Making the emotional case for (sustainability) change

There is a fascinating interview with Chip Heath in the latest Mckinsey Quarterly (free subscription required to access), titled: Making the emotional case for change. Heath's thesis is that building a rational, analytical case for change is not enough to make change happen. You also have to appeal to people's emotion. You have to motivate them to want to change.

I'm constantly amazed at how much businesses underestimate the impact of the emotional side of communications. Politics understands it. I dare you to find a politician running a campaign TV commercial that references anything remotely resembling an issue (unless it's an attack ad). Ditto for sales and marketing. But for some reason, business leaders seem to think that data alone is good enough to make their point. "If I could just show them this graph" or "they need to know the facts." As Heath explains, that alone is not enough to drive change.

This blog is (primarily) about external green communication, but before you can do that you have to have internal alignment. This article gives some great examples and tips for how to get that internal alignment. Take Heath's example from GE and how they got their team to start thinking in terms of ecomagination:

CEO Jeff Immelt said, “There’s a broad social trend toward finding more sustainable ways of doing business, and if we can take advantage of that, we will be well-positioned for the future.” GE did a green audit, looking for places where they already had industry-leading green products, and started highlighting those existing products for employees. One was an LED3 lighting system that produces great light with 10 percent of the electricity used by other systems. GE then said, “We’re the kind of people who can succeed in this new business environment that’s more and more focused on sustainability.”

The entire article is worth the read. And once you have that internal alignment, Chip Heath and his brother Dan can help you shape that external story as well just as Chris Jarvis entertainingly points out on 3BL TV:

I've read Made to Stick and can't say enough about the book. It encapsulates everything I tried to do during my brief stint in the advertising agency world. Get the book and read it.

Green Drinks February at Latitude 44

Green Drinks February at Latitude 44,
originally uploaded by Sioux Falls Green Project.

That's me in the distance talking about the future of biofuels at the February meeting of Sioux Falls Green Drinks.

Geolocation and Green Communication

A recent post from the Max Gladwell blog really caught my eye: Max Gladwell Embraces Geo-Local Revolution. How tight is the embrace? In their own words: "It is now the proverbial third leg of the Max Gladwell stool: Social Media, Geolocation, and Green Living."

I've been reading A LOT about geolocation recently. So much so, that the TechCrunch commenters are close to revolt over the tech blog's continuous (excessive?) coverage of Foursquare. I've even started experimenting with Foursquare and I have to say that the points and badges you get for signing in are quite addictive.

What the MG post does well is connect geolcation with its potential for green living. The examples include smart grid applications and the "shop, buy, eat local" movement. Tellingly, it also points out the potential of the technology to out practitioners of "localwashing." As for companies at the leading edge of geolocation and green living, MG links to Greenopia, GenGreen Life and 3rdWhale.

The post ends with a collection of blog posts and resources to help green communicators understand the growing trend of geolocation. If you haven't yet started to pay attention to this important new digital communications method, it would be a good place to start the learning.

Q&A on LinkedIn Part 2

Last week I posted part one of a two-part interview I did with Caroline Kawashima for her LinkedIn group Cleantech Social. Caroline posted part two today, which I repost here for those who aren't a member of LinkedIn:

Kawashima: Based on your experience, what is the greatest barrier that prevents more marketers and communications professionals in cleantech from using social media?

Schock: I’m not sure what would prevent cleantech communicators from using social media because I think it’s a perfect match for two main reasons. First, cleantech companies can’t compete dollar for dollar with legacy energy companies. Social media can be done for very little cost. Second, and more important, cleantech works well with social media because people love to promote a cause. Social media gives cleantech companies the opportunity to build a community of brand loyalists who do the promotion for them. It’s the Gort Cloud that Richard Seireeni talks about in his excellent book with the same title.

Kawashima: Which social media tools do you use regularly and why have you found these specific tools to be most effective?

Schock: I frequently use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogs, FriendFeed and other social networks. I recently started using Foursquare to get more familiar with geolocation. I’ve been blogging for several years and still consider that to be the most effective social media tool, but different tools serve different purposes. I like Twitter because it’s easy to quickly posts thoughts and generate feedback. It’s also a great way to find other people with similar interests. I also blog less now that I have Twitter because the micro-bloging format is an outlet for those quick thoughts.

But I look at my blog as the foundation of my online footprint. It’s there that I present thoughts more fully fleshed out and link to other things that interest me. It’s also the way I learn. When I want to explore more on a particular topic, I blog about it. I link to and react to experts on the subject. I comment on their blogs. I participate in the conversation. I think more people in cleantech would benefit from doing the same thing.

I was listening to the latest episode of the Six Pixels of Separation podcast, which included a captivating interview with author, Googler and blogger Avinash Kaushik. Mitch Joel titled the episode Avinash Kaushik With His Hair On Fire and it was obvious why. His passion for making people better digital marketers came through loud and clear. He was practically shouting at times!

After panning the web site of an unnamed big brand, Avinash gave an example of what he thought a web site should be: Seventh Generation. Why? From Avinash (15:24):

A small company in Burlington, Vermont. It sells laundry things, right? But you go to Seventh Generation's web site, you see in the middle there is a small box that shows their products. And surrounded all around their box...are all things that are geared to telling you one single message: 'Join our jihad in changing the world and saving the planet!'...What are they selling on their web site?...P.S. we sell cleaning supplies. But please be a part of our path and ability to go change the world and that's why you should buy our products.

There's much more about why Avinash likes the web site and the entire episode is worth listening to. So how about it? Are you just selling cleaning supplies? Or changing the world and saving the planet?

BTW, Six Pixels of Separation author and podcaster Mitch Joel is coming to Sioux Falls March 26 for the Trust Summit. I'll be there if you're interested in connecting.

Q&A on LinkedIn

One of the many excellent CSR bloggers that I have gotten to know is Caroline Kawashima. She manages the LinkedIn group Cleantech Social, which is a forum for cleantech companies and organizations to talk about the intersection of social media and cleantech. (If you want to connect with me on LinkedIn, click here).

She periodically posts guest interviews and the latest one is with me talking about how we integrate social media into the communications plans of POET, where I am the director of public relations. Earlier this week, Caroline posted part one of the interview, which I reprint here with permission:

Guest Interview: Nathan Schock, Director of PR for POET, on the Value of Social Media

First of a two-part interview with Nathan Schock, director of public relations for POET, the largest ethanol producer in the world and developer of cellulosic ethanol, on how and why he integrates social media into his communications platform. Nathan and I met through Twitter and converse and exchange ideas through social media. You can follow POET on Twitter @ethanolbyPOET.

Kawashima: What role, if any, do you see for social media within your marketing and communications goals?

Schock: We have integrated social media into all of our marketing and communications goals, which in turn support the company’s business goals. For every announcement our company makes, we have a role for social media. We use our primary company blog to get more in depth on the personal stories behind our news. We interview frontline workers for our YouTube channel POET TV. And we use Twitter to push out pieces of information that don’t rise to the level of importance necessitating a press release. We also try to regularly engage online communities that are discussing our company and the biofuels industry.

Kawashima: You recently used social media at a recent press event where you showcased the latest cellulosic biomass harvesting equipment. Why did you decide to use social media and was there any key learnings that you can share as to what worked and what needed improvement?

Schock: Before social media, communicators often had to target one set of stakeholders at the expense of another or hold multiple events to reach multiple audiences. With the internet, and in particular, social media, you can extend your event and reach multiple audiences.

We hosted a biomass harvest demonstration in Emmetsburg, Iowa, because that will be the location of our first commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant and we need the farmers in the area to bring us their corn cobs. Those farmers were our most important audience – we can’t make cellulosic ethanol work without them. But holding an event in Emmetsburg made it difficult to draw national press or a broad audience.

So we turned to social media to help us reach that broader audience. We made it easy for the media who attended to capture and upload content, uploaded a lot of our own content and sponsored the attendance of a well-known alternative energy blogger. We aggregated all of that content in a YouTube playlist of 15 videos that received almost 5,000 views in the first week. On Flickr we posted 167 photos that received more than 1,000 views. All of that content and more was aggregated on a blog that we have set up for our cellulosic project. We also pushed it out through Twitter, Facebook and Friendfeed.

We learned that you have to feed the beast. The more content we uploaded, the more traffic that came to our web properties. With social media around an event like this, speed was also important. Traditional media coverage drove online searches the day of the event as well as the next when much of the print coverage hit. Most of our eyeballs came in those first two days and had we waited to get the content up, views would likely have been significantly fewer.

The problem with calling it "Global Warming"

You have to answer questions about snow storms. Cue Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Unusually Large Snowstorm
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Via Current Green: Hey Jon Stewart: The earth needs a new PR Agent where Leah Lamb writes: "The point is words are powerful." You can say that again.

Green Marketing Standards from the ICC

In January, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) published a Framework for Responsible Environmental Marketing Communications (pdf). The 25-page document provides some interesting commentary on the rise of green marketing and some useful guidelines on how to do it without getting into trouble.

The ICC issued the framework due to a "renewed interest in green marketing" that has led to a "proliferation...of...general and vague claims." It states:

One notable recent development in advertising is the proliferation of "green" claims and growing interest in concepts of "environmental sustainability" and "sustainable development," with commensurate growth in general claims that products or services are "eco-friendly," "green," "sustainable," "carbon neutral" and the like.

The inherent complexity around the issue of sustainability and the trade-offs that often occur led the ICC to say that "using green claims is a more complex undertaking than many advertisers realize." I entirely agree. As I have blogged about before, the traditional advertising tactics don't work when it comes to sustainability. Focusing on one positive green aspect to your product, service or company in your advertising while ignoring the negatives, will get you in trouble.

The primary advice of the document is sound and would help marketers avoid one of the Seven Sins of Greenwashing:

As a general matter, the Code already requires that all marketing communication be legal, decent, honest, and truthful. As applied to green claims, this overarching concept means that environmental claims should be based on sound, appropriate scientific information relevant to actual use, operation or disposal of the advertised product, not unsupported assumptions. Additionally, all marketing communication should be prepared with a due sense of social and professional responsibility, and should conform to the principles of fair competition, as generally accepted in business. The Code also provides that marketing communication should not condone or encourage actions contrary to accepted standards of environmentally responsible behaviour.

Unfortunately, the document applies only to advertising and not "corporate public affairs messages in press releases and other media statements" but the guidelines provided could help inform those statements as well. Their press release is also worth the read. I've added a link to the document to my list of Green Marketing Standards on the side bar.

What do you think? Are these standards helpful? Did they leave anything out? Sound off in the comments below.

Audi Super Bowl Advertisement: Green Car

Audi's Super Bowl advertisement, Green Car, shows the Green Police arresting individuals for environmentally unfriendly behavior like using plastic bags, throwing batteries in the trash, not composting, etc. So, how can consumers be more green? Buy an Audi Clean Diesel. "Green has never felt so right" flashes across the screen. Here's the ad:



The car was named the Green Car of the Year at the Los Angeles Auto Show, so it has the credentials to back up the claims. The ad was interesting in that there was no mention whatsoever of secondary benefits. Is green mainstream enough for a Super Bowl Commercial? Audi sure thinks so. What do you think?

What to call your product...green or healthy?

A few weeks ago, I was listening to the Green Talk Radio podcast from Green Living Ideas. Hosted by the digitally-prolific Sean Daily, it's always one of my favorites (especially his green blogger series).

This particular episode was an interview with Doug Farquar, co-founder and CEO of BuyGreen. Ten and a half minutes into that interview, Sean asked Doug if the demand for sustainable products was continuing on an upward climb or if green fatigue was causing consumers to care less about it.

Talk about a softball. This is the CEO of BuyGreen. He wants to sell more products on his web site. So, of course he's going to say that consumers are still clamoring for green. Right?

Guess again. His answer was surprisingly candid and offers an important lesson for green communicators:

I think green fatigue is very much a real issue and we really started to see that 12, maybe 18 months ago...Whereas, maybe 18 months ago people were interested in green products more from a saving the world perspective, those that remain interested...their own health is now becoming a bigger issue. 'What am I buying that is unhealthy to me or my family or my customers?' That seems to be becoming more of a forefront issue than doing their part to save the world.

Surprisingly candid, but shouldn't be surprising. People are much more likely to care about something that impacts them personally and immediately. But don't despair. This does not mean that all is lost for convincing the consumer to purchase sustainable products.

What it does mean is that to sell those products you may have to focus on what green marketing expert John Grant calls "secondary benefits." He writes: they can be more efficient, durable, affordable or basic (like the budget brands) or they can be healthier, better made or more indulgent (like premium brands) (emphasis mine).

Health is certainly a powerful secondary benefit. Who doesn't want good health for themselves and their family? As J. Ottman writes, health appeals to consumers' self-interest rather than just their eco-conscience.

Look at a recent New York Times story for a good example: The F.D.A. expression of "concern" about the presence of bisphenol-A (BPA) in food packaging. Let's say your company has produced a BPA-free alternative because it's better for the environment. Should your marketing lead with the global environmental benefits of the product (of which there are obviously many when it comes to plastic)? Or do you lead with the potential health benefits of eating food that doesn't come into contact with BPA? The answer should be obvious.

Doing Good is the best PR

Over the past few weeks, a lot of bytes have been devoted to PepsiCo's Refresh Project. There are many components, but the central idea is that the company will award up to 32 grants totaling $20 million to better the world.

Most of the coverage generated for the campaign has focused on it's launch at the expense of Pepsi's Super Bowl Ad - the first time in 23 years in which the soft drink company won't be present on advertising's biggest stage. This is an approach that I have advocated for previously on this blog.

Why? Is it just to alienate my friends who sell advertising for a living? Allow me to explain.

The irony is that in this world of media ubiquity, I believe that the best approach to advertising is not more, but less. I think companies would be better off to cut their advertising budget in half - spending half of it on making the world a better place and half telling the world what they're doing to make the world a better place.

Certainly, you can and should devote other portions of your company's budget to doing good, but I single out advertising for one simple reason. If the point of advertising is to tell people how good you are, it would be easier if you're actually doing something good. Besides, in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and growing consumer avoidance of advertising (see my presentation on web 2.0), advertising just isn't as effective as it used to be.

Sound too radical for you? Perhaps you should start with One Percent for the Planet or something similar.

Not radical enough? Try the approach of Ray Anderson in Confessions of a Radical Industrialist. In that book, Anderson lays out Mission Zero, his company's goal to be completely sustainable. Of the goal, Anderson writes:

Sustainability has given my company a competitive edge in more ways than one. It has proven to be the most powerful marketplace differentiator I have know in my long career...It has rewarded us with more positive visibility and goodwill among our customers than the slickest, most expensive advertising or marketing campaign could possibly have generated. And a strong environmental ethic has no equal for attracting and motivating good people, galvanizing them around a shared higher purpose, and giving them a powerful reason to join and to stay (Emphasis mine).

Doing good might actually give you more positive visibility because the potential exists to get your customers to do the marketing for you. According to PRWeek, PepsiCo has a big social media component to this campaign but it apparently stumbled coming out of the gate. If they can right the ship, it will be interesting to see how much buzz that (and the cash) get them.

Energy Source - A new blog from Forbes.com

Forbes.com launched a new blog last week called Energy Source. According to the introductory post, the contributors will be Jonathan Fahey, Dan Fisher and Christopher Helman.

According to a conversation I had with Fahey, the blog will be updated frequently with their quick, short takes on energy news, that might occasionally be a bit "snarky." Fahey said it will also give him an opportunity to write more frequently on alternative energy, like his first post on a ridiculous biofuels "study" from Rice University's Baker Institute. My quote in the post sums up what I thought of the study.

charity: water shows how to communicate

One of the many podcasts I subscribe to on iTunes is FORA.tv Environment. It's not a video podcast that I get to very often, but occasionally it contains a real gem. The most recent one was a presentation from Scott Harrison of charity: water.

The presentation contains some really innovative marketing on behalf of the charity. Things like putting all of the African wells they drill on a Google Earth map, a web site that helps people raise money by forgoing birthday or anniversary presents and things brands have done to get involved. The non-profit also has nearly 1.3 million followers on twitter.

Here's the presentation:



You can find Scott on Twitter as well.

2009 in Review: Public Opinion on the Environment

When I looked back on my tweets for 2009, I found a lot on polls and surveys regarding public opinion on the environment. Much of it was conflicting, so it's not surprising that people are confused.

But when you look back at the data in total you have to come to the conclusion that it was not a particularly good year for environmental advocates in the arena of public opinion. The economic downturn pushed environmental issues further down the public priority list while belief in and concern about global warming declined despite the ubiquity of the subject in the news.

Considering how important this subject is to sustainability communications, I've added a section of links to this info on the sidebar and undertook a recap of the major polls on the subject from 2009:

On December 23, Quinnipiac University released a poll finding that "most voters say the U.S. should not sign a treaty promising to reduce greenhouse gases, or should not sign such a treaty unless other nations do the same."

A majority of respondents from Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States to a December 17 Gallup Poll thought that developed and fast emerging economies should reduce emissions simultaneously and that no group should be obligated to "go first."

A December 7 Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that only 15% of adults favored raising the gas tax. Even fewer said that was a good idea to implement a gas tax in order to encourage people to purchase more fuel-efficient cars.

On December 6, The Nielsen Company and the Oxford University Institute of Climate Change released the results of an online survey of 27,000 people showing a decline in concern for climate change. Slides here.

On December 2, Pew Research released survey data showing that large majorities in every country surveyed believed that global warming was a "serious problem," while majorities in 15 of the 25 thought it was "very serious." Majorities in 23 of the 25 countries agreed with the statement: "Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some job losses." Full study (with environmental issues section starting on page 87) can be found here.

Another survey released December 2, this one from Harris Interactive, found that those who believe that "the release of carbon dioxide and other gases will lead to global warming has dropped from 71% two years ago to only 51% now."

Fewer Americans responding to a national survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released October 22 saw solid evidence of global warming. Pew Research offered possible reasons for this steep decline here.

A July 9 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 70 percent of the American public had a high regard for scientists while most scientist faulted the media for oversimplifying their issues and failing to distinguish between well-founded findings and those that are not.

In a July 1 national telephone survey from Rasmussen Reports, 56 percent of Americans indicated that they were not willing to pay more in taxes and higher utility fees to fight global warming. Just over half said that keeping energy costs low was more important than developing clean energy and 63 percent said it was more important to create jobs than fight global warming.

The 2009 Greendex survey from National Geographic found an increase in environmentally-friendly consumer behavior in 13 of the 14 countries they surveyed in 2008. The U.S. still ranked last of the 17 countries surveyed in 2009. Full study available here (pdf).

A survey of 1,006 people conducted in April and May by the Shelton Group found that 60 percent of consumers were looking for green products but were confused by what the different eco-labels.

On Earth Day, Gallup released a slew of data on polling they did in 127 countries in 2007 and 2008, revealing that:

• more than a third of the world's population has never heard of global warming. Not surprisingly, more people have heard of it in developed countries.
• the more GDP countries produce per unit of energy, the more likely they are to believe that global warming is the result of human activities. Put another way, those who believe that humans impact the climate are more efficient in their energy usage.
• majorities of citizens in many of the world's top greenhouse gas emitters are aware of global warming or climate change, and many who are familiar with global warming believe it poses a serious threat to their families. Interestingly, the Chinese saw it as the least threatening, while their neighbors, the Japanese, saw climate change as the most threatening.

A survey released April 3 from Public Agenda entitled "The Energy Learning Curve" found that the public supported a wide variety of energy policies aimed at increasing efficiency, reducing fossil fuel usage and increasing alternative energy...as long as it didn't cost them more money.

A majority of the public (59%) favored setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if that may mean higher energy prices, according to a national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released March 25.

A survey (pdf) from the Yale Project on Climate Change and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 90 percent of the public wanted the United States to act to reduce global warming but only 34 percent said that action should be "a large scale effort" regardless of the economic costs.

A March 11, 2009 Gallup Poll found that 41 percent of American's believe that global warming is "Exaggerated" while 28 percent thought it was underestimated.

And the year started with a January 7-11 survey of 1,503 people from Pew showing that the environment was 16th on the public list of priorities while global warming was 20th and dead last. Complete report here.

How to communicate sustainability

The first PRSA Tactics issue of 2010 includes an article from your humble blogger, titled: Communicate your environmental achievements in the New Year.

The article is a list of responses to this question:

In a world that is paying more attention to the environmental footprint of the products they buy and the companies that they do business with, what advice would you give to PR professionals who are seeking to communicate their company’s progress toward sustainability?

from some of the best green bloggers I read regularly:

• Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
• John Grant
• William Brent
• Marc Gunther
• Todd Woody
• Martin LaMonica
• Joel Makower
• Jacquelyn Ottman

I hope you read the article and let me know what you think in the comments below. More importantly, I hope you start following these great green bloggers if you aren't already. All of them are on one of my Twitter lists that you can find here.

If you do read the article, just do me one favor: ignore the photo.