Communicating to consumers that a product has an environmental benefit can be a difficult and complex issue. Trying to explain all of the reasons why the product is better due to sustainable features such as using recycled materials, having a low-carbon footprint, being organic or being locally sourced is a complicated and long list. That is why a lot of products use of one of the many icons, certifications or 3rd party endorsements available, and there are many to choose from. A quick Google Image search turned up these 6.
All are an attempt to quickly communicate that the product is “better for the environment”. One of the best examples of making a complex sustainability message easy to understand is LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental and Design. This is the sustainable building certification process created and managed by the US Green Building Council in the United States. One of the most visible aspects of the program to the average consumer are the plaques that a building owner is entitled to put on the front of their building to communicate to everyone going by that this building is a LEED certified building. This, like all icons, allows the consumer to instantly understand that this building is better for the environment than one that is not certified by LEED.
Being familiar with these plaques and seeing more and more of them in the States, I was perplexed on our recent stop in Singapore. As we walked through a couple of the malls in the downtown area, including City Square Mall, I saw signs and even plasma televisions extolling the many features that were designed into these new buildings to make them more environmentally friendly. They also included the measurable impact, i.e. tons of carbon saved, swimming pools of water saved, etc. as part of the consumer education campaign. What I did not see was any communication of what official certification, if any, the mall had achieved. It led me to do some digging to see if Singapore in fact did have a sustainable building certification process similar to LEED in the US. Turns out they do in fact have quite a robust process, Green Mark, that has been in place since 2005, and they even have a pretty good logo. My question is why are they not better at branding their achievements?
It seems that the lesson of the Hybrid Honda Civic has not been shared with the leadership of the BCA (Building and Construction Authority), which oversees Green Mark in Singapore. Part of what makes the Prius so successful in the US is that the car is a rolling statement by the driver. It is a status symbol, pure green consumer social capital that is awfully hard to miss as the car has such a distinctive design. The first generation Hybrid Honda Civic, however, looked exactly the same as the non-hybrid car, the only difference being a small badge on the back. The result, as of April 2008, is that despite a much lower price, Hybrid Honda Civics have sold 80% fewer cars than the Prius[1]. Consumers that are looking for a more environmentally sustainable product, especially with a significant purchase such as a car, house or office space, want to ensure that the premium they paid for an environmentally superior choice sends a message, so making that message easy to communicate and understand is critical.
I would offer that a major success for LEED in the States has been the effective marketing they do jointly with developers and building owners to promote their certification. A major contributor of the value for the building owner is the LEED certification, as it helps to command higher rents and attract increased numbers of potential tenants. Green Mark needs to quickly invest in establishing their band to ensure they continue to provide value to the developers that choose to go through the certification process.
What do you think? If you were to invest in a more sustainable purchase, like a car, house, or office space, would you want to ensure it was easy to talk about it?
[1] Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/market-dashboard/april-2008-hybrids-defy-recession.html referenced on January 16, 2010
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
From a non-marketer’s perspective, I think it totally depends on the individual person/company. Some people are into status symbols while some aren’t. I haven’t ever been in the market for a car myself, but was happy to learn here that there’s a hybrid Civic, because if I were to end up buying a car upon returning to the States, I’d love another Civic (we had a lovely standard one in the family for nearly 15 years, which got great mileage) and the fact that it would be a hybrid would be an added bonus. I guess I take the value-added approach. I’m not looking to spend more on a sustainable product, though I acknowledge that they sometimes do cost more initially. For me, the attraction (on top of less environmental damage) is the genuine savings over time (such as lower energy bills) granted by such a product. This is especially important if we want to grow a global economy that is not only fashionably green but accessibly green to those living at all income brackets. If unsustainable choices are the only affordable choices in low-income communities then we really won’t be making much progress over the long haul.
Robyn thanks for the comment. I agree with you that there needs to be a way to ensure that sustainable choices are available to all socioeconomic levels. This has really hit home as we have been traveling in many beautiful third world countries. They have such an amazing natural asset in the beauty of their natural environment, but often have little respect for it.
I am hopeful that the traditional life cycle of product development where the first generations are incredibly expensive and available only to wealthy early adopters will be accelerated to create more accessible and environmentally sustainable products. I look at cell phones as a great example, even if it did take 15 years. The first cell phones 20 years ago were incredibly expensive and were the size of a briefcase. However now in many third world countries, there are few landlines with everyone talking and SMSing on cells. Think what that kind of progress would mean when applied to efficient and sustainable transportation. Although with the number of scooters and motorbikes here the average mpg has to be much better than in the states.
This comment has nothing to do with this post 🙂 But I wanted to let you know that I purchased a Neti Pot and it is the best thing that has happened to me!! Hope you are having a great week and hope to talk to you both soon!! Lots of Love – Kate
Good read!
Hey A&K,
Just came across this (and in posting, just saw your response; let’s hope product life cycles can speed up quickly!):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-seireeni/drivers-of-preference-why_b_446061.html
Speaks to many of the points you initially made (and proves that I should not participate in any marketing studies as the voice of the average person) and the book might be a good read whenever you’re next able to access Amazon. Keep enjoying Asia!