Posted by jumperhead on May 5th, 2008
if the Advertising Standards Authority’s latest annual report is anything to go by, a lot of companies are describing their green efforts in advertising material using the same techniques that those who use internet dating sites like to describe themselves. You know, ‘cuddly’ really means ‘morbidly obese’, ‘looking for friendship maybe more’ means ‘just looking for a quick scuttle, probably won’t call you again’.
The ASA is none too happy with all this greenwashing malarky, and has delivered a verbal slap on the wrist to those who would stretch their green credentials further than a stripper’s knicker elastic.
Here’s what it has to say:
Complaints to the ASA about environmental claims in advertising increased dramatically in 2007. We received 561 complaints about environmental claims in 410 ads, compared with just 117 complaints about 83 ads the year before.
Claims that products and services were carbon “neutral” or “zero” or “negative” were particularly open to challenge, as were statements about CO2 emissions or absolute claims such as “100% recycled” or “wholly sustainable”.
As the number of complaints about green claims grew, the ASA commissioned independent research into the public’s understanding of environmental claims in ads. The research results revealed high levels of awareness of environmental messages, but also confusion about what terms mean.
Claims about carbon emissions and green tariffs were among those most likely to confuse consumers, but terms such as “sustainable” and “food miles” were also misunderstood. Those researched admitted to not reading the small print or explanatory text in ads, which advertisers may use to explain bold headline claims about environmental impact.
Ryanair, Shell, Lexus all got a slap down for green campaigns. You can get the whole report here.
Posted by jumperhead on April 17th, 2008
‘These are not just flesh-coloured, reinforced-gusset period pants, there are M&S flesh- coloured, reinforced-gusset period pants…’ Greenbang thought that Marks and Sparks was best known for selling Britain’s underwear and gastro-porn adverts, but no, apparently, it’s also the top in the FTSE 100 for green brand-ness.
Apparently, according to a survey of opinion formers (Greenbang thought that everyone formed opinions but apparently it’s actually a select group that can bear the moniker) by PR firm Chatsworth Communications, M&S topped the chart of greeness brands once again, despite an increasing distaste for greenwash amongst those opinion formers.
Here’s some more highlights from the survey:
<blockquote>
· BP (38%), Tesco (21%) and British Airways (10%) are still considered to be most guilty of ‘greenwash’ by respondents
· Marks and Spencer (51%) remains the top ‘green winner,’ followed by new entrant BSkyB (9%) and HSBC (7%) which continues to lead in the banking sector. BT Group (6%) are another new entrant
· Tesco, Unilever and BP are no longer considered green winners by opinion formers
· 40% of respondents believed that Marks and Spencer had run the best-publicised green campaign in the last six months, although 10% believe them guilty of greenwash
· BP, which had the most heard about green campaign six months ago, has dropped considerably from 40% last year to 14%
· Half of respondents believe that the current level of media coverage is contributing to green fatigue amongst the general public
· David Cameron (41%) is seen to be the political leader most committed to environmental change policies, followed by Nick Clegg (30%) and Gordon Brown (28%)
· National governments (48%) are expected to take the lead on environmental issues, followed by the individual (19%)</blockquote>
(Incidentally, next time Chatsworth needs to chat to opinion formers, Greenbang’s door is open. She can form opinions with the best of them…. Custard creams are a superior biscuit…. See? She did it just then.)
Posted by Greenbang on March 26th, 2008
A survey says:
1. Shell
2. Exxon/Esso
3. McDOnalds
4. BP
5. BA
6. Ryanair
7. BAA
8. Coke
9. E.ON
10. British Gas
It’s odd though - Marks and Spencer was listed as the UK’s greenest brand followed by Innocent smoothies and The Body Shop.
Marks and Spencer ranked above Airtricity - a massive wind farm company that was eaten up by Scottish and Southern. It wasn’t even mentioned.
Waitrose and Tesco also ranked in the top ten. Something’s not right about this. Who did this YouGov survey ask? Marketing managers with one GCSE who think packaging is invisible?
Anyway - somehow car company Honda features in the top ten alongside washing detergent company Ecover. And McDonalds and Coke list alongside fossil fuel companies and airline industry as least environmentally friendly.
The survey of 1,000 marketing professionals was carried out by trade magazine Marketing Week
Top ten green brands:
1. M&S
2. The Body Shop
3. Innocent
4. Co-OP
5. ECover
6. Honda
7. Waitrose
8. Tesco
9. BP
10. Greenpeace
Posted by jumperhead on March 13th, 2008
The findings of a study by green tech marketers EcoAlign remind Greenbang of Henry Ford’s observation that people’s reputations are based on what they’ve done, not what they’re going to do (okay, so Ford was no Oscar Wilde, but he made a point).
EcoAlign’s EcoPinion survey of US consumers’ awareness of green brands has revealed that few brands have actually managed to cultivate a green reputation among the consuming classes, in spite of loudly talking the talk and vigorously walking the walk.
The study says consumers are still crossing their arms and waiting to be impressed by some proof of real change in the business practices of large companies before recognising them as being bona fide green corporate citizens they’re clearly hoping to appear as.
The good news from all of this is that the marketing experts have realised a greenwash alone won’t wash with the public. Consumer scepticism being as strong as it is means that a company actually has to become environmentally friendly before consumers will accept it as so. Who’d have thunk it? Says EcoPinion Chief Marketing Officer Andrea Fabbri:
“There is a great opportunity to become a green brand leader with the right commitment and marketing approach, but the current emphasis on public relations and advertising is not going to do it alone.”
Findings from the EcoPinion report include:
1. Fifty-four percent (54%) of consumers could not name, on an unaided basis, a company who supplied renewable or “green” energy.
2. Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents were not familiar, on an aided basis, with ten “pure play” companies in the renewable and green energy space.
3. When asked about how committed respondents thought their electric utilities are to promoting or providing renewable energy or energy efficiency, ratings were about evenly split: 31% thought not at all committed, 36% were neutral and 33% rated the commitment level “7″ or higher on a ten-point scale.
4. Respondents were then shown a mix of 12 companies representing various industries and asked which they thought were most committed to using or providing renewable energy. GE dominated with 81% while Toyota was second at 65%.
5. Seventy seven percent (77%) of consumers think that an energy-efficient or green operational model is the single most important quality of a corporation trying to be an environmental leader.
6. Respondents were asked to rate their familiarity with various terms. Seventy-one percent (71%) rated their level of familiarity “8-10″ with the term “energy efficiency,” versus only 53% for “going green.”
Posted by jumperhead on March 4th, 2008
Promoting places isn’t exactly an easy job, as the individuals - no doubt with an excellent sense of humour - who came up with the slogans of “Skegness - it’s so bracing” or “live in Kent, be content” can tell you. (Anyone who lived in some of Kent’s darker reaches will obviously point out that the second half of the slogan - “if you get home with both kidneys and your nose not smeared across your face” - is missing, but hey ho.
It seems green business could well be the latest thing for promoting places if this press release from the “Ohio Business Development Coalition (OBDC), the nonprofit organization that markets the state for capital investment” is anything to go by. Greenbang reprints the highlights here for your reading pleasure:
Ohio is pioneering the development of “green collar” workers, a growing number of skilled professionals who use their talents to improve the emerging advanced energy industry. A recent report released by the American Solar Energy Society, funded by the Ohio Department of Development, predicted that 174,000 Ohioans could have jobs related to advanced, renewable energy by 2030.
According to the Ohio Business Development Coalition (OBDC), the nonprofit organization that markets the state for capital investment, Ohio’s universities and colleges are gearing up to meet the need for skilled green collar workers through new programs, degrees and training specific to the advanced energy industry.
One example of an educational institution rising to the occasion is Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio. The college was recently awarded a $1.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration to build an innovative learning facility. The Hocking College Energy Institute will feature modern learning labs for students studying in the college’s energy programs.
“This state-of-the-art facility is truly a place where students will receive hands on training in advanced energy,” said Jerry Hutton, dean of energy and transportation technologies for Hocking College. “Training skilled workers is critical to attracting renewable energy companies to Ohio and recharging the state’s manufacturing base.”
Greenbang is dusting off her green collar shirt and booking her flight as we speak.
