Tom Fishburne: Marketoonist

eco cheap: the new eco chic

 

My wife showed me a Grazia article the other day that announced belt-tightening as this season’s eco chic. It told the story of a cocktail party where everyone attempted to one-up each other on bargain purchases. It then described European discount chain ALDI as nouveau fashionable.

It made me think about the role of ethical brands in a down economy, which I’ve touched on before. How will ethical brands fair when everyone is counting their pennies (particularly brands that command a premium)?

In a funny way, some of this recessionary climate may actually force even greater consumer change in relation to the environment than purchasing sustainably-minded brands. This made me think of “eco cheap” as the next “eco chic” and prompted this cartoon.

In these bumpy economic times, I think it will be even more important for brands to make sure they are meaningful. This is an acid test for meaningful brands, because private label is more tempting than ever. This may mean re-framing your brand in a completely different way.

As a side but related note, happy honeymoon to Liesel and Gary, whose names I jotted at the bottom of this cartoon and whose wedding I went to this weekend. Liesel’s an old old friend and Gary told me how he retrofitted his car to run on vegetable oil, which involved negotiating with his local dim sum restaurant to fill up his car for $5 a tank. Driving in it may smell like dumplings, but boy is it “eco cheap”.

after green

John Grant prompted this cartoon idea recently when he shared an anecdote that a client had posed this very question to an agency John knew.

This is the end result of many companies and brands treating sustainability solely as a marketing benefit, not as an underlying business practice.  For years, many companies have given their agencies "green briefs" to find something green to talk about.  This explosion in greenwashing makes "green" feel like a fad.  And we all know fads come and go.

Which is sadly ironic, given that sustainability is a much deeper commitment than, say, promising a low carb lifestyle.

By coincidence, my mother-in-law asked a similar question over dinner the other night: "when is green going to be over?"  She didn't mean trying to live more sustainability.  She meant the green marketing noise level.  She voiced some of the green fatigue I imagine that a lot of consumers are feeling.  They are ready for companies to talk about something else.

All of this is a commentary on how companies talk about sustainability.  Which is totally separate from the actual positive progress on sustainability that many companies and organizations are making.  True progress is being tainted by bad marketing.

It's a complicated road to navigate for marketers and anyone working in sustainability.  I found John's own handbook, The Green Marketing Manifesto, a good place to start.

green fatigue

The other day on the tube, I saw an ad for a new 50% recycled range of pens from Pentel.  It showed a photo of a polar bear stranded on melting ice.  Next to the polar bear in distress, there were cartoon ice bergs and ice caps drawn by Pentel pens.  The implication was that buying these pens could help stop global warming, halt the melting of the ice caps, and save the poor polar bear.  It was only missing a tearful Sally Struthers.

Pentel's move to 50% recycled content is a pretty big step (particularly at the same consumer price).  But they flubbed the story.  By promising an unrealistic connection between their product news and the global warming epidemic, they come across as completely phony. 

Pentel isn't alone.  That tube car was filled with ads in the same eco-preachy vein, as were the tube stations, as were the billboards outside.

I think it turns off consumers more than it turns them on.  And can lead to them not doing anything.  Or worse, like my cartoon this week.

Contrast Pentel's story with that of Remarkable, a little brand that simply promises to "recycle UK waste and make it into exciting, fun, and innovative products".

I then came across a great AdAge article with 7 Steps to Avoid Eco Fatigue. One interesting quote: "Green is a fad. Sustainability is continual improvement."

The article also mentioned another good reference point from Patagonia, called The Footprint Chronicles.

shades of green

I picked up a book recently called Shades of Green, which has a spectrum of eco tips for people based on how green they consider themselves, from dark green to light green.

It made me think about the different motivations for people thinking green and I thought it would be fun to play with a few stereotypes.

There’s the classic hippy crunchy granola end of the spectrum, where any form of consumerism is bad and should make you feel guilty. There tends to be a lot of sacrifice involved, which can turn off the vast majority who don’t particularly like how their feet look in Birkenstocks.

On the other end of the spectrum are people buying green because it’s stylish and trendy, like the Anya Hindmarch shopping bag last year. I think this is actually a good thing, because you can reach a lot more people through an attractive lifestyle than through preaching. I think that helping bring green mainstream is better than keeping it niche, even if the motivations aren’t as pure.

And then there’s the group motivated primarily by "greenbacks", who are jumping on the bandwagon because it’s so trendy. That’s where greenwashing comes in, and threatens to muddy the whole thing. Because consumers who feel like they’ve been duped because of shoddy eco claims will think twice the next time, even if they really want to do the right thing.

I played around with this theme a few years ago with this cartoon on organic foods.

the consumer's dilemma

I took my family camping on a goat's milk farm a few months ago and asked the farmer what he thought about organic farming.  He said that organic foods were a "rich man's luxury".

It got me thinking about the impact of a recession on ethical consumerism.  As consumer's start squeezing their pocketbooks, how will this affect brands with a social mission that also carry a premium?

A friend was visiting from the states last week and mentioned that Target was down, but Wal-Mart was up, which made me wonder how consumers are starting to re-evaluate their shopping lists.  I imagine quite a few are feeling conflicted.

Anyway, I find the "angel on one shoulder, devil on the other" device pretty handy, which I used here too.

the csr fashion show

I just started reading John Grant's Green Marketing Manifesto, a thought-provoking book on how marketers like us should approach the green marketplace.  I'm only 56 pages into it, but I recommend it and the accompanying blog too.

We're at an interesting turning point.  Greenies and marketers used to be diametrically opposed, because the traditional eco mantra was "consume less" and the traditional marketing mantra was "consume more".

But now, it's more about "consume smarter".  And the roles of the greenies and marketers are blurring.  Marketers play an important role in helping explain all of this to consumers.  Instead of dragging the mainstream kicking and screaming to green, it's about bringing green to the mainstream (through smart products and marketing).  Making it seem "normal", in the same way that Apple has made computers normal and accessible.

A lot of this is already starting to happen, which is great.  But as more and more jump on the eco bandwagon, there's a whole heap of greenwashing too.  This is dangerous, because it risks turning consumers off of the whole thing, making them suspicious and sceptical. 

"You can't just decide 'ethical is in' and treat it like a fashion."  I read this line in John's book and it prompted this cartoon idea.  It's been interesting to watch so many companies trot out their CSR plans recently.  This is great when it's serious, but a problem when it's superficial and publicity-driven.  Because consumers can see right through it.  Sooner or later.

we're so eco-friendly

I came across an article on the environmental ills of outdoor media: lots of paper, lots of fuel to drive to media sites, toxic glues, etc. The next time I rode the tube, I was struck by how many outdoor ads were touting some environmental benefit.  I put the two together and it felt very ironic, and inspired this cartoon.

The trouble with much of the environmental grand-standing right now is that it tends to focus on one attribute or another, not a holistic approach of making a company more sustainable over time.  So, there's often more than a bit of hypocracy if you look hard enough.  The same company that garnered a packaging reduction is printing out masses of paper to tell the world about it, which kind of defeats the purpose.

eco claim arms race

A few weeks ago, I was lucky to meet Michael Braungart (who co-wrote the thought-provoking book Cradle to Cradle about ecological product development).  He helped expand our thinking about eco responsibility to being less about one attribute or another, and more about a holistic approach of thinking through the past, present, and future of every product. 

In the group discussion, it came up that someday environmental responsibility won't be a marketing position, it will be an aspect of product quality in each and every product.

Until then, we're in a really confusing stage where just about any product can claim some level of eco-friendliness. For example, many brands have been cutting back on packaging for years.  The reason was margin improvement, but now those projects can be touted as environmentally driven.

The next time I trolled the supermarket, I was really struck by some of the confusing eco claim one-up-manship.  So many products were suddenly trumpeting one eco claim or another, and much of seemed ridiculous, confusing, or disingenuous.  Like personal care products that are "92.4% Organic", even when most of the product making up that percentage is water.

It reminded me of an arms race.  And inspired this cartoon. 

the problem with carbon labeling

A few days ago, I met the head of sustainability for a British retailer, and he said he was conflicted about carbon labeling.  There's a big push here to add a numeric carbon footprint to all consumer products (starting with a big announcement from Tesco last year).  It seems like a good disclosure in spirit, and the sheer effort to measure the carbon footprint is a good thing, which leads to ideas on how to reduce that footprint. 

But, labeling on packaging is a complicated one for consumers.  For one thing, it's confusing.  Do consumers really understand what a 75g carbon label on a bag of crisps means?  For another thing, it can create mixed messages like the one in this cartoon.

the brand's new clothes

Another cartoon on the theme of greenwashing.  I came across this article in Ad Age about companies getting caught by consumers committing "green murder".  It talked about marketers putting out "green briefs" to agencies to find something worth talking about their environmental impacts without actually changing anything. 

In this rush to reposition everyday brands as environmentally-friendly, there seems to be collective amnesia of the inconsistencies in the story.  And by being so vocal (particularly as a johnny-come-lately), these brands are actually quite naked and exposed.  It's only a matter of time before a consumer calls out, "but he has nothing on."

Since there are no perfectly sustainable businesses, we're all a bit naked and exposed on this.  I think the only way is come across with honesty and humility and an open recognition that it's about progress, not perfection.