The problem with Boulder, CO
February 17, 2010 – 11:35 amA recommendation to the City of Boulder (and everyone reading) from CEO Suzanne Shelton
The Wall Street Journal ran a story last Friday entitled, “Even Boulder Finds it isn’t Easy Going Green.” The story focuses on the fact that after a couple of years of encouraging/incenting residents to make energy efficient choices/improvements, Boulder citizens simply haven’t done much at all. In short, the message of the article is: “If all those treehuggers in Boulder can’t be convinced to make some behavior changes for the good of the planet, how in the world are we going to convince average Americans to do it? All is lost!”
OK. If you’ve followed Shelton’s blog and process at all you know we’re adamant believers in laser targeting an audience, understanding what motivates them and then creating campaigns and messages that play to those motivators and drivers. In short, an emotional appeal works; a rational one often doesn’t.
So, following Our Way of Doing Things, I set out on the Internet to see if I could determine who the City of Boulder targeted for their program advertising, what their campaign message was and what emotional lever they attempted to press. Based on what I found, here’s where I think their program fell short and what we can all learn from it:
1. It appears the city of Boulder assumed all residents were their target, that they’re all green-leaning and pleas of saving the planet would be a great motivator. The WSJ was good enough to run several interactive graphs with their story. A couple of things jumped out at me: yes, Boulder citizens are generally green-leaning, better educated, higher income folks. According to our segmentation, therefore, the majority of the population is True Believers. Interestingly, though, 32% of Boulderites voted for Bush and 28% voted for McCain. That means there’s a niche population of Cautious Conservatives there as well. Those guys respond to a control/ROI message. And, according to the WSJ’s information, adding insulation to a Boulder home is a $2,200 investment that gets paid back in 2.5 years. That’s a compelling offer to the Cautious Conservative set. So is a $1,500 investment in caulking and air sealing that gets paid back in 3.2 years. These specific measures could be direct marketed exclusively to the Cautious Conservative crowd with an underlying emotional promise of “feel smart/in control” and do quite well.
2. It appears the city made assumptions about the True Believer’s level of understanding about what causes global warming. We’ve tracked this for three years and seen zero change: 97% of the population does not know that the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions is electricity production. Thus, when you say, “reduce your home energy use and save the planet!” almost all of us have no idea what you actually mean. The City of Boulder’s ClimateSmart web site makes this same assumption as well. Given that the majority of residents are True Believers a heartfelt story around what’s causing climate change would go a long way. The story then needs to be made personal — by tying back to the limits emissions may one day put on our grandkids and could put on Boulder residents today in the form of poor air quality. In other words, the direct link needs to be made — in an uplifting rather than depressing fashion — that every time you plug in your plasma TV you may be making the air you breathe worse for you today and definitely for your kids tomorrow. I didn’t see any “better health” messaging in Boulder’s communications, and that’s a powerful driver for the True Believer set.
In short, all is not lost. The City of Boulder just needs to do a better job of segmenting its citizens and custom marketing the right emotional promise to the right segment. The same goes for all of you, by the way.
Related posts:
- Do you know who you’re talking to? There is no one "green consumer." Nor is there one...
- Learning from Detroit: Revitalize green Could sustainability breathe life into stagnant brand? If sustainability can...
- The consumer case for the Home Star program The Home Star program, currently being debated on Capital Hill,...
- Don’t drink the Kool-Aid Marketing a green product and really bought into making the...
- Don Blankenship and the mainstream American consumer Given how little Americans understand about their daily connection to...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
11 Responses to “The problem with Boulder, CO”
Hi, just want to add my 2 cents. At MOM, our mantra is relevance, relevance, relevance. The problem with their communications is that no one is sure whats really in it for them. The problem with green communication today is that it is all about the planet and not about the people living on it. Especially in this time of economic strife issues that motivate are those that really hit home. Its really not about tree huggers (I am one) saving the planet its about all of us saving ourselves along with it. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? People took action because they understood this could cause them to get skin cancer. They acted to protect themselves first. Green communication is most effective when people can put themslves into the picture. When Boulder gets that going green can save them $ and lower utility costs then they will get motivated.
By irv weinberg on Feb 17, 2010
The WSJ article also overlooked what’s actually working in EE markets today, which is program designs aimed at markets that are actually functioning. New construction, HVAC replacement, appliance replacement markets generate lots of business (notwithstanding today’s flattened construction market), and EE programs have succeeded in getting large shares of those markets. What’s hard is getting customers to make elective retrofits, because there IS no market there–it has to be created. Other than installing CFLs, it’s been hard to get high participation rates in that space. It will take sophisticated program designs, advanced marketing like Shelton Group’s, plus persist trial-and-success, to get significant momentum going in the retrofit space. But in the meantime, progress is happening in the capital stock markets.
By Bill Prindle on Feb 18, 2010
Hi Suzanne,
Thanks so much for the insightful post. The Boulder article has been bugging me for days.
You’re so right about segmentation – and about finding benefits that appeal to people personally. “Saving the planet” is so abstract it’s hard even for us treehuggers to know what it means. But “saving money” or “healthy kids” – there are some incentives that can motivate people to take action!
By Anne Michelsen on Feb 18, 2010
Suzanne,
Loved this post. I read the WSJ article too, and was surprised by Boulder’s experience. I also found the overall tone of the article quite negative, in keeping with the Journal’s “new” style since Murdoch’s acquisition (but that’s another post…)
I agree with all your points. I’d also add that it appears Boulder missed the all important “Fun Factor.” Greening your city should be a fun, community initiative. I’m involved in such an initiative here in Bethesda, Maryland – and we focus on fun and community spirit. It really makes a huge difference.
By Lynn Anne Miller on Feb 18, 2010
While energy audits are a good way to identify sources of household energy waste, there is ample evidence that programs focused on incentivizing audits doesn’t lead to widespread adoption of energy retrofit improvements. Only the most motivated homeowners were likely to follow through when given general recommendations and left to track down their contractor.
One example of success is New York State’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program. In 2009 the NY whole house retrofit market grew by 22% even while the rest of construction industry plummeted. This program significantly amplified public investments in market transformation, with over $228 million of private homeowner capitol.
Five years ago I founded Recurve (formerly Sustainable Spaces) to help homeowners make smart choices based on looking at their house as a system and then retrofit their home’s to save energy. Unlike the Boulder program, our business model directly links energy audits to cost-effective renovation plans that lower our customers’ monthly utility bills, make their homes more comfortable, and even improve the air they breathe. We are able to convert over 45% of our audits to retrofits, and this is without a program to support us.
Last year, California shed over 35% of its construction industry jobs. That same year, Recurve grew by 70%, creating living-wage jobs for construction workers, energy auditors and support staff at our San Francisco headquarters. We achieved this growth by providing a valuable service, with little help from incentives.
While the economy as a whole is beginning to show signs of recovery, with unemployment falling to 9.7%, construction unemployment has gotten worse. In January, unemployment among construction workers climbed to 24.7%, which means one in four American construction workers are without a job. And because more than 90% of the materials commonly used in energy retrofits are made in America, the building-materials manufacturing sector is also struggling, with insulation manufacturing at 40% of industry capacity.
By Matt Golden on Feb 21, 2010
While i don’t disagree with your guidance. i do suggest there is another way; that offers huge CO2 reduction potential. The real solution is down the street at the coal burning power plants. That plant emits one heck of a lot of pollutants: the ref lists these: but they include:
1.5 million tons of CO2 per yr and 309 lbs of lead and 302 pounds of arsenic and 12,000 pounds of acid gases; 34 lbs mercury. . Etc.
If you just look at CO2 and the amount the “two guys in a truck” can save – it is a pittance vs what could be saved from just a 5% or more increase in efficiency at the coal burning power plant. Of course a better solution would be to move to natural gas supplemented with wind power.
Look at the coal plants emissions this way: that 1.5 million tons/ yr is equal to 5708 pounds per Minute (yes per minute) 24/7.
Wow – you could weatherize all the houses in Boulder and never save that much. Maybe you could suggest they are wasting their time and money with all those green projects as long as coal is burned – it will swamp all upgrades.
By bill on Feb 27, 2010
I disagree with the article framing the Boulder initiatives as a failure. It seems to me that the requirement of retrofitting rental housing is one method to establish energy efficiency in the community. I have not taken a position on this approach and would like to see how the approach turns out. Rental properties are required to upgrade energy efficiency on permit renewal. It is good to see what consceptions the public has regarding this approach. I think the fear is that government would require people especially homeowners to change. But I believe that many issues of spuriousness from this article can be resolved by further investigation. Boulder has been attacked before for being on the leading edge.
There are home performance companies in the Boulder area. The Reap program promoted home performance in Boulder. However it was overran by a utility model. The utility model is a Home Performance with Energy Star model with possibly a few quirks to be ironed out. Currently atleast two non-profits assist residents in finding qualified and reputable standard energy efficiency companies and home performance companies.
By James Weingardt on Mar 1, 2010
“This Article” mentioned in the above post refers to the WSJ article.
By James Weingardt on Mar 1, 2010
For clarification the two techs in a truck program is a program ontop of the local Home Performance programs.
By James Weingardt on Mar 1, 2010