This is part six of an ongoing series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” principles: Participation, Rigor, Intentionality, Mutuality and Exchange. In part two I elaborate on the concept of participation. In part three I gush about rigor and how strong, verifiable sustainability information is one of the surest antidotes to greenwashing. In part four I discuss intentionality in terms of expressing an organization’s true sustainability aims: how to do it well and why it’s sometimes more important to be honest than good. In part five I consider the role of mutuality as a valuable step in moving authentic sustainability messaging externally, into the public realm. Please join me now as I look at exchange as a means of understanding how and why an increasingly empowered (and digitally connected) base of customers and supporters plays to the strengths of authentic brands. As always, comments are appreciated and encouraged.
Exchange
Sustainability claims: Are accompanied with an invitation to talk more about the company’s “walking of their sustainable talk” [Exchange]
Companies with authentic sustainability messaging have a huge advantage over greenwashers: as a customer presses deeper for more information they are presented with an increasingly compelling story. Because they have something to hide, inauthentic marketers will press for the opposite effect: deflect queries and obstruct deeper conversations as much as possible; many people are quite savvy to this behavior and don’t seem to appreciate it very much. To be sure, this is an unenviable position; perhaps this was possible back before consumers possessed the means of horizontal interaction, but those days are gone. Much of the public is quite skeptical about sustainability claims (and for good reason); the better equipped you are to demonstrate your chops, the better (and more differentiated) you are. This is exchange: the last (and perhaps most rewarding) step in the PRIME marketing process. You’ve set the foundation (participation), backed it up with integrity and depth (rigor, intentionality), talked about it accurately (intentionality), supported it with partners (mutuality) and have now successfully piqued the curiosity of the market. Relax and enjoy the ride: you’re doing good work and people want to talk with you about it.
How to go about this? It will, of course, depend upon your brand, goals, customer, etc., but there are some general principles and tools that are useful for most any organization. At its core, exchange is about being willing and able to talk with your customers, but even before that it’s about listening to them. Understanding what your customers want to know is not only invaluable for matters of business intelligence and strategy; it means that, if done properly, your responses will be received as being on-message, appropriate and meaningful.
This exchange between you and your customers (and your customers among themselves) is a great opportunity to share a fuller story of why you do what you do. Indeed, Simon Sinek, suggests you start with “why” because it is in the “why” that we can inspire people. Ever on-message, Start With Why is the title of his book and the theme of his TEDx talk.
Sinek offers a valuable means of connecting these dots with people because you’re making the connection together and in terms that are mutually significant. In his TEDx talk he suggests inverting the process of engaging people. Instead of spending all your time speaking about features and benefits (“what”) or value proposition (“how”), he observes that there is deep value when we talk about why we do what we do (“why”). It’s an invitation to share a deep, emotional connection that really gets to the heart of your reason for being in business. This invitation is ideally suited to the PRIME principle of exchange because it plays to your strengths: rigor, openness, passion and authenticity.
It has been said that “advertising is the price of being boring,” you have successfully demonstrated that you’re not boring because people are actively seeking you out. They want to talk with you about …well, YOU. Similar to Sinek’s proposition of starting with “why,” Scott likes to put this in terms of three key factors: who you are, what you stand for and why you matter. Your goal now is to listen to these individuals and be prepared to share these things (among others) with them regarding their favorite issues: an exchange of meaning, sincerity and value.
This is part five of an ongoing series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” principles: Participation, Rigor, Intentionality, Mutuality and Exchange. In part two I elaborate on the concept of participation. In part three I gush about rigor and how strong, verifiable sustainability information is one of the surest antidotes to greenwashing. In part four I discuss intentionality in terms of expressing an organization’s true sustainability aims: how to do it well and why it’s sometimes more important to be honest than good. Please join me now as I consider the role of mutuality as a valuable step in moving authentic sustainability messaging externally, into the public realm. As always, comments are appreciated and encouraged.
Mutuality
Sustainability claims: Use, whenever possible or necessary, third-party partners for support and advancement of their goals [Mutuality]
As we’ve discussed so far, sustainable systems are not easily implemented, let alone discussed publicly. Many organizations find themselves in a Catch-22 where they vacillate between their interest in exploring elements of sustainability and their fear of reprisal for any missteps (or misstatements) along the way. The PRIME framework is specifically designed to work through these issues. Mutuality is concerned with the advancement of an organization’s goals and partners who can help it do precisely that. There are two parts to this: the goals and the partners.
We’ll get to goals in a moment but first I want to say that, regarding third-party partners, it’s important to recognize that it is not only unnecessary but sometimes counterproductive for an organization to clamber for any and all certification and legitimacy-building labels they can muster. It’s not about racing to get the most third-party partners; it’s about collaborating with the best, most mission-aligned organizations that are out there. If you’re an architecture firm whose designs don’t reflect any concern about environmental issues, it would be kind of silly for you to go to brag about using partially recycled paper or having an Energy Star refrigerator in the office. You’re an architecture firm; most of your environmental impact is going to be associated with the production and utilization of your buildings, not the device your office uses to keep lunch cold. Conversely, here at From The Rooftops, the designs we produce are conceptual rather than physical—some of the largest parts of our footprint will be associated with commuting, paper and energy consumption. For us, using an efficient refrigerator would be a much more sizable chunk of our footprint.
You can see how this relates to goals, then. The goal of an architecture firm is to design great buildings, not refrigerate leftovers in a slightly more efficient manner. To be sure, it’s great to do that, too, but an organization needs to be honest with itself regarding its identity and purpose (not to mention the way it expresses such things): if you design buildings and you want to lay some claim to sustainability, you’re probably going to want to be conversant in all things LEED and other green design organizations and standards. Why does your organization exist? And don’t tell me your answer is just, “to make widgets.” Hopefully the goals of your organization are more significant—to help solve a certain problem; to bring about greater happiness; to design enduring aesthetic structures that not only shelter but inspire—something that matters, right? Right. Okay, how does this match up with your sustainability aspirations? If those deeper reasons for your organization’s existence lack a legitimate sustainability element, you’re going to be hard-pressed to talk about it authentically. Pepsi’s brand goals might be promoting “enjoyment,” but if their brand is held back by various issues (water, bottles, corn syrup), they will have a hard time talking about “enjoyment [+ sustainability].” An architecture firm that has credentials for and designs passive homes or LEED projects? Yeah, we can share more enthusiastically in their story of: “designing enduring aesthetic structures that not only shelter but inspire [+ sustainability].” Once our imaginary architecture firm has their in-house ducks in a row (via participation, rigor and intentionality), they have the foundation and legitimacy from which they can begin to move externally and seek additional verification and symbiotic relationships (like certified passive homes, LEED, etc.) through which they might be able to enhance the magnitude of their efforts.
The PRIME principle of participation requires demonstrating the systemic, deep internalization of sustainability. Rigor helps you talk about it in a manner that is validated and meaningful to an increasingly skeptical audience. Intentionality concerns the discussion of such things in line with a frank, brand-aligned and consistent narrative. Mutuality can be seen as a step toward moving this process externally—finding real-world partners that are aligned with the deep system of internal, well-supported and brand-aligned claims and activities. Such brand- (and therefore goal-)aligned partnerships are often mutually beneficial: by adopting and promoting a third-party standard, the firm gains tangible support for their green claims and the third-party organization gains increasing legitimacy in the marketplace (by virtue of a “network externality” or “network effect”), thus enhancing the value of the standard and encouraging others to adopt it as well. In this way, the adoption of such standards can be not only beneficial for the adopting organization and the third-party auditor but for all others—past, present and future—working with the auditor, too. I guess you could say that, sometimes, 1 + 1 can equal 3 …unless you’re Mr. Garciano, my old math teacher, in which case you’d shake your head and say, “Caleb, how did you ever make it past elementary school!?”
This is part four of an ongoing series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” principles: Participation, Rigor, Intentionality, Mutuality and Exchange. In part two I elaborate on the concept of participation. In part three I explain why some part of one’s sustainability messaging platform needs real, tangible figures. Please join me now as I consider the role of “intentionality” in smart, authentic marketing efforts. As always, comments are appreciated and encouraged.
INTENTIONALITY
Sustainable Claims: are those which are in line with an evident and earnest interest in progressing toward a more sustainable system [Intentionality]
The state of our busy, globalized world is such that we have a great many pressing needs and not necessarily a lot of time in which to make headway. There’s a lot to do and no one person (or business) can do it all; but it’s all good work and it all needs doing, so any step toward sustainability is a step worth taking. At the same time, there are better and worse—more accurately stated: there are more and less authentic—means of expressing these steps and it is this with which we are presently concerned.
I once heard a recovering alcoholic—a fellow with a hard upbringing and a real ‘down-and-out’ story—talk about how he navigates his life in accordance with ‘the right way.’ He said that the right path starts out hard and gets easier, while the wrong path starts out easy and gets harder. It was a simple observation but an eloquent and approachable one. I’d be hard-pressed, in all my years of fancy philosophical studies and high-brow literature and poetry reading, to find many sentences that say so much so simply. The same basic principle applies to businesses and the way they express their sustainable selves. A company might be able to get away with fudging figures here and there, but those things will ultimately come to catch up with them. Conversely, setting an ambitious but authentic sustainability course can be a huge challenge, especially at the outset, but, in time, those stories and motivations build momentum and provide an exciting tail-wind that can really push a company’s efforts forward. This is intentionality: striking a trajectory with a vision that is internally authentic and externally approachable.
In terms of messaging, intentionality concerns the way an organization talks about its “sustainable self.” As we discussed in the Rigor post, it is ill-advised for an organization to cloak itself in a deep green façade, emphasizing big, vague goals (“We’ll be ‘sustainable’ by 2050. Promise.” All the while utilizing graphics of trees and leaves …and my arch-nemesis: papyrus font). Instead, try being accessible and realistic: talk about what you’re doing; talk about what you’re not doing. Explain why. Employ a voice and a persona that accurately reflects your organization. Sustainability has to start somewhere and, by and large, the public is pretty understanding when you explain that you’ve got a long way to go, but you’re working on it.
[the next thing is to invite them in, as you work on it—this is Exchange (the E in PRIME), which will be discussed in a later blog post]
Thus, intentionality, in PRIME messaging, encourages a business to do what it says and say what it does—authentically. It means that, if your business is still trying to figure out what “GHG footprint” means, say so. Your public is smart and web-savvy and these sorts of things will come out in due time.
While there are plenty of good organizations who demonstrate the telling of deep green stories (it’s fun and, keeping in mind our observation that the ‘wrong’ path gets increasingly difficult, it’s relatively easy, too), I’m interested in doing something a bit different: how about a company that is authentically telling their not-so-green story? Hold on to your rotten tomatoes, because I think it’s worth noting when it’s done well, and that’s precisely what Canadian outdoors brand Arc’Teryx has done.
courtesy of Alpine-Guides
For those unfamiliar with Arc’Teryx, they are the gold standard of outdoors apparel. Their gear is often a couple years ahead of anything else in the market and priced accordingly. It’s absolute overkill for day-to-day citywear (though I’ll still see their jackets enshrouding early morning dog walkers), but they’ve pulled out all the stops for technical applications and the outdoors community is perpetually enamored with their latest and greatest. Their brand promise of uncompromising performance is, therefore, not always aligned (or even concerned) with issues of sustainability. If you’re making a piece of gear that needs to keep a mountaineer alive at 20,000 feet, how important is it for the zipper pulls to be partially recycled? What if that makes them 5% weaker? What if that makes them wear out 50% faster? Now, you and I mightn’t be too concerned with marginally weaker zipper pulls, but we aren’t climbing K2, either. How, then, does Arc’Teryx, an undeniably non-sustainable brand, present itself in the hyper-green-friendly outdoors industry? Very sincerely and very carefully.
“If you are looking for exceptional outdoor gear that will last for many seasons, Arc’teryx products are the premier solution to meet your needs. If you wish to support products that are made with organic and/or renewable materials we may not be the right choice for you. That being said, we continually evaluate fabrics and materials made from renewable sources and when any meet our criterion for quality and performance we will integrate them into our product line.”
Wow. In three sentences they have reinforced their own brand promise, sincerely responded to green queries and committed to reconciling the two whenever it can be uncompromisingly achieved. [though they still seem to be falling short on some counts: their $29 casual T-shirt doesn’t use organic cotton and I doubt they can make an argument that non-organic is higher performing]
All in all, the way in which Arc’Teryx shares its position on such matters is deserving of high marks for transparency and rigor, going so far as listing information about the green cleaning products that their custodial staff use and the independent auditor they’ve hired to help them understand where they are and how they can improve. Do they deserve green plaudits? No. But as far as ungreen messaging goes, they are certainly entitled to some credit where credit is due: their “Environmental Statement” demonstrates their commitment to initiatives whenever they can be achieved without sacrificing their ultimate commitment: to the person who needs the most technically demanding gear for the most technically demanding purposes in the world.
Intentionality and the other principles behind the PRIME messaging concept are fundamentally a rebuke of greenwashing as a marketing and business practice. The people at the Greenwashing Index define greenwashing as: “when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be ‘green’ through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact.” A company’s “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) page can often be Ground Zero for greenwashing and other disingenuous claims. Now, with this in mind, go back and look at the Arc’Teryx CSR site (their “Environmental Statement” serves as their CSR page)–do you see anything that comes across as greenwash? What is their green claim right up front? That they want “to continually become more aware of and sensitive to the environmental impact of our business practices.” Now, how does that intention match up with their activities? They acknowledge, point-blank that they don’t–and, until they’re equally high-performing, won’t–use recycled materials, so there’s not even any green to greenwash there. They have gone to decent lengths to hire auditors to investigate their environmental impact. They’ve contracted printers and custodians with good, rigorous environmental credentials–just green, no greenwash there. They’ve expressed a commitment to environmentally-preferable transit behavior, and backed it up with an impressive array of first place accolades for Bike to Work Week. Again, a small but solid green achievement with no sustainability hyperbole or ‘puffery‘. To be sure, Arc’Teryx has got a LONG way to go before we can applaud them and their sustainability innovation, but, as a case study for intentionality, they’re exemplary in their transparency and honesty. With such principles in place, I eagerly await the day that they’re able to meld their penchant for innovation and game-changing design with a generous helping of sustainable materials and business practices.
This is part three of an ongoing series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” principles: Participation, Rigor, Intentionality, Mutuality and Exchange. In part two I elaborate on the concept of participation. Please join me now as I consider the role of rigor in smart, authentic marketing efforts. As always, comments are appreciated and encouraged.
RIGOR
The state of green messaging is such that the eco-bandwagon is getting mighty close to overloaded. So many groups are jumping aboard with hidden baggage that, in some ways, it’s slowing the pace–or even shifting the overall direction–of the larger green marketplace. It’s not a matter of two different companies touting sustainability features (“which is more important: that Brand A, though made in China, has bought carbon offsets, or that Brand B, while unrepentantly polluting, is still stubbornly produced somewhere in the US?”) and the consumer having to determine which one speaks to them more deeply. Instead, many brands in a given product segment lob one or two buzzwords (and the occasional graphical identity liberally sporting the color green and flowers) into the fray, resulting in much confusion and distrust on the part of the consumer.
It’s important not to get too reactionary here–many of these brands are indeed quite sincere in their sustainability-oriented developments–it’s more of an unfortunate side-effect of incomplete thinking/messaging in the sustainability space. While an organization might be trying to express the inroads they’ve made, their efforts can erode the signification of the words they invoke; intentionally or not, they wind up muddying the waters in which the deeper green organizations are standing. I submit that much of this can be headed off by the invocation of tangible, 3rd-party verifiable claims. I call this rigor because it requires thoroughness rather than the making of off-the-cuff, feel-good claims and it would do a lot to restore the experience of sustainability in the consumer’s eyes (and heart). I think that Timberland has made a truly valuable contribution in this space by taking a brave, innovative and rigorous step forward with their ‘nutrition label‘ system. Check it out:
It would seem that most consumers (excepting deep green buyers), for sheer overload of messaging (and absence of marked, tangible differentiation and verification), skeptically take all claims on par and move on to the next stage of decision making. This, of course, serves to erode the bedrock upon which the sustainability world is trying to grow and, in time, we find ourselves in a precarious state of eco-inflation. How can one company convey that they are actually “eco-friendly” when everyone is saying they’re “eco-friendly?” With their nutrition label system, Timberland has made a great step towards that ‘marked, tangible differentiation‘ I mentioned above because they meet consumers with real, accessible numbers, right at the point of contact.
Imagine looking at several shoes in a store: the salesperson shows you the “green” shoes they carry; you pick up the timberland shoe and notice that they share several bite-sized pieces of valuable information, you pick up the competitors and …nothing. Hopefully the competitors will start to disclose their own information soon because the one problem with the Timberland labeling system is that it doesn’t give the user a sense of how the figures stack up in the context of the larger industry. That the shoe’s components are 74.4% PVC-free means that 25.6% aren’t PVC-free, which isn’t a good thing …unless the rest of the industry does even worse, but we have no way to know that. Important steps, but, as usual, there’s even more to do. I’m confident that Timberland is up to the task.
Timberland has done a good job of embodying what my grade school English teacher always used to say: don’t say it, show it. As Timberland demonstrates, this is where rigor comes in. Show the places where your company has actually done something. Back it up. This is what Portland’s own Daniel Eckhart describes as “the stink of authenticity.”
At the Green Salon (called SHIFT) put on by the Portland chapter of the AIGA (the professional association for design) Daniel, the owner of local web design consulting studio Numerosign, treated the crowd to a great presentation on precisely why rigor matters and how it can be utilized in order to “outgreen the fakers.” In the interest of showing, rather than saying, I feel it’s important to go right to the source and show you Daniel’s example of just what we’re talking about:
This is part two of an ongoing series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” principles: Participation, Rigor, Intentionality, Mutuality and Exchange. Please join me now as I consider the role of participation in smart, authentic marketing efforts. As always, comments are appreciated and encouraged.
PARTICIPATION
For an organization to anchor its sustainability efforts (and correspondent messaging) on solid ground it must express the right information to the right people at the right time, in a participatory manner. A brand that isn’t fully engaged in the sustainability world will have a hard time ascertaining all of these “right” factors if they haven’t committed the proper resources to their efforts.
Inbev, the Belgium-based conglomeration that in 2008 purchased Anheuser-Busch, has recently made headlines for announcing that it would make a “30 percent reduction per unit of production in the Company’s water usage worldwide since 2007” which is both important (considering they’re the largest brewer in the world, meaning that this reduction amounts to the equivalent of 25,000 Olympic-size swimming pools) and commendable; but it is still a rather shallow step when compared to the efforts of the eighth largest brewer: New Belgium Brewing.
While Inbev has committed to making some process improvements that are smart, better for the planet, easy to implement and directly tied to their bottom line, New Belgium has done those things and proceeded to take an even more holistic approach, demonstrating tremendous participatory depth and breadth. Not only does New Belgium use their water efficiently, their website explains that they collect two valuable byproducts from their wastewater efforts: methane and a nutrient-rich sludge. They use the methane in on-site energy production and they have partnered with another company to install a small treatment plant next door to their facility that takes their process wastewater to produce a sludge that creates a high protein fish food for aqua-farms.
[I know what you’re thinking, “But Caleb, won’t the fish get drunk?” Yes, dear readers, yes they will. Those lucky darn fish will get fed and drunk off some of the finest booze this side of Ambrosia-ville. See, New Belgium even cares about giving the fish quality grub and grog! Social justice points!]
Do they launch a huge advertising campaign about their new getting-fish-sustainably-drunk program? No. Do they hire models in fish outfits? No. But they certainly make the info readily available to people who are inclined to learn more. Authentic participation in the efforts to push the sustainability envelope— full-circle thinking—it’s hard to fake and really inspiring to see.
So I’ve been chatting with a lot of organizations and individuals lately about ways to articulate a lively and meaningful sustainable brand presence on an increasingly cluttered web. I see many brands using Twitter but cringe when I see them merely using it as a channel for announcing their latest press release. That cringe becomes a grimace when the corporate blathering is concerned with unreal sustainability claims.
I started thinking about the instances when sustainability claims ring hollow and the times when they really resonate with people. I was thinking about some of the brands who do a good job of using the social web for talking about sustainability issues and found a few commonalities. From these I came up with a short list of qualities that seem to be vital for such authenticity and resonance:
Sustainability claims:
Are conveyed in a manner that demonstrates that the company has really internalized the matter (they haven’t merely added a sustainability intern to the PR department) [Participation]
Are based upon measurable, tangible and verifiable targets or numbers [Rigor]
Are in line with an evident and earnest interest in progressing toward a more sustainable system [Intentionality]
Use, whenever possible or necessary, third-party partners for support and advancement of their goals [Mutuality]
Are accompanied with an invitation to talk more about the company’s “walking of their sustainable talk” [Exchange]
Once I had these qualities drawn up, it was only a short hop and a conceptual skip until I’d created something that the business world really needs more of: catchy acronyms!
Participation, Rigor, Intentionality, Mutuality, Exchange: PRIME
Some of my favorite non-greenwashy companies (I used to work in the outdoors industry, so some of the first ones to come to mind are: Timberland, Keen, GoLite, Nau) exemplify all of these things. What I find myself wondering now is if it’s useful to others to think about things in terms of the PRIME construct.
These are some rough preliminary thoughts, but I’m curious to get your input—Is this a useful mechanism for describing such important characteristics? Do these qualities fit the bill? Are some missing? Does the business world need another buzzword acronym (a buzzronym?) in the first place? -Caleb
This is the second half of my conversation about 10 Green Brands You Should Know. As with part 1, our goal is to shed some light and spark some conversation regarding some little-known brands who “get it.” The brands we’ll be discussing today range from celebrity fashion to web-based tools. As usual, I’d love to hear your thoughts on all of it: does Icebreaker lose credit because it’s from far away in New Zealand? Does the Sonic Fabric tie need to use recycled polyester as well, before we ‘sing’ its praises? What other brands deserve inclusion? Hit the comments, we’d love to hear from you.
Jason Mraz, conveniently sporting two of our five brands
The process by which I came to learn about Osborn Design shoes is a classic example of trust and Word of Mouth. Celebrity and all-around good guy Jason Mraz went to the Grammy Awards in a sustainability poster boy outfit including an EcoGir suit (another great green brand, though not exactly unknown), a Sonic Fabric tie (which I’ve known about and admired for a while, and is discussed below), a Culturata organic cotton shirt and Osborn Design shoes. While I’m familiar with all of these brands except for Osborn, I had no idea that Mraz wore any of this because I don’t pay much attention to the Grammys. My friend Sara doesn’t pay much attention to the Grammys either, but she pays a lot of attention to Jason Mraz (I’d tease her about it, but … I mean… look at that sustainable cutie—can you blame her?). Because I pay attention to—and trust—her, I came to see and take note of her retweet of his blog post on the subject. Because I was familiar with—and trusted—the credentials of the other brands I came to trust Mraz’s sense of sustainability style, allowing it to carry over to the Osborn line.
“The Osborn Design Shoes were my lady-killers for sure. Hand crafted in Guatemala, these Fair-Trade shoes are one of a kind. Osborn works with the artisans directly. Each pair is signed and numbered by the cobbler.”
Now you know as much as I do—but not for long, because I think I want a pair!
It’s hard to wear a black tie and feel very unique, ecologically-inclined or terribly creative. Sonic Fabric is changing that. In simple offerings of black, grey or dark brown, Sonic Fabric ties exude a sense of innovation and uniqueness (not to mention dashing aesthetics) with fashionably designed ties that are constructed of a remarkable 50/50 blend of polyester (yawn) and …cassette tape. That’s right, folks, Journey’s greatest hits lives on and, remarkably, is cool again! An interesting corollary to the use of magnetically-tweaked cassette tape is that, despite its new life as a garment, the fabric is still “listenable.” Sonic Fabric answers what must be a common question, “what ever inspired you to weave fabric from cassette tape in the first place?” and even explains how to repurpose your funkyfresh old Walkman in order to listen to your tie (I can assure you that I never thought I would type those words).
The best part about all this is that these innovative, fun ties are thus a great conversation starter for two reasons: they have a great sustainability/handmade crafty story and they can freakin’ play music. I know it’s an easy tagline to write, but I’m still going to say it anyway: sustainable fashion never sounded so good.
Our next entrant is not a consumer product, but a great brand: useful, innovative, savvy and more. Kashless is another Pacific Northwest production that I think has a lot of potential to stir things up in all sorts of wonderful, sustainable ways. Why? Allow me to provide you with a simple equation: new technology + free, used items = two great tastes that taste great together.
Web 2.0 and location-based resources are all the rage. What else is all the rage? Conscientious consumption. It should be no surprise, then, that these two trends are coming together in important and useful ways. Kashless is one of several web resources coming up (such as ooffoo, among others) that are stepping into this space and really making a difference. One of the greatest impediments to buying used items in lieu of new items is the fact that, well, ‘the odds are good that the goods are odd,’ and searching high and low for a non-new solution can take time. If you want to find a particular item (a size 15.5” 34-35 dress shirt that didn’t come out of the ‘70s, for instance), you might wind up visiting several shops (and going a long way to try on one measly shirt via Craigslist) before finding something that works. A visit to a regular department store, however, will certainly yield dozens of options. Enter Kashless. Kashless is a website trying to help lower the search costs associated with connecting people who have items they’d like to give away, and people who would otherwise have to buy the product new. Win-win-win.
SoupCycle delivers, by bike, wholesome, organic soup to your door. It is the sort of sustainability home run story that essentially writes itself: Organic? Yep. Local? You betcha. Seasonal? Quite. Delivered by bike? Even in the rain. SoupCycle supports local organic farms, getting healthy, delicious food to homes, and by doing so, they reduce the need for carbon-intensive delivery trucks (or the corresponding single-occupant trips to the store).
Their brand personality, like their soup, is flavorful, fun and accessible. By signing up, you become one of hundreds of “soupscribers” who receive weekly deliveries of vegan, vegetarian or meat soups that are delicious, creative and enjoyable. Depending upon your location in Portland (they call it “Souplandistan”), you receive your weekly delivery on either Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, in serving sizes that you specify and with accouterments (salad, breadsticks, etc.) that round out the meal. Regions (within PDX) include: Souptopia, SoupCycle Central, The People’s Republic of Soup, and Soup-Urbanites. I think I once saw Jed, one of the co-founders, wearing a SoupCycle shirt saying something along the lines of: “tasty like pizza—only wetter.”
Alright, these guys actually have a bit of a name for themselves but there’s one feature in particular that I think is so neat that I felt compelled to include them anyway. Icebreaker makes svelte wool garments for the outdoors, travel and nights on the town. Their clothes have a sexier shape/look than competitor Smartwool (whom I dearly love anyway) and they have a visual identity that is provocative to match! As we’ve already established with my fawning over Nau’s product line, I love wool. Love it love it love it. It’s versatile, durable, ethical and renewable. Now, it’s true that not all wool is the same. There is ample reason to be diligent about the treatment of the sheep whose haircuts I wear, but the best brands are mindful of these things and treat their animals (and the animal owners) in a responsible, ethical manner.
As you know by now, we at From The Rooftops are huge advocates of authenticity in business messaging. You can see, then, why I’m so excited that Icebreaker has implemented a really cool product-tracking system, delightfully titled “Baacode.” Each Icebreaker garment has a tag with a unique number that, upon entry into the Baacode web page, provides you with the exact origin and history of the wool that your garment is made of. I look forward to a time when more companies do this sort of thing: it’s great from a consumer standpoint (want to know more about the garments you’re buying? Here you go!) but it’s also a fantastic tool for deep storytelling on the part of a brand. It connects the Icebreaker identity from beginning to end, providing a cohesive, authentic narrative that articulates and reinforces their presence and customer experience of—and with—the brand as a whole.
Sunday night provided us with one of the great American spectator/armchair quarterbacking events: the Super Bowl advertisements. While there are plenty of folks commenting on this year’s crop as a whole, I have been exceptionally interested in one particular ad (and the fallout and discussion that has ensued). Here at From The Rooftops we are, as you’ve noticed, deeply passionate about authentic claims, sustainability and marketing. It should come as no surprise, then, that, right after the Audi Green Police ad [if you've not seen the commercial, I encourage you to watch it, as the rest of this post won't make as much sense without it] aired I received an impassioned text from Scott, asking if I’d seen it. While much post-Super Bowl revelry took place in the streets and bars, I took to my laptop and wound up spending much of the evening surveying the reception paid to the Green Police ad.
And what a reception it has received! Some proclaimed it as validation of the green movement while other responded that it’s no laughing matter and will be the new reality in an eco-fascist future. Others made the easy observation that, perhaps as much as anything, Audi was trying to be vague yet provocative so as to stoke the fire of conversation that we have witnessed in the following few days.
Before I weigh in too heavily, I’d like, for diversity’s sake, to call out some of the types of responses I’ve seen out there so far:
This is yet another reminder that the ‘green’ movement is a harbinger of a new age of fascism
“Is this what Al Gore’s presidency would look like?” — New York Times (comment)
“Audi’s bottom-line corporate message is that the Green State is here to stay and that capitulating to it — and capitalizing on it, as Audi has — is the path to survival. It’s no laughing matter, really.” — Michelle Malkin
Oh, great, now it’s going to be even harder for us to be taken seriously
“Ugh, Middle America just took another unneeded step away from feeling that sustainability is cool, easy, and normal.” — Triple Pundit (a generally great resource in the susbiz arena)
It’s okay, it’s a positive ad. Right? Right, guys?
Grist (another green resource with which I will sometimes disagree but highly recommend)
the Facebook status messages of many friends
OMG, did you really just make an indirect allusion to the Ordnungspolizei?!
“The implications of Audi’s choice of name for their campaign could be huge, especially since Audi is a German company. The first question is obvious – didn’t anyone at Audi’s PR or advertising arm/agency do any research?” — Danny Brown
“It is simply astounding that a German company would play against such a framing, making oblique references to a Nazi police unit and providing what many will see as a broadside against environmentalism as somehow fascist in nature.” — Daily Kos
It’s an ad. It got people talking about the brand. Ergo, the ad worked. Sorta.
“So what was the intent of the commercial? To get people talking about Audi, of course. And by that standard, it was a success. Did it make me want to buy one? No, but it did make me want to get a copy of Cheap Trick’s greatest hits.” — Blog of New Orleans
For our purposes here, I am less concerned with debating the merits of these various claims in order to reach a decisive position regarding the intentions of the Audi marketing team (they can speak for themselves here). Indeed, I think it’s orthogonal to the most important consideration: regardless of the intention of the ad team, how does the reception of this advertisement inform our understanding of authentic claims (in this case, concerning the characteristics of “green”).
I think it speaks volumes that, in the Wall Street Journal’s Super Bowl 2010 Best and Worst Ads, the Audi Green Police advertisement has, at least thus far, won the vote for Best Ad …and for Worst Ad. (as of 6:37pm on Thursday night: 2/11/10: 12.7% for Best and 16.8% Worst) It could be a Dickens story: “It was the best of ads, it was the worst of ads….” A tale of one advertisement being folded into multiple–and, seemingly, conflicting–narratives. I think that this, as much as anything, is the lasting legacy of the Audi commercial: we, as a message-receiving (and -filtering) body, have become hypersensitive to green claims–and for different (but often interrelated) reasons. So much is this the case that the intended audience (Green consumers) can’t decide whether to laugh or cry, and their antagonists (just do a Google search about this ad, you’ll find them) can’t decide whether to laugh or grab their torches and pitchforks. Seriously, if you’ve got the time, I encourage you to read the comments section of ANY of the links I’ve shared in this post–they are interesting, angering, funny, disconcerting, and, above all, illuminating studies in the post-Inconvenient Truth, mid-Tea Party green marketing landscape.
With regard to claims surrounding sustainability, agitation has started to encroach upon levity and message-makers (and, in the social web, we’re all message-makers) must tread very carefully, as our messages (and, apparently, footage of pollution-detecting[?] anteaters, even) are cast outward, and not projected into a blank-slate vacuum of doe-eyed but otherwise agreeable and passive viewers. Rather, modern messages are not projected at all–they are shared horizontally, from mouth to mouth and Twitter account to Twitter account. Whether intentional (or even desirable), or not, they are living, breathing invitations to participation. And participate we will: dissecting, sharing, commenting, remixing, and yes, flaming, our ways to a co-opted narrative, conforming with our evolving expression of how these claims speak to us. Especially when we start speaking back.
– Caleb
What do you think? Has Audi hurt their green messaging by putting their would-be customers on the defensive? Is all the extra attention worth it, regardless? What about their reference to the Green Police? They seem to have sincerely wanted to make sure that it was okay with the Jewish community, should they have changed the name to the “Eco Police”? (the Cheap Trick song would have been harder to tie in, whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is for you to decide!) What does this mean for our ability to “laugh at ourselves” in the sustainability sphere? Is Audi even “one of us,” with making a name for themselves as green when their centerpiece is a (repackaged) diesel car?
Welcome to the first round of our reflections upon some of the lesser-known brands in the sustainability realm. We’ve outlined a bit of an introduction to some brands who have caught our attention and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.
The products of this small Seattle-based company tell a great story: durable, attractive handmade messenger bags and shoulder bags (and now totes, wallets, zipper pulls and more) all made from an abundant waste product: bicycle inner tubes. Many sustainability advocates will gleefully place the bicycle at the forefront of an urban greening agenda and it simply couldn’t be done without the reliable old bike tube. Founder Eli Reich gives these ubiquitous, formerly landfill-bound products a new life, recognizing that a tube’s best qualities (durability, flexibility, waterproofness) are also central features to a good bag. The innovative eye is turned to even the smallest details, with the shoulder strap coming from repurposed seatbelts and using old (Schrader) tube valves as zipper pulls. Not only do I love the name (clever, simple, and oh so accurate), I love the spirit of innovation that is imbued in each product. And you can’t argue with the impact–38,933 punctured bike inner tubes and 8,775 used car seat belts diverted from landfills in the past year alone1.
GoLite is extremely popular among ultralight hikers but less prominent in the minds and closets of the rest of us. I hope this changes. GoLite’s founders, Kim and Demetri Coupounas, have been influential drivers of two important trends in the outdoors industry: more sustainable sourcing and lighter gear. On a hike in the 90’s (it was their honeymoon, if I recall correctly) they had an ‘a-ha!’ moment: lightening up. By using less material you’re making a lighter product that, likewise, calls on fewer raw material inputs. Unsatisfied with simply using less ‘bad’ stuff, the Coupounas’ put their Ivy League minds to good use and have now managed to spec lots of recycled content in much of their product line. This all means that a GoLite jacket (or pack, tent, etc.) is not only lighter on your back, it’s lighter on the earth, using less ‘less-bad’ material. It’s worth remembering, of course, that less-bad still doesn’t mean good but this point is certainly not lost on GoLite and one of their hallmarks has been an impressive drive to always take things as far as possible. These are principles that the outdoors industry has really taken to and the Coupounas’ have been leading voices, from the sessions of Outdoors Industry Association to the design studio and ultimately the trail. As with Nau, the fine folks at GoLite are really keen on working it out, in all senses of the phrase: they know what needs to be improved upon and they make no attempts at hiding that need for improvement; they also are terrifically responsive as a consumer goods company: their website has a live chat customer service option (that isn’t tucked away in five pages of FAQs) and they not only have a lifetime guarantee against manufacturing defects (a common concern among lightweight gear purchasers) but they also guarantee that you’ll be happy with it.
I’ve only recently come across Matt and Nat’s (it’s not my fault—Scott doesn’t let me leave the office too often) line of mostly recycled—and entirely resourceful—bags. Sharp, simple and functional, these products are meeting important demand in the mid- to high-end bag briefcase/purse/shoulder bag arena. While many companies and small designers will use recycled goods for products that, well, look like they followed the ‘form follows function’ idiom far down the road and a little past the proverbial bend, Matt and Nat are more likely to be strutting their aesthetic wares straight down the runway. It just makes sense—buying a “sustainable” product is pointless if you refuse to be seen with it in public.
This idealistic and ideological design group is (like us) based out of Portland and, while they now have their own shop on NE Alberta Avenue, it wasn’t too long ago that their belts and bracelets were sold one by one on ETSY and at street fairs throughout the city. Held’s products are vegan, entirely recycled (more accurately, ‘reclaimed’) and ridiculously durable. Fashioned from decommissioned conveyor belts, Held’s line is billed as the world’s strongest belts. Their proceeds go to animal rescue and permaculture products which seem like mighty noble causes, considering the fact they’ve already done us a service by keeping more waste out of the landfill and avoiding the need to make more new stuff! As far as brand and customer experience goes, they really get it–they exhibit an air of irreverent edginess, resourcefulness, fun and distinctly Portland personality. Case in point: The first time I walked into their new shop I was greeted by the fellow who was working behind the counter at the back of the shop; we briefly joked about the weather and he offered to help if I needed anything. About 30 seconds later, from across the shop, he pulled out a megaphone and said that he was making himself some tea and wondered if we wanted any. Again, they get it: fun, edgy, unique. You’ll never find a “regular” store that not only offers you some of their personal tea, but extends the offer via megaphone. That was months ago and I still remember it with a smile.
Alright, I’ll admit that Nau is not exactly an unknown company, but while they’re known by many they’re not exactly on the tips of everyone’s tongues—yet. This small Portland-based designer of outdoors-chic has many remarkable qualities that make its brand so noteworthy—and its advocates so resolute—that I couldn’t resist covering them. A few reasons:
1. Their clothes are durable. (I’ve got a bike crash, many hikes, myriad commutes, plenty of nights on the town and a couple years of rock climbing in Nau gear that all attest to this.)
2. They aim to design clothes (and use colors) that aren’t the flavor of the month, needing to be replaced every season.
3. Nearly every outdoors brand uses synthetics—Nau’s synthetics are almost 100% recycled material (Teijin EcoCircle, which, I believe, Nau helped pioneer). Heck, they have one jacket that’s even recycled wool. Which brings me to: wool—it’s a great material and they use it to tremendous effect.
4. While they produce their garments in China they go to great lengths to ensure their facilities are on the up & up, holding third-party inspections several times per year.
5. 2% of their sales go to your choice of one of many nonprofits they call their “partners for change.” (I’d like to give a shout out to a couple of them: Mercy Corps and Kiva—keep changing the world, guys!). 6. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is one important thing that Nau doesn’t do: bullshit. They don’t make crummy clothes and they don’t make crummy claims. They acknowledge their weaknesses and are the first ones to make them known. When there are grey zones with imperfect solutions (hint: in real life, there are LOTS), they don’t try to repackage it or gloss it over; Nau sheds a light upon it and invites you to join them in their quest to do it better. I think that last point—they know what they aren’t doing perfectly and they want to talk with you about it—is pretty important. As has been often said, there is no such thing as a sustainable business or person, only sustainable systems. Since none of us are perfectly “sustainable” it seems crucial, then, that we take an unflinching self-examination of our faults and opportunities and, swallowing our pride, we take it public, inviting moving conversation and adaptive solutions.
To be continued…
-Caleb
PS – I’d love to chat with you more about this, so hit the comments—which brands are missing? What did I get wrong with these five? What additional thoughts do you have about these brands?
I recently spoke at the GoGreen Conference here in Portland, and during my remarks I referenced a recent study from Grail Research that showed that “85% of consumers are either unaware of–or cannot recall–the green initiatives of companies like Hewlett-Packard, Estee Lauder and Intel, even though those companies are recognized as leaders in sustainability.” My point in referencing this study was one part frustration and one part celebration. Frustration because I am a true believer in the need for corporations to grow their sustainability efforts, and that buyers will ultimately reward them for it. Celebration because throwing money at green marketing is not working for companies with huge budgets, leaving the door open for small business to compete with their own green message–if they do it right.
And the way to do it right? Quit talking about what you’re doing to be more sustainable and start SHOWING it. Invite your customers, prospects, and employees into the process, and live a more sustainable existence together. Thanks to social media and the power of storytelling among other advancements, the barriers are effectively gone–and the costs are tiny compared to what HP might pour into a single ad in the Wall Street Journal.
And while From The Rooftops would love to help, you might not even need us. We’ll explore this theme and others here over the coming months, and hope you’ll find the conversation rewarding. –Scott
Much of the public is quite skeptical about sustainability claims (and for good reason); the better equipped you are to demonstrate your chops, the better (and more differentiated) you are. This is exchange: the last (and perhaps most rewarding) step in the PRIME marketing process. You’ve set the foundation (participation), backed it up with integrity and depth (rigor, intentionality), talked about it accurately (intentionality), supported it with partners (mutuality) and have now successfully piqued the curiosity of the market. Relax and enjoy the ride: you’re doing good work and people want to talk with you about it.
![[6e3262c49fd37a1ff41a4f948c8cfc9677582618.jpg]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cibC_5s9O08/S2sNuNHBG4I/AAAAAAAABB8/AMyERT0_JS0/s1600/6e3262c49fd37a1ff41a4f948c8cfc9677582618.jpg)
