Comments on: Green bubbles pop too? I hope not. http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2007/08/10/green-bubbles-pop-too-i-hope-not/ A blog and forum by Nigel Hollis Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:07:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Nigel Hollis http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2007/08/10/green-bubbles-pop-too-i-hope-not/#comment-7178 Nigel Hollis Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:41:01 +0000 http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2007/08/10/green-bubbles-pop-too-i-hope-not/#comment-7178 Hi Pamela, Thank you for adding your comments to the post. Apologies that it has taken a while to reply to your comments. You suggest that business and the public sector are the prime movers in the green arena and this may well be true. They do after all have the ability to provide green products and services while regular citizens can only choose what to consume and who to vote for. However, that does not mean the consumer is irrelevant. They have to see the value of what is being offered to them. Labelling which is unfamiliar and potentially confusing or misleading is not going to be more of a hindrance than a help. I personally have never heard of LEED standards in spite of a passing interest in green buildings. It suggests to me a need for an industry or public sector information campaign to make sure people a) understand the issues, and, b) can easily understand the appropriate labeling. This said I have little doubt that when employers walk the talk employees are likely to pick up the habit of buying green. With regard to greenwashing I do not think it will diminish because it has no credibility. Instead, I would suggest that greenwashers will find that their competitors use their unsubstantiated claims against them. Advertising of this type simply creates a "weakness" that others can exploit by pointing out where the greenwasher falls short. Thanks again, Nigel Hi Pamela,
Thank you for adding your comments to the post. Apologies that it has taken a while to reply to your comments.
You suggest that business and the public sector are the prime movers in the green arena and this may well be true. They do after all have the ability to provide green products and services while regular citizens can only choose what to consume and who to vote for. However, that does not mean the consumer is irrelevant. They have to see the value of what is being offered to them. Labelling which is unfamiliar and potentially confusing or misleading is not going to be more of a hindrance than a help. I personally have never heard of LEED standards in spite of a passing interest in green buildings. It suggests to me a need for an industry or public sector information campaign to make sure people a) understand the issues, and, b) can easily understand the appropriate labeling. This said I have little doubt that when employers walk the talk employees are likely to pick up the habit of buying green.
With regard to greenwashing I do not think it will diminish because it has no credibility. Instead, I would suggest that greenwashers will find that their competitors use their unsubstantiated claims against them. Advertising of this type simply creates a “weakness” that others can exploit by pointing out where the greenwasher falls short.
Thanks again,
Nigel

]]> By: Pamela http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2007/08/10/green-bubbles-pop-too-i-hope-not/#comment-7097 Pamela Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:04:33 +0000 http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2007/08/10/green-bubbles-pop-too-i-hope-not/#comment-7097 Nigel - Thanks for a stimulating post. I only have time now to throw out a few thoughts that came to me as I read your post. I hope I have time over the week end to respond in more depth. From what I know of your business, its main focus is on advertising to consumers. In the green arena, business-to-business and the public sector are the prime movers. (Full disclosure - my job is green buying for the State of California. Let me add that these comments are my personal views and in no way reflect the position of the State of California or any of its agencies.) Thought One: You may have noticed real estate ads in the NYTimes Sunday magazine or other higher-end publications that refer to 'LEED' certification. The LEED standards are promulgated by the Green Building Council. They are primarily aimed at energy efficiencies, but also cover indoor air quality, recycled materials, etc. It seems to me that including a reference to LEED suggests that the advertiser thinks that readers will know what it means, and be swayed. Thought Two: Green really is not a fad. Mr. Rooks may not be aware of the price premium that "100% FCS Certified and Acid Free" letterhead commands. An organization that goes that extra distance when it could settle for "printed on recycled content paper" has made a real committment in its operations. There is an on-going opportunity for B2B green advertising, and for markets that probably dwarf consumer demand. Consider copy paper usage in a even a small office with the amount typically used at home. To cite one representative example, Office Depot has prepared a "Green Book" catalog with over 2300 products it has deemed environmentally friendlier that alternatives. A large portion of these are comparably or even lower priced than the alternate products. People who use 100% post-comsumer recycled content paper at work will increasingly want to use it at home. They may also be more inclined to look for recycled-content paper towels and napkins. Thought 3: Most public sector entities at all levels and most large corporations have established "Environmentally Preferable Purchasing" programs. The State of Claifornia, along with many others in the public sector, is committed by a Governor's executive order to "Build Green" according to the LEED standards. The prevalence of these green programs necessarily raises awareness of the critical importance of new paradigms in our economy among employees, vendors and contractors. These programs stimulate a structural demand for green products of all sorts. (California spends over $14 billion annually in goods and services.) I have personally seen many co-workers carry this awareness over to their personal spending and consumption patterns. I have also seen employees generate a grass roots demand for ways to "work green." Thought 4: In a different vein - A great deal of "green advertising" is regarded as "greenwashing," meaning talking the talk without really having product attributes to back it up. As you know, this sort of advertising is barely regulated except in instances of outright fraud. My guess is that this is the sort of advertising will diminish because it will have no credibility. Thanks again for a stimulating post. Nigel - Thanks for a stimulating post. I only have time now to throw out a few thoughts that came to me as I read your post. I hope I have time over the week end to respond in more depth.

From what I know of your business, its main focus is on advertising to consumers. In the green arena, business-to-business and the public sector are the prime movers. (Full disclosure - my job is green buying for the State of California. Let me add that these comments are my personal views and in no way reflect the position of the State of California or any of its agencies.)

Thought One: You may have noticed real estate ads in the NYTimes Sunday magazine or other higher-end publications that refer to ‘LEED’ certification. The LEED standards are promulgated by the Green Building Council. They are primarily aimed at energy efficiencies, but also cover indoor air quality, recycled materials, etc. It seems to me that including a reference to LEED suggests that the advertiser thinks that readers will know what it means, and be swayed.

Thought Two: Green really is not a fad. Mr. Rooks may not be aware of the price premium that “100% FCS Certified and Acid Free” letterhead commands. An organization that goes that extra distance when it could settle for “printed on recycled content paper” has made a real committment in its operations. There is an on-going opportunity for B2B green advertising, and for markets that probably dwarf consumer demand. Consider copy paper usage in a even a small office with the amount typically used at home. To cite one representative example, Office Depot has prepared a “Green Book” catalog with over 2300 products it has deemed environmentally friendlier that alternatives. A large portion of these are comparably or even lower priced than the alternate products. People who use 100% post-comsumer recycled content paper at work will increasingly want to use it at home. They may also be more inclined to look for recycled-content paper towels and napkins.

Thought 3: Most public sector entities at all levels and most large corporations have established “Environmentally Preferable Purchasing” programs. The State of Claifornia, along with many others in the public sector, is committed by a Governor’s executive order to “Build Green” according to the LEED standards. The prevalence of these green programs necessarily raises awareness of the critical importance of new paradigms in our economy among employees, vendors and contractors. These programs stimulate a structural demand for green products of all sorts. (California spends over $14 billion annually in goods and services.) I have personally seen many co-workers carry this awareness over to their personal spending and consumption patterns. I have also seen employees generate a grass roots demand for ways to “work green.”

Thought 4: In a different vein - A great deal of “green advertising” is regarded as “greenwashing,” meaning talking the talk without really having product attributes to back it up. As you know, this sort of advertising is barely regulated except in instances of outright fraud. My guess is that this is the sort of advertising will diminish because it will have no credibility.

Thanks again for a stimulating post.

]]>