|
|
|
| |
What will ''green'' mean in 2008?
|
|
|
| |
Unfortunately, I see eco-fatigue steadily growing, as marketers — in typical (American) fashion — squeeze every drop of blood from that stone. By this time next year, I think a "messaging consensus" will have come about, whereby market research will have proven, down to the least attentive brand manager, that "green" is not something to be presented with a starburst graphic and an exclamation point, à la 0 Trans Fat. Environmental sensitivity is one hell of a serious assertion, and insincerity will be a crime judged more gravely, in orders of magnitude, by consumers than when, say, Aquafina and Dasani were outed as bottlers of tap water. Some brand somewhere is going to jump on the eco-bandwagon, step on that land-mine, unsubstantiate the claim, and detonate the whole "green promise" for everyone else — diluting impact and drawing doubt toward even the greenest of the green. And I guarantee that’ll be a compost heap from which the guilty will never emerge.
|
|
Steve Susi, Founder, Brand Spanking New York, Inc. - December 31, 2007
|
|
|
In year 2008 green will be more important than in 2007. Although there are so many green topics around there and someone claims, that people will be tired from that in 2008, I think it will have a positive effect in the end. Green has been a hot topic in previous years by people, scientists and communicators behind the various size and type of organizations, that somehow feel responsibility to speak about it. Now, when the attention to global climate change has increased and everyone, who just claimed something green in their activities are responsible to keep promise and to keep acting. And people can rest a bit, because organizations are making a lead to cope with the problem. Green" in 2008 will mean a sign of "Piece", a way to cooperate in peaceful manner to serve the future of civilization. The role of "green" is to put people and planet in front, not money and greed. Green is for fair share for fresh air. Green is Tolerance.
|
|
Ingus Sturmanis - January 6, 2008
|
|
|
What will "green" mean in 2008? There’s a strong chance that (and I expect) consumer interest will wane in 2008, not least because of a recession. That being said, many people think we’ve seen irreversible change in the last 2 years to the point of a tip, especially on climate change. We might take two steps forward, then one step back, but it’s incredible how far those two steps have taken us and I’m convinced there’s no going back to where we were before. As to the Point-Counter arguments about consumers continuing to ‘buy’ sustainable brands – I don’t put complete faith in consumers choosing their way out of trouble on this one and think there’s no substitute for business (i.e. choice editing) and political (policy) leadership. Green v sustainable? I’m all for sustainability, rather than green, but won’t lose sleep on the terminology anymore and half wish we’d use this energy getting on with it rather than endlessly debating.
|
|
Chris Sherwin, Sustainability Consultant, Interbrand - January 8, 2008
|
|
|
Unsure. 'Green' could go either way. 2008 will certainly bring a green push but no doubt, it will become branded, stamped mass produced and pushed in any and everyones face. It certainly is something that didn't take off enough in 2007 to avoid a ice cap meltdown so, for now at least, we will have to bare the endless torture of 'Green' companies telling us they have offset themselves. It is, however, a major issue, my house could soon be under water, and if too many corporations decide they can make a dollar off the back of it, my house soon will be under water. Branders, Marketers and Designers everywhere are getting into 'eco' mode so prepare for a bombardment. I sincerely hope for you all that the 'general public' aren't idiots and believe it's a scam like the way 'X Factor' is 'rigged'... so for now good luck, I'm hoping the public are onside with this one.
|
|
Nick Plows, Student, UCCA Rochester - January 8, 2008
|
|
|
The principle of being "Green" is undoubtedly a good thing. It’s definitely an advantage in certain buying behaviors. However, the message is already becoming an overused communication tactic. The problem is that we’re blasted with so many messages about new TV shows or Green companies that in many circles it's to the point that people ignore the message, or dubious about the source. It's fine to stay top-of-mind about it, but overuse will lead to the perception of insincerity. It's at the point where it should only be used as a subtle “trust mark” or a sign of good faith. By using it subtly it could be seen more as quiet strength, authenticity, and encourage trust more easily. At this point, my advice would be to use the "Green bullet" sparingly, keep it in check, and work on giving people other honest and valuable experiences.
|
|
Joel LeVan, Design - January 14, 2008
|
|
|
The question is not necessarily only one about 'Green' but also about 'Not Green.' China, which has gone down a road of 'Not Green' has several annual dust stoms, red tides, huge weed and plague animals issues, rivers running dry, etc. as a result of putting industry at the top of the priority list (Diamond, J 2005: 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive'). People may tire of hearing "Green" but they will not tire of seeing it and experiencing the health benefits. As can be seen in China, profits today comes at the expense of health (and an environment) tomorrow. In the end, it will become an automatic expectation in the same way that consumers expect their products to be nontoxic and safe to use - it will not be a selling point but a detraction to not be green.
|
|
Clayton Jan, Communications Manager, RCSA Australia and New Zealand - January 17, 2008
|
|
|
In this particular case I think we should not talk about consumers, we should talk about people. It is undeniable that our planet is in its way of mutating from a heavenly home to a living hell, and everyday or every minute people will be more much aware of this situation and therefore more much concern, This situation is not knew, we have been destroying our planet for many years, but for the first time it is hitting us in our face. So a knew massive need is being born, people need to feel: “I’m doing something about it”. Companies that instead of communicate what they are doing about it, involve their customers in its initiatives, so their customers will feel: “being this company’s customer I’m doing something about it”, or better: “we are doing something about it”, will have the preference of all the people who wants to do something about it, but does not know how, which I think is a growing mass.
|
|
Matias Gaviria Uribe, Meat and Frozen Food Marketing Manager, Grupo Nacional de Chocolates - January 18, 2008
|
|
|
Reacting is the weaker cousin of acting. Reacting is because you have to. Acting is because you want to.
Like market planning, real change only occurs when a single crisis is severe enough, or when a series of smaller incidents escalate into a permanent trend.
'Going green' is no different. We all 'want to' but we don't 'have to'. So we all act, recycle, consume and dispose according to our modest social obligations, as opposed to true change guided by our passionate global fear for the future of our planet.
Unfortunately marketers and the media are equally guilty manipulators of the green movement as are governments, so we are simply reacting to the social trend, and not acting on the more serious threat.
It will take many extended power outages, inconvenient water shortages, disrupted food chain emergencies and permanently threatened daily conveniences to dislodge our complacency about individual choices, and turn our consumption choices into true sacrafices.
|
|
Ted Heighington, CEO, The Claremont Consulting Group - January 21, 2008
|
|
|
As a marketer, I would first be very much interested to know how much of the population have a true sense of social responsibility. Then how much of those who are socially responsible actually extends this responsibility to buying GREEN products.
As a consumer, I have the awareness and desire to be socially responsible and use products that protect our environment. But, the order that I follow in making my decision to buy a product is this, 1st - the product should satisfy my need, 2nd - the price is right, 3rd - if it is environmental friendly, it is even better. Will I be willing to pay for an extra amount of money for a green product? I am not sure.
In this time of economic uncertainties, consumers are more and more seeking for $ savings and are mostly able to pay for what is basic. Basic needs offer instant gratification while being socially responsible offers the future generation a better world to live in. Consumers need to transcend to a much higher to get there.
|
|
Jo Ann, Brand Manager - January 25, 2008
|
|
|
Till date, industrialized world has been focussing on growth, growth and growth, without determining its impact on our sole means of survival, the globe. But by the time data on impact of industrialization on environment is collected, studied, nd analyzed, we are already in 21st century. Last 2-3 decades have been really devastating to mother nature, if we go by data so far collected. As an awared citizen, I personally would favor pdt X over pdt Y, if product X consumes even 1 less energy than Y, or is less polluting than Y, given that both are in same price range, and meets same need. My point here is, given the eroding diferentiation between the pdts, and shorter life cycles, being GREENER is itself a differentiator, and a deciding factor in making purchase (given other variales remainin same). Companies need to realize this asap, or else they will meet the same fate as eroding glaciers. I strongly believe, by being GREENER, you not only serve society, but also your shareholders.
|
|
Mohit Bahri, Sr. Consultant, PharmARC Analytic Solutions, Bangalore, India - January 27, 2008
|
|
|
If we are not naif as communication consumers, it is clear that today wemust tend to vote that the "green label" strategies are mainlycamouflages presented by trademarks that are associated to "politicallycorrect values".Likewise, it would be interest to think that, many times real actionsstart in this way. I believe that the leading role of the GREEN VALUES,or the GREEN MORAL, will be greater in forecoming times, in a process ofabandonment of camouflage towards a real deal.Unfortunately, it is the reality of the climate crisis what is imposingthis change from speech to fact.
|
|
Diego Garcia Diaz, Creative Director, GDS BRANDING - January 28, 2008
|
|
|
It all depends on credibility of the "green" message.
For brands such as Timberland that have shown dedication to the environment for years, or for Toyota who are making significant improvements in car CO2 emissions, using a "green" message is credible.
For brands that are recently incorporating environmental practices, they have to first make sure that this is part of the company's long-term mission and is actually carried out on a day to day basis across multiple processes, creating a significant impact in the market-place. Only after this has been done will "green" seem credible.
On the other hand, where "green" is a superficial part of a company's business, or where the company has (or had) poor environmental practices alongside good ones, it will be hard to convince customers through a "green" message.
At the end of the day, 2008 won't go one way or the other. What we'll see is some brands that are credibly "green", others that are not and lots that are grey-green.
|
|
Alexander Corrie, Marketing Director, Bodegas Aguila, Spain - January 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
back to debate
|
|
Copyright © 2001-2013 brandchannel. All rights reserved.
|
|