing plan.  Rather than counting on repeat business, they’re counting on referral business.  Services firms has thrived under this model for years.  Manufacturers can as well.  And, in the end, we can help consumers save their neighbors’ jobs AND their grandchildren.

Posted in Green | 1 Comment »

Rebuilding Green in New Orleans

Director of Insight Karen Barnes just returned from her fourth trip to New Orleans. Having seen the devastation from Katrina first-hand just one year after the storm, she provides an update on the city’s efforts to rebuild green five years later.

It’s hard to believe it’s been five years since we all sat riveted to our televisions, watching almost unimaginable images of New Orleans residents scrambling to their rooftops to be plucked to safety by hovering helicopters. Last week, I was in the Crescent City for a conference, watching images of profound sadness from Haiti, and recalling my last New Orleans trip.

It was the year after the storm – 2006. We drove through the Lower Ninth Ward, where nearly 4,000 homes were simply washed away. FEMA trailers dotted the landscape. Stores, schools, churches and hospitals stood empty. As I flew over Slidell, there was nothing but blocks and blocks of bare concrete slabs where homes used to stand.

Today, there’s slow progress rebuilding the city. Sure, the French Quarter and the Garden District are in full swing, but the New Orleans Community Data Center reported last year that nearly 66,000 homes still couldn’t be occupied in the city and neighboring parishes. A handful of businesses are re-opening in the most hard-hit areas, and about 20 colorful new homes dot the landscape in the Lower Ninth.

Like Greensburg, Kansas, New Orleans is considered a laboratory for rebuilding green. Those 20 new homes – funded by Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation – are all built with certified Cradle-to-Cradle carpet, wood products and fabrics. They’re built with insulated low-E windows, closed cell spray foam insulation, solar panels, ENERGY STAR appliances and metal roofing.

A 2,000 sq.ft. BuildSmart Learning Center helps builders learn the latest green construction techniques and products. City officials approved an energy efficiency program to improve 2,800 properties a year by installing insulation, weather stripping and CFLs. City buses now run on a combination of biodiesel, gasoline and electric power. Urban gardening is once again taking root in the Lower Ninth. Almost $8 billion in grants have been paid out to nearly 125,000 under-insured homeowners and there are more than 8500 applications pending. It’s a start.

What else could be done in New Orleans? What other green building techniques and trends are gaining traction? What are consumers interested in around the country?

Our Green Living Pulse research shows that 47% of respondents are interested in green homes, so there’s definite interest. A whopping 72% of Americans are interested in living in an energy efficient home. We’re also seeing pent up consumer demand for solar panels on their homes – 28% said they were interested in installing PV systems.

And they’re motivated by saving money. Protecting the environment ranks third as a reason to be more energy efficient. But in New Orleans, in the aftermath of Katrina – which some scientists say was made more dangerous by the effects of climate change – that just might be a little different.

According to research from the American Solar Energy Society, by the year 2038, three-quarters of the buildings in this country will be new or renovated. Each year, we renovate about 5 billion sq. ft. of existing buildings.

If we can take some of the energy conservation lessons we’re learning from New Orleans’ rebuilding, and apply them to the next two decades of renovations, we’ll stand a much better chance at reducing the 40% of total emissions that emanate from buildings.

As marketers, we should be watching and learning from the New Orleans experiment. Seeing what consumers embrace. What they reject. And what causes lasting behavior change.

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green | 2 Comments »

The mystery of Social Marketing isn’t really all that mysterious.

A report from our VP of Creative, Larry Washington

I recently attended the Social Fresh conference in Nashville to catch the latest scuttlebutt on the Social world. It was well worth the trip. We saw first-hand the fears and troubles everyday businesses are having with the whole idea of Social Marketing. We heard stories of failure and success and learned a valuable tip or two about using Social Media. I ended up with a few pages of great thoughts by the end of the day. I’ll spare you the full access to my rambling mind and give you my two biggest takeaways.

Big takeaway #1 – Mystery? What mystery?

One thing that popped up over and over throughout the day was the idea that we’re all trying to “solve” Social Marketing. I contend that many different companies have solved it, many times, many ways. Fiskars, Sharpie and Southwest Airlines are just a few that prove this point. It’s not Social Marketing that needs solving, but how do you sell its necessity to the CEO? There will never be a single formula for Social Marketing because, like any marketing, PR or advertising campaign, ideas and goals will be different from client to client. And, like any marketing, PR or ad campaign you need a big idea and someone to champion and guide that idea (that’s my dirty plug for the wisdom of using an agency instead of doing it yourself – big takeaway 1.2).

Big takeaway #2 – It’s all or nothing.

You’re either doing a Social Marketing campaign or you’re not. There’s really not much gray area here. Being involved in Social Media (having a Facebook page or a Twitter feed) doesn’t mean you have your social presence figured out. Social Marketing is about community and involvement first, before you start to sell. It’s about knowing and talking to your community as a solid and trusted contributor. And it’s about real involvement that doesn’t stop. Ever. It also takes complete buy-in from every level internally with a willingness to receive some lumps from the community that can be smoothed out via a two-way conversation. In a nutshell, it’s an acceptance of corporate transparency. Scary? Maybe. But in these days and times it’s the pathway to consumer trust and loyalty.

Overall it was an awesome conference and got me spinning about the possibilities when communicating an energy efficiency or green message. It seems that the explosion of Social Marketing and the green/efficiency movement were made for each other, but that’s a blog for another day.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Landfills are full of energy efficiency intentions

I just installed some new, energy-efficient windows for my home. I love the new windows, but I’ve been worried about what will happen to the old ones.  Right now they’re stacked up in my contractors dumpster-on-wheels, ready to be taken to the landfill.  How cool would it have been if my purchase had included recycling the old windows?  I’ve actually just learned that Habitat for Humanity will take the old windows, so I’ll go that route…but I had to do some digging to find that and I’ll have to expend a little effort to coordinate the pick-up.  Not something a mainstream consumer would do.  In fact, to mainstream consumers, green = recycled, so any manufacturer of home improvement products should think about offering recycling programs…and also about eliminating waste in the products they ship.  For the full story, watch the video below.

Posted in Energy Efficiency, Green | 1 Comment »

How green is Apple’s apple?

From our Director of Insight, Karen Barnes:

You may have heard about the latest swirl of shareholder discontent at Apple. It’s not about earnings – it’s about the board’s reluctance to create a sustainability committee and to publish an annual sustainability report. Again. This also happened last year.

Here’s a little background: Al Gore’s on the board. So is Andrea Jung, CEO of Avon. So is Arthur Levinson, leader of biotech company Genentech. And so is Millard Drexler, CEO of J. Crew.

In the last three years, more than 2,700 companies have produced corporate sustainability reports, including Apple competitors Dell, and HP. Apple shares its environmental impact on a regular basis on its web site, but doesn’t publish a singular, comprehensive report.

According to the Board’s proxy statement, “The web data provides the most comprehensive accounting of any electronics company’s carbon footprint.” And indeed, the site examines life cycle assessment, product usage impact, product environmental reports and company environmental updates. The Product Environmental Reports take it a step deeper – revealing greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, material efficiency, use of restricted substances and recycling.

The shareholder’s request states, “Apple, however, lags behind global industry peers on sustainability reporting. It has released some product specific information on greenhouse gas emissions but its usefulness is limited as nearly all other companies use aggregate emission estimates. Apple has not made public greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments.”

The company has been named Greenpeace’s number one environmental computer company. It’s identified its carbon footprint to be 10.2 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents. It’s eliminated mercury, PVC, arsenic and brominated flame retardants from its manufacturing process. Its batteries last longer than previous ones. In short, Apple’s got a proven track record of sustainable actions.

So why not just create a report? What’s the big deal? And will the Board’s reluctance to do so impact consumer perceptions of the well-loved brand?

Apple’s Board says it’s already providing timely, accurate, thorough information about its sustainability initiatives. But Apple’s shareholders want more. Here’s a sampling of comments:

“Since when does transparency have to come wrapped in a report? No one reads those things.”

“I’m more concerned about companies that do create environmental reports but obviously aren’t making the actual decisions and commitments to become more sustainable. They score higher for writing a report than for actually changing their behavior.”

“Apple’s proving they’re doing it by walking the walk.”

“I was considering switching from a PC to an Apple, but now I’m reconsidering. I’m not saying I won’t do it, but it’s a decision factor for me.”

Apple’s cult-like following will likely not abandon the brand as a result of this latest controversy. But that’s because the company is doing a pretty good job of being transparent about its environmental impact. Is Apple perfect? Certainly not. Could it do better? Sure.

For marketers, here are a few lessons to be learned:
- Shareholders are asking for more transparency around sustainability. Wall Street, too.
- Publishing a sustainability report isn’t going to buy your company any points unless there’s already a deep commitment to making change. Transparency isn’t only found in a report. It’s found in actions, in shared information, and in results.

How would you vote if you were on Apple’s board? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Posted in Green | 7 Comments »

The newest bandwagon is headed to a community near you

It’s the beginning of a new year, which means there are lots of articles predicting trends for 2010.  Marketers love to do this as well (we’re guilty of it, too), particularly around consumers and what marketing themes might get their attention.

A biggee being reported in nearly every trendwatching service is the idea of giving back.  That in light of the economy perhaps we’ve done some soul searching and shifted from a greedy, “he who dies with the most stuff wins” mentality to one of deeper meaning…a life where we care about our neighbors and communities and want to give back to them.

We do see some evidence of this in focus groups over the last six months.  And we do think it’s certainly something to appeal to around environmental and energy issues.  But we’re concerned that some large corporations are jumping on this bandwagon as a fly-by-night marketing ploy rather than as a real commitment.

Here’s why:  consumers are smarter than we give them credit for.  They can smell a sales pitch.  Further, they’re wary of having their emotions and good intentions toyed with.  Nearly 40% of the population say they will lobby their friends and family to stop buying a product that says its green and turns out not to be, and that willingness to punish a brand extends to efforts like this.

One program that’s getting a lot of press – and one that has divided our office – is Pepsi’s new Refresh initiative.  They’re dropping their Super Bowl ad spending in favor of a community-based initiative.  Here’s an excerpt from ESPN.com last month:

The nation’s second-biggest soft drink maker is plowing marketing dollars into its “Pepsi Refresh Project” starting next month as its main vehicle for Pepsi. The project will pay at least $20 million for projects people create to “refresh” communities.

A Web site will go live Jan. 13 where people can list their projects, which could range from helping to feed people to teaching children to read. People can vote starting Feb. 1 to determine which projects receive money. Here’s the link:  http://www.refresheverything.com/ if you want to learn more.

Some of the folks in our office, and lots of bloggers we follow as well, think this is terrific.  Pepsi’s done a lot of community work in the past, they just haven’t put it front and center, so it makes sense to do it now.  Others of us are concerned that Pepsi may come off as just trying to take advantage opf a trend — particularly since they’ve tied this Refresh initiative to a rejection of Super Bowl ad spending.  What happens when they’re back on the Super Bowl in a couple of years and not spending $20 million on community initiatives?  Does this signal to consumers that Pepsi just kind of goes with the wind, that they don’t have any real commitment to anything other than sales?

The answer remains to be seen.
Here’s our advice:  if your company and/or brand has an ongoing commitment to helping the communities you serve and making the world a better place, by all means talk about it.  But be prepared to make a long range commitment and to keep talking about it and doing it even when it’s not on trend.  That will buy you long-term loyalty and trust from consumers.  Otherwise, you’ll look like you’re just trying to sell a product.  And no consumer wants to jump on that bandwagon.

Posted in Green | No Comments »

Climate Change Attitudes North of the Border

From our Director of Inisight, Karen Barnes:

We Americans have a lot in common with our Canadian neighbors – we both have mature economies, speak English, and we all love ham/Canadian bacon.

At Shelton we get asked on a fairly regular basis about Canadian attitudes and behaviors around energy efficiency and sustainability. This year, we’re planning to include Canada in our Energy Pulse survey to see where the similarities and differences exist.

But one thing we can already point to is a difference in climate change attitudes. When it comes to being concerned about climate change, the Canucks are more worried than we are. In fact, according to a poll just released Monday, Canadians think climate change is a more pressing threat than terrorism.

Nearly half the respondents said climate change is a “critical threat” while only 28% categorized terrorism that way. This marks a real departure from last year’s results when climate change and terrorism were practically neck and neck.

Here in the US, terrorism and the environment were also tied at 8% in our Green Living Pulse study. But the economy (59%) and healthcare (14%) took the top two spots.

What’s interesting to me is that Canadians – who haven’t experienced terrorist attacks of the same magnitude as Americans – consider it to be more of a critical threat than we do.

What this also reveals is a sense of insecurity among Canadians – they feel at the mercy of outside forces from terrorists and the environment. There may not be much individual Canadian citizens can do about thwarting possible attacks, but they can do something about reducing their environmental impact.

Thus, there may be an opportunity for a pure environmental message to take hold in Canada.  Particularly one with an empowerment promise.

One more thought on this:  because of what appears to be a drastic difference between how Canadians prioritize the environment and how Americans prioritize it, we can’t really look to Canada’s success stories in the environmental and energy marketing arena and steal from their playbook.  We hear that from time to time:  “Take a look at this campaign, it really worked in Canada…let’s do something like that here.”   The mainstream consumers of the two nations are in different places emotionally and intellectually regarding the environment.  So what works there won’t likely work here.

Again, we’ll explore this further with this year’s Energy Pulse and keep you posted.

Posted in Green, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »