Mastering the New Green Market - Part 2 - Collapses Don't Take Turns

 

In our last post, we saw that the economic downturn will make people less green -- in effect, at least — in their values and purchasing decisions.  (Of course, when it comes to purchasing decisions, "in effect" is the reality.)  This bad news is undoubtedly not news to you, but it may be helpful to have deeper insight into the psychodynamics behind it.

What can green marketers do about this?  Before we can arrive at good strategies, we've got to hold fast to the right attitude.  Sure, the situation we're facing is bad for green business.  But what is green business?  Why are you green in the first place?  Early on, we defined "green" as better for the planet.  That means that "less green" is worse for the planet.

That's where we need to keep our attention — in how we think, and especially in how we communicate.  Nobody will care that your business is in trouble, but people still ought to care that their planet is in peril.  Remind them of that, and you'll at least catch their ear.

Collapses don't take turns.  Right now we are facing an economic collapse, but we were already facing an environmental collapse (climate, biodiversity, fisheries, forests, farmland — you know the list.)  The environmental situation was dire a year ago.  It was more dire six months ago.  Is it any less dire now?  Did the impending environmental collapse politely step aside to make room for the newly arrived economic collapse?

Of course not!  Economic collapse may have shoved aside environmental collapse in people's minds, but it didn't shove it aside in the world "out there."  So to the extent that people are now less green in their thinking, the economic collapse has caused their minds to become misaligned with reality.  That's dangerous for anybody — including your customers.

In reality, we have not shifted from facing environmental collapse to facing economic collapse.  We have shifted from facing environmental collapse to facing both environmental and economic collapse.  The fact that the economic collapse is already upon us does not make the environmental collapse any less imminent.  In fact, the environmental collapse is not "on its way" — it's already here.  It's happening at this moment, on an enormous scale.  It's just hidden behind an ever-shrinking facade of affluent appearances.

Nor is the environmental collapse separate from the economy.  In the skyscraper of civilization, ecological services are the foundation and first three stories, the economy is floors four through ten, and all the rest of society is built up from there.  When the foundation and first three floors crumble, what will happen to floors four and above?  If bailing out the banks is hard, try bailing out the ocean!

Most informed people would still agree that saving the environment is important.  But many would argue that fixing the economy is now more urgent.  That's the cognitive error we as green marketers must strive to correct.  One urgency has not displaced another; rather, the urgencies have multiplied.  Unfortunately, the human mind does not easily comprehend multiple urgencies, but that's a reality our species must now outgrow — or else (as Hobbes put it)  we'll soon return to a world where life is nasty, brutish and short.

In the end, even realizing all this, people may still make less green purchasing decisions due to budget constraints.  But the first step in stemming the tide is to help them keep straight in their thinking.  Keep them in touch with the planet.  Let them feel its scream.

Is that all we can do to market green effectively in the new green market?  No.  Read our next post for more.

Keith Borden, Consultant
Brilliant Green Marketing

 

Mastering the New Green Market - Part 1 - The Green Wave hits the Economic Tsunami meets Barack Obama

 

Three great forces are colliding at this moment in history.  You, as a green marketer, are privileged to have even better than a ring-side seat to this spectacle.  You're right in the middle of the smash-up!  The three forces are these:

  • The Green Wave.  In earlier posts, we've explored what the green wave is, how it arose, and why it's destined to keep on rising over the long haul.  Briefly, it's a wave of public environmental concern in response to environmental problems.  Environmental problems are bad and getting worse, and the green wave will grow in response.
     
  • The Economic Tsunami.  Our last four posts explored what a company can do to revamp its marketing in the face of the recession.  But how, specifically, will the economic tsunami impact the green wave?  Last October, NPR's Sarah Gardner reported that in the view of environmentalist Ted Nordhaus, "The green bubble has burst."  Understandable?  Yes.  Good?  No!  Not for green marketers or the planet!
     
  • Barack Obama.  Obama may well be the first truly green president.  He clearly recognizes the reality of global warming and the need to "save the planet."  As much as politically possible, he's packing his economic stimulus package with green spending.  And simply by winning in 2008, he reversed the anti-environmental climate that has infected Washington for so long.  Will this be enough to counter the economic crash?  Where does it leave green marketing?

The good news is that green values are now mainstream in America.  You no longer have to battle to establish the importance of going green.  Obama in the White House certifies that.  But as people tighten their wallets, you need to establish the urgency — or better yet, give people ancillary reasons to buy from you now.

Three important principles come into play here.  You're probably familiar with all of them, so I'll only link to the definitions and explanations.

  1. Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  As economic clouds crowd in, people hunker down — and slide down the "needs" scale from more global, idealistic and altruistic levels to a more self-centered, survivalist orientation.  This will not necessarily diminish people's green values, but it will backburner them, temporarily giving them a lower priority — which does, in effect, diminish them.
     
  2. The Tragedy of the Commons.  When people perceive a conflict between doing what's best for the planet and doing what's best for themselves — and especially when that perceived conflict is magnified by budget constraints and sliding down the need's hierarchy — they will rationalize choosing person over planet on the basis that their choice will have little impact on the planet but much impact on their own welfare.  Individually, they'll be right.
     
  3. Cognitive Dissonance.  When people experience a conflict between their consciously held beliefs and values and their actual decisions and actions — for example, green people making non-green purchases — they experience psychological tension that may be distinctly uncomfortable.  A common defense against this discomfort is to repress half the equation, "forgetting" either their green attitudes or their non-green actions.

The net effect of this "terrible trio" is to make people, in effect, less green.  But they may not want to admit it, even to themselves, which makes it harder to confront head-on but just might give you a bit of sideways leverage.  And let's be clear:  we are just talking here about people's purchasing psychology, quite apart from their actual financial purchasing ability.

Bottom line:  green marketing just got tougher.  But you knew that.  The question is, how do you deal with it?  Read our next post to find out!

Keith Borden, Consultant
Brilliant Green Marketing

 

The Green Wave, Part 9 - Green Marketers and the Green Revolution

 

The Green Revolution

In our last post, we saw how precarious the funding for green science is over the long term.  We also saw that sustained, systemic action — based on sound science — is necessary for effective environmental action on a scale that can save the planet.

What does this mean?  The green wave is not enough!  The green wave is a wave of environmental concern, but we need a green revolution of effective environmental action on a coordinated, global scale.  This requires sustained public awareness and understanding of green issues, and also sustained public valuing of the science needed to enable that understanding and support effective solutions.

Erratic attention, strangled science, stop-gap funding, and on-again, off-again crisis responses will not solve our environmental problems.  The green wave is based on a recognition of the fragility and vulnerability of the environment, but the green wave itself is fragile and vulnerable. 

The green revolution is even more fragile and vulnerable.  It depends on sustaining the green wave of environmental concern in the face of ongoing distraction and sustaining public valuing of environmental science in the face of an economic downturn.  What a sales job that is!  Who could possible pull it off?

Green Marketers to the Rescue!

Well, who knows better than professional marketers how to keep capturing attention to the same old thing in countless new ways?  That's part of a marketer's job.  Nobody is more capable of keeping green issues — and the understanding and values surrounding them — alive in the public mind over the long haul.

Sustained, systemic action is necessary — and that requires ongoing stimulation of public attention, by calculation as well as crisis.  Now, what would you call ongoing, calculated stimulation of public attention to maintain environmental concern and drive effective environmental actions?  Green marketing!

In other words, sustaining the green wave comes down to green marketing.  We as green marketers are to a significant degree keepers and stewards of the green wave.  It is a great responsibility and a noble calling.

So now marketing professionals must take the skills we've learned over a century of practice and apply them not just in service of our company and customers, but also to sustain the green wave itself.  Green marketers, arise!  It's time to prove our worth to Mother Earth.

Keith Borden, Consultant
Brilliant Green Marketing

 

The Green Wave, Part 8 - Sustaining the Green Wave

 

Attention Deficit Disaster

In our last post, you saw — unless you are very unusual — that you can't hold your attention steady for a minute.  We also said that to stabilize our species in sustainability would require sustained attention by the public for a century.  We asked, if attention can't be sustained for sixty seconds, what could possibly sustain it for a hundred years?

The obvious answer is — nothing.  And if that's the case, we're doomed.  So let's see if we can find a non-obvious answer.

Attention is drawn by change.  Immediate change.  Change now.  That's true of individual human attention, and also of the baby bottle from which we all nurse, media attention.  Environmental changes are monumental, but for precisely that reason they are generally not fast — at least on the scale that captures human attention.

For example, global warming should register in human consciousness as a HUGE change.  And when we hear about it or think about it, it does, and we realize it requires a huge response.  But as we continue to hear about it, it sounds more and more like NO change.  Even the weekly ice-sheet collapse soon sounds like just more of the same. 

And then our attention shifts.  "If the economy tanks, I'll lose my job."  "Who's winning American Idol?"  Attention — how fickle it is!

From the standpoint of long-term planetary health and human survival, nothing is more urgent than green issues.  But from the standpoint of human attention — in the face of war, recession and football — nothing may seem less urgent than green issues.  The ark which must save our species (and other species too) floats on the green wave, which is fed by the fickle waters of human attention.  If  those waters change their course, the green wave subsides, and the human experiment fails.

Of course, after each time that the green wave subsides, it will arise again as another environmental crises hit us.  But then each time, it will be swamped again by boredom, distraction, attention fatigue and other personal and community crises — for example, the current economic meltdown.  So the wave will rise and fall.  Even if it grows overall, it will grow unevenly, in fits and starts.

Systemic Action And Science

This will cause the kind of erratic response that is our habit, causing both inefficiency and ineffectiveness.  That will be compounded by competition for resources.  As the 21st century unfolds, and crises increasingly crash upon us on all fronts, there will be insufficient funds to deal effectively with each of them symptomatically in a crisis-response level.

Resources will be sufficient if — and only if — problems are dealt with rationally, strategically, systematically and systemically at a root-cause level, for two reasons:

  1. Proactive preventive action is more cost-effective than reactive crisis response.
     
  2. Even though each problem has multiple causes, most of our major problems have several causes in common.

Unfortunately, everything in our history, habits and nature suggests that in the long haul, over the course of this century, we will not achieve the sustained public attention required for this rational, strategic, systematic and systemic approach, but will instead continue to respond with erratic crisis management.  If so, we're sunk.

But it's even worse than that.  Dealing with problems rationally, strategically, systematically and systemically requires more than just sustained attention on the problems from an action point of view.  It also requires sustained attention from an analytic point of view, in terms of sustained, well-funded scientific research.

Changing a situation strategically requires understanding its causes.  Otherwise, we're just flailing in the dark.  Effective environmental action — whether by government, industry or individuals must be based on good science, good sources and good sense.

Unfortunately, the science on which effective green action depends is also at risk.  In fact, at this very moment it's under heavy fire..  Republican presidential candidate John McCain rails repeatedly against "pork" and "earmarks" in the federal budget, but there is one example he pulls out almost every time to show how ludicrous our budgetary waste has become.

John McCain:  We're never going to spend three million dollars again to study the DNA of bears in Montana.  I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue, but it's not going to happen again!

He makes it sound so silly.  Bear DNA in Montana!  But this is not a paternity issue or a criminal issue.  It's science regarding an environmental issue.  And it's McCain's favorite example of the kind of "pork" he'd totally eliminate from the federal budget! 

If he were to state the facts of the case and argue it on its merits, that would at least be honest, but it's revealing that he feels no need to do so, and disturbing that he's right.  As I write this, it seems likely that McCain will lose the election.  But the very fact that he can win cheers again and again with this insidious line — playing upon public ignorance — shows how precarious the funding for green science is over the long term.

This is not just serious.  It's ominous.  Poisonous!  See our next post for the antidote — and how it involves you.

Keith Borden, Consultant
Brilliant Green Marketing

BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.8.001.
Copyright © 2007-2009 Brilliant Green Marketing.   All rights reserved.  Terms of Use.
http://brilliantgreenmarketing.com   Site Photography by Neil Beaty
sustainable environmental marketing, Boston, MA, Mass, Massachusetts, New England, USA

Phone: 978-663-3801