In the commercial world (and a few others, but especially PR), 'calling for' equates to 'looking at' in politics.
Whatever is being referred to is important, and the author acknowledges the fact, but actually there's either b-all that can be done, or they actually intend to do. But they do care, so that's OK. And it gets some PR.
Marketing Week - Sorrell calls for an end to deliberate obsolescence
There is some small significance that someone such as Martin Sorrell might feel the urge to opine this way, but that's about it.
I somehow don't see Steve Jobs grabbing the hotline to R&D to say 'Guys... the new i-Ownyourfirstborn.... make it last a lifetime!'.
But market forces do tend to work through. Speaking of Apple, though I can do sod all about it I am well miffed that I am now bound to FileMaker and its upgrades to work on Leopard no matter what, and will badmouth 'em at every turn. But I am well impressed that both our 12-year old cars have not a trace of rust on them yet. I have had to ditch a few in my time just because the floor pan dropped out.
But it would be nice if we could see a move to this: 'If people are less willing to buy items in large volumes because they have less money, make a virtue in advertising of how long your products last. Charge slightly more for them. That’s good for the landfill sites and good for your sales.' or this 'Or what about finding ways of getting people paying to ‘upgrade’ old products? It shows that you’re thinking about obsolescence while still offering people the sexy new functions and features they desire.'
It is, after all, what I have been advocating for long enough. I'll look forward to how Mr. Sorrell intends to turn his ideas into actions and not just talk about it all. Or, at best, stand ready to carry the next ad from someone who claim they are.
Showing posts with label MARKETING WEEK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MARKETING WEEK. Show all posts
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
POLL - MW/YouGov green issues marketers’ poll
You need to take a large dose of salt with them usually, but they're always worth a gander if only for a laff: MW/YouGov green issues marketers’ poll
I seem to recall taking part even. Not sure what that says about me. I think I may have skewed the result, mind.
A few points, which are acknowledged. One is the difference between 'doing' and 'being seen to be doing'. Which can equate to getting credit more for dropping a ton of dough claiming stuff than actually doing any of it. And with even major media having the attention span of gnats these days, much less checking stories, if it gets punted out as green it will get printed as green. Even if it might all wash away with the first shower.
Plus I loved this: 'Other fascinating insights gleaned from our research include the aversion of marketers to the idea that brands should pay a green tax. They believe it is the Government’s responsibility to take care of the costs associated with going green.' I believe that is a classic MaRiDa (Mandy Rice Davis) comment: 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'
Speaking from personal experience, I am also not at all surprised to find 'that it is senior people who are the main force pushing green issues rather than marketers lower down the scale.'
Most in the profession (which also often seems very short lived, which may explain a lot else. No sooner do I hone in on a promising lead than he/she has left 'to pursue their own interests'. Or to become a football manager, doubtless for the increased job security) seem to see their role more as gatekeepers of the status quo, and actually getting innovative on anything without the nod from on high ain't gonna happen. Even getting from Trace on reception to Mrs. Miggins in the PA pool is tricky enough. I know of one company who got their knickers in a twist about a call to see who best to pitch a green initiative to because they were on the Telephone Preference Service list!
There does seem to be a disconnect. But to be fair, I also suspect those big bosses who make big green noises are the first on the horn when any initiative dents the bottom line. Black trumps green when it comes to bonus time, even though staying the course can work out better on all counts in the long run. But as long runs don't seem a factor in mid-level marketing careers, it may explain why the short term gain is favoured more.
The full survey, by the by, is not free. £999+VAT not free. Those marketing tinkers, if it had been over a grand I wouldn't have considered it, but at that price...
Addendum:
Greenbang - And the ten least green brands are…
Great... er... minds...!
At least these things give folk like us something to write about.
That said, I rather dread seeing those perhaps surprisingly higher than warranted whacking out a 'Top 10 Green Brand' logo in the next few days.
Having taken part (and only having done so to find out what the questions might be... I wonder how many 'so much to do, so little time' top marketing gurus would have devoted the time), and now basking in the glow of being deemed a 'top marketing professional' (the qualification criteria were ruthless, I tell you), it is refreshing to see that 'we' are only human: 'Quick... name a green brand!!!!!' Er... Toyota Prius? No... HSBC (er, actually, what happened to them? They have spent oodles!).
Like Brucie might say (well, once have said); 'Good game, good game!'.
I seem to recall taking part even. Not sure what that says about me. I think I may have skewed the result, mind.
A few points, which are acknowledged. One is the difference between 'doing' and 'being seen to be doing'. Which can equate to getting credit more for dropping a ton of dough claiming stuff than actually doing any of it. And with even major media having the attention span of gnats these days, much less checking stories, if it gets punted out as green it will get printed as green. Even if it might all wash away with the first shower.
Plus I loved this: 'Other fascinating insights gleaned from our research include the aversion of marketers to the idea that brands should pay a green tax. They believe it is the Government’s responsibility to take care of the costs associated with going green.' I believe that is a classic MaRiDa (Mandy Rice Davis) comment: 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'
Speaking from personal experience, I am also not at all surprised to find 'that it is senior people who are the main force pushing green issues rather than marketers lower down the scale.'
Most in the profession (which also often seems very short lived, which may explain a lot else. No sooner do I hone in on a promising lead than he/she has left 'to pursue their own interests'. Or to become a football manager, doubtless for the increased job security) seem to see their role more as gatekeepers of the status quo, and actually getting innovative on anything without the nod from on high ain't gonna happen. Even getting from Trace on reception to Mrs. Miggins in the PA pool is tricky enough. I know of one company who got their knickers in a twist about a call to see who best to pitch a green initiative to because they were on the Telephone Preference Service list!
There does seem to be a disconnect. But to be fair, I also suspect those big bosses who make big green noises are the first on the horn when any initiative dents the bottom line. Black trumps green when it comes to bonus time, even though staying the course can work out better on all counts in the long run. But as long runs don't seem a factor in mid-level marketing careers, it may explain why the short term gain is favoured more.
The full survey, by the by, is not free. £999+VAT not free. Those marketing tinkers, if it had been over a grand I wouldn't have considered it, but at that price...
Addendum:
Greenbang - And the ten least green brands are…
Great... er... minds...!
At least these things give folk like us something to write about.
That said, I rather dread seeing those perhaps surprisingly higher than warranted whacking out a 'Top 10 Green Brand' logo in the next few days.
Having taken part (and only having done so to find out what the questions might be... I wonder how many 'so much to do, so little time' top marketing gurus would have devoted the time), and now basking in the glow of being deemed a 'top marketing professional' (the qualification criteria were ruthless, I tell you), it is refreshing to see that 'we' are only human: 'Quick... name a green brand!!!!!' Er... Toyota Prius? No... HSBC (er, actually, what happened to them? They have spent oodles!).
Like Brucie might say (well, once have said); 'Good game, good game!'.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
More Greenwash
This time from BSkyB (Sky) from Marketing Week.
"We became carbon neutral in 2006" Hey, you likely don't even understand what that means!
What a load of self congratulatory dross and bull! Oh my! If it wasn't so self-indulgently and puke inducingly sickly, I wouldn't be able to help myself from rolling around the floor laughing my head off!
Try adding this software to your accounting systems and publish the results if you dare!
Addendum:
From the same publication comes an article in a similar vein from the commercial & trading director of Tesco. But this one failed to raise my hackles hardly one iota. Much less holier than thou 'look how fantastically green we are! (Not)' and much more 'each small step will help'.
"Rather than preying on feelings of fear or guilt to motivate people to change their habits, we are finding simple ways to show people that greener living can be easy and cost-effective."
Every little helps.
"We became carbon neutral in 2006" Hey, you likely don't even understand what that means!
What a load of self congratulatory dross and bull! Oh my! If it wasn't so self-indulgently and puke inducingly sickly, I wouldn't be able to help myself from rolling around the floor laughing my head off!
Try adding this software to your accounting systems and publish the results if you dare!
Addendum:
From the same publication comes an article in a similar vein from the commercial & trading director of Tesco. But this one failed to raise my hackles hardly one iota. Much less holier than thou 'look how fantastically green we are! (Not)' and much more 'each small step will help'.
"Rather than preying on feelings of fear or guilt to motivate people to change their habits, we are finding simple ways to show people that greener living can be easy and cost-effective."
Every little helps.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Passionates, Dutifuls, Followers, Uninvolved.
Those are the four groupings of consumer types on a green adoption curve, according to research undertaken by Starcom MediaVest Group and reported in Marketing Week.
"Passionates, comprise 10% of the population and are highly motivated - the only group of people who regularly campaign, blog and boycott." - they also tend be be somewhat uncompromising.
"Dutifuls make up 24% of adults; they are enthusiastic without being political; they aspire to being greener and more ethical, often seeing it as a signifier of social status."
"Followers are the majority of the population at 41%. They tend to be more green than ethical and they feel that they ought to get more involved but are often not sure how to."
"The Uninvolved, 25% of the population, are more apathetic than actively anti-green, but have nevertheless formed a powerful set of barriers to adoption."
With such a wide and diverse set of consumer groups, no wonder it is so difficult to know just how to position any brand communication!
Well worth a browse.
"Passionates, comprise 10% of the population and are highly motivated - the only group of people who regularly campaign, blog and boycott." - they also tend be be somewhat uncompromising.
"Dutifuls make up 24% of adults; they are enthusiastic without being political; they aspire to being greener and more ethical, often seeing it as a signifier of social status."
"Followers are the majority of the population at 41%. They tend to be more green than ethical and they feel that they ought to get more involved but are often not sure how to."
"The Uninvolved, 25% of the population, are more apathetic than actively anti-green, but have nevertheless formed a powerful set of barriers to adoption."
With such a wide and diverse set of consumer groups, no wonder it is so difficult to know just how to position any brand communication!
Well worth a browse.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
What we need are more commitees - report
Or... not. ISBA issues guidelines to aid green ad claims
Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.
Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.
However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.
Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.
Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.
Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.
However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.
Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Pipe Dreams
This seems a potentially worthwhile example of eco-cooperation: Toyota and EDF launch recharge points for electric cars
On the matter of semantics, they may be (are they in all uses, or just urban?) 'more' friendly, but no matter how wizzo cannot be deemed to actually help the environment by being made and/or driven.
On the matter of semantics, they may be (are they in all uses, or just urban?) 'more' friendly, but no matter how wizzo cannot be deemed to actually help the environment by being made and/or driven.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Something rotten in the state of...everything, really
Though not actually about very much to do with the environment, I'd put this forward as a short, well-crafted analysis into how the state seems to be playing things 'on our behalves' - In the drink unaware
It is about a less than sympathetic industry, booze, but there are parallels to be drawn and lessons to be learned over here in eco-land.
To kick off, I am unsure as to how much of what is proposed is going to make a blind bit of difference to the reality of the situation. And, yet again a bunch of folk, from a legal industry to those who are allowed to use its wares, seem somehow destined to be caught up in a dodgy morass of competing do-gooding, revenue-generation (let's not forget that the less we drink, the more they need to make it up in taxes elsewhere) and official ineptitude, topped off with no actual responsibility or accountability at any stage.
Dealing with what goes into the system - namely people's desire and ability (and, with life the way it is now, some might say need) to drink - not being addressed very well (I really question how many million-£ campaigns it would take to stop any strata to go' that's a good ad; I'll give the beer a miss'), a failure for 'us' on a personal level to deal with it and, at the gutter end the state's inability to cope with the consequences, this seems a hiding to nothing that will cost a lot, do not much and probably make things worse. But will make a bunch more meddlers and consultants and officers of the state richer in ever more extensive empires of control.
A bit like most green 'initiatives' that I'm seeing of late.
It is about a less than sympathetic industry, booze, but there are parallels to be drawn and lessons to be learned over here in eco-land.
To kick off, I am unsure as to how much of what is proposed is going to make a blind bit of difference to the reality of the situation. And, yet again a bunch of folk, from a legal industry to those who are allowed to use its wares, seem somehow destined to be caught up in a dodgy morass of competing do-gooding, revenue-generation (let's not forget that the less we drink, the more they need to make it up in taxes elsewhere) and official ineptitude, topped off with no actual responsibility or accountability at any stage.
Dealing with what goes into the system - namely people's desire and ability (and, with life the way it is now, some might say need) to drink - not being addressed very well (I really question how many million-£ campaigns it would take to stop any strata to go' that's a good ad; I'll give the beer a miss'), a failure for 'us' on a personal level to deal with it and, at the gutter end the state's inability to cope with the consequences, this seems a hiding to nothing that will cost a lot, do not much and probably make things worse. But will make a bunch more meddlers and consultants and officers of the state richer in ever more extensive empires of control.
A bit like most green 'initiatives' that I'm seeing of late.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Bumper (crop of) Stickers
I'm confused. Just a few days ago I blogged (not very flatteringly) on the latest proposals on pack-side eco-labelling that 'may' be brought in, and here we have, wham-bang, it's happened: Morrisons unveils on-pack recycling scheme
Thing is, this looks a bit like it yet another one-off by one outfit, and again we are treated to the same choice we were faced with food-health, namely a version of traffic lights.
Is it just me, or is this all unravelling already?
ADDENDUM: Just had a nice chat (poor girl, she got a full-force hobby-horse rant first) with Nathalie, the author of this piece. I'd called simply to make sure of my facts, and that I hadn't missed something in the last announcement and this wasn't simply a spin-off from it.
No, it seems this is pretty much another version that's been rushed out.
And, more encouragingly, journalists like her are well aware that this is all not adding up to much that makes much sense.
Brand Republic - Morrisons flags recyclable levels
How will this integrate with the proposed industry-wide initiative I read about the other day? Is this an 'as well as', an 'instead of' or an 'until it arrives'? And, if so, what is the consumer going to make of it all, especially if, one presumes, it is sharing what must be getting a pretty crowded space with the health labelling which, if I recall, will already be one of the competing traffic light/bar standards issued more to look like something is being done rather than having any hope of actually achieving anything.
If i am in the market for Tarte au Citron and Morrison's version doesn't do it for me greenly, I shall certainly put it back on the shelf to go past its sell-by date and drive across town to by the ASDA one. Oh, hold on... that wouldn't help the planet at all!
Thing is, this looks a bit like it yet another one-off by one outfit, and again we are treated to the same choice we were faced with food-health, namely a version of traffic lights.
Is it just me, or is this all unravelling already?
ADDENDUM: Just had a nice chat (poor girl, she got a full-force hobby-horse rant first) with Nathalie, the author of this piece. I'd called simply to make sure of my facts, and that I hadn't missed something in the last announcement and this wasn't simply a spin-off from it.
No, it seems this is pretty much another version that's been rushed out.
And, more encouragingly, journalists like her are well aware that this is all not adding up to much that makes much sense.
Brand Republic - Morrisons flags recyclable levels
How will this integrate with the proposed industry-wide initiative I read about the other day? Is this an 'as well as', an 'instead of' or an 'until it arrives'? And, if so, what is the consumer going to make of it all, especially if, one presumes, it is sharing what must be getting a pretty crowded space with the health labelling which, if I recall, will already be one of the competing traffic light/bar standards issued more to look like something is being done rather than having any hope of actually achieving anything.
If i am in the market for Tarte au Citron and Morrison's version doesn't do it for me greenly, I shall certainly put it back on the shelf to go past its sell-by date and drive across town to by the ASDA one. Oh, hold on... that wouldn't help the planet at all!
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Green? Probably in the Black. With a red face.
The furore with packaging rumbles on, and this snippet from Marketing Week to me throws up a few issues: Green & Black's defends packaging
In the green corner, if you are selling yourself in part on being 'green' literally as well as in name, I'd guess you may end up a tad defensive following 'consumer complaints about wasteful packaging.'
But then we go into Marketing Operational Reasons Obfuscation Nonsense (yeay.. a new acronym!) MORON-speak: it does use excessive packaging for its ice cream sticks because "it adds to the Green & Black's experience".
Closely followed by Simply Own-up? Why? Have A Timewaster (another one: SO WHAT?): it says that it has always tried to source packaging that will "protect the product, reflect the premium and luxury status of the brand, but at the same time take into account the environment."
And I love this one, which is now a staple: it is "currently conducting an audit of all packaging". It says that its packaging has to "strike a balance between protecting the product, and maintaining our ethical credentials." (Read: Bluster Unmercifully - Generally Goes Away: BUGGA)
Thing is, in light of my previous blog (following Norman Baker's 'raid' on Ferrero Rocher with the Indy) that food packaging is a minute aspect of a much bigger problem and, let's face it, you are no more likely to want a premium brand of chocolate on a paper bag than a Ferrari in a Reliant Robin shell, I can't help but feel a little bit of grownup commercial reality needs to pervade around here, or there will soon be no advertising, design, marketing and we'll all be living in a monochrome box eating gruel.
Meantime the climate will change as we get distracted from big issues by those with agendas getting a bunch of folk who should know better to sweat the small stuff.
In the green corner, if you are selling yourself in part on being 'green' literally as well as in name, I'd guess you may end up a tad defensive following 'consumer complaints about wasteful packaging.'
But then we go into Marketing Operational Reasons Obfuscation Nonsense (yeay.. a new acronym!) MORON-speak: it does use excessive packaging for its ice cream sticks because "it adds to the Green & Black's experience".
Closely followed by Simply Own-up? Why? Have A Timewaster (another one: SO WHAT?): it says that it has always tried to source packaging that will "protect the product, reflect the premium and luxury status of the brand, but at the same time take into account the environment."
And I love this one, which is now a staple: it is "currently conducting an audit of all packaging". It says that its packaging has to "strike a balance between protecting the product, and maintaining our ethical credentials." (Read: Bluster Unmercifully - Generally Goes Away: BUGGA)
Thing is, in light of my previous blog (following Norman Baker's 'raid' on Ferrero Rocher with the Indy) that food packaging is a minute aspect of a much bigger problem and, let's face it, you are no more likely to want a premium brand of chocolate on a paper bag than a Ferrari in a Reliant Robin shell, I can't help but feel a little bit of grownup commercial reality needs to pervade around here, or there will soon be no advertising, design, marketing and we'll all be living in a monochrome box eating gruel.
Meantime the climate will change as we get distracted from big issues by those with agendas getting a bunch of folk who should know better to sweat the small stuff.
If it's worth saying, say it again
Green is certainly the next big thing... for now, in the world of marketing.
The greening of CSR
I have on occasion tried to reply to the comment section online, but either it doesn't like my Mac/Safari set-up, or my over-40ness has rendered the technology beyond me.
It seems that green is no longer just good, but big. And what you have written here is encouraging and all makes very good sense, though I'd like to offer a few extra thoughts on the environmental side of CSR from a position of some experience as a consumer.
The issue of greenwashing remains significant, and it is, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) face is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard. The latest proposals for food miles labelling being the latest example.
Because I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
I note Andy Bond of ASDA is soon facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green.
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
The greening of CSR
I have on occasion tried to reply to the comment section online, but either it doesn't like my Mac/Safari set-up, or my over-40ness has rendered the technology beyond me.
It seems that green is no longer just good, but big. And what you have written here is encouraging and all makes very good sense, though I'd like to offer a few extra thoughts on the environmental side of CSR from a position of some experience as a consumer.
The issue of greenwashing remains significant, and it is, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) face is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard. The latest proposals for food miles labelling being the latest example.
Because I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
I note Andy Bond of ASDA is soon facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green.
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
We open with a helicopter shot of the Maldives...
In the spirit of boundless optimism, all my TV scripts started that way. Sadly, never once did it come to pass. I doubt it was much to do with nascent eco-concern on my clients' parts.
So I was interested in this:
Agencies risk axe from COI roster over eco credentials
What counts as a 'valid environmental policy'?
Is it ticking some boxes to keep yet another overstaffed quango in business, or actually engaging in tangible practices across the board that lead to a genuine enviROI?
So I was interested in this:
Agencies risk axe from COI roster over eco credentials
What counts as a 'valid environmental policy'?
Is it ticking some boxes to keep yet another overstaffed quango in business, or actually engaging in tangible practices across the board that lead to a genuine enviROI?
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Philips washes greener?
Philips launches green tick logo
I may be missing something by not being privy to more than is outlined in this piece, but I’m afraid it really only raises more questions in my mind.
While any commitment to the environment - by anyone - is better than nothing, I am looking at the enviROI (return on investment to the environment) of this initiative and having trouble tracing it through.
To kick off, this consumer at least has plenty of logos enough already to wade through already, most of which I already have little clue what they mean. And I am presuming this is unique to this brand, which is quaint, but essentially meaningless. I’m sure it will be accompanied by a huge campaign to tout it around, but it’s a wonder how much that will serve to influence my purchase behaviour in a competitive market (especially when other manufacturers will doubtless be designing a leaf out of their own book), versus simply ticking a box on the CSR list at AGM time.
Whilst refreshingly honest, it also seems to make the point that they have a lot that is not that eco, and one has to wonder why? So for me the claim at the end, and the effort behind it, has about as much value as the marketing speak waffle used to explain it. I’m afraid the only green I’m sensing won’t wash.
I may be missing something by not being privy to more than is outlined in this piece, but I’m afraid it really only raises more questions in my mind.
While any commitment to the environment - by anyone - is better than nothing, I am looking at the enviROI (return on investment to the environment) of this initiative and having trouble tracing it through.
To kick off, this consumer at least has plenty of logos enough already to wade through already, most of which I already have little clue what they mean. And I am presuming this is unique to this brand, which is quaint, but essentially meaningless. I’m sure it will be accompanied by a huge campaign to tout it around, but it’s a wonder how much that will serve to influence my purchase behaviour in a competitive market (especially when other manufacturers will doubtless be designing a leaf out of their own book), versus simply ticking a box on the CSR list at AGM time.
Whilst refreshingly honest, it also seems to make the point that they have a lot that is not that eco, and one has to wonder why? So for me the claim at the end, and the effort behind it, has about as much value as the marketing speak waffle used to explain it. I’m afraid the only green I’m sensing won’t wash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)