Over the past year or so, Just Marketing
has carried guest blog posts from distinguished thought leaders in the
field. But looking over the list of contributors, I also noticed that we
have had no posts from the next generation of marketers. With the
marketing field changing as fast as it is, the next generation has an
entirely different perspective on brand building and consumer marketing.
The natural toolbox they turn to is the web, and in particular, social
media. So I thought it would be worthwhile sampling the perspective of
these marketers -- we can all learn from them. This is the second of three posts by guest bloggers just starting out in the field of marketing. Today's post is by Jenny Pierce.
Jenny Pierce is a fourth year
undergraduate student at the Richard Ivey School of Business (Canada). She is interested
in pursuing a career in Marketing and will be working at Unilever on the Tea
business this summer. Next year, she is organizing a marketing conference for
students at Ivey as a part of the Ivey Marketing Club. She will also be going on
exchange during the Spring semester to Milan, Italy. In the next few years she
hopes to build a career in the Consumer Packaged Goods industry.
The other day I stumbled upon the opinion of a man who has convinced me that marketing and physics surprisingly have a lot in common.[i] This parallel has given me a new perspective on branding, particularly with respect to a current issue – Greenwashing.
Of the laws of physics, the one that applies most to the relationship
between branding and Greenwashing is the Scientific Method. Put simply, the law
pretty well states that while you can continuously gather more data to support
a hypothesis, it will only strengthen the claim, not prove it.[ii] However, a single piece of data can disprove the hypothesis. Similar
to the Scientific Method, marketers invest substantial amounts of both time and
money into building a brand, yet one incident like the Tiger Woods scandal, the
Toyota brake recall, or the Blackberry service outage can destroy a brand in a
fraction of the time that it took to build.
If brands are such a
valuable yet vulnerable asset then why does Greenwashing exist? Why is there a
misalignment between perception and reality when it comes to a company’s
involvement in environmental initiatives?
Since 2009 the
number of products that claim to be environmentally friendly has increased by a
staggering 73%.[iii] While this increase in the number of “green” products aligns with
changing consumer demands, 95% of products that make this claim fall guilty to
committing at least one of the seven “Sins of Greenwashing”.[iv] These sins include hidden trade-offs (for example, between a supplier
that is environmentally sustainable and a process for producing the final goods
that is not), misleading consumers by using vaguely defined terms, or the use
of labels that suggest a third-party endorsement where none exists.
Some companies have
been quick to jump on the “green” bandwagon by investing in marketing campaigns
but not as much in sustainable practices to support their claims. As a result
of consumers’ lack of knowledge, businesses have been able to get away with this
greenwashing for the most part. Consumers are less likely to research low
involvement purchases like toilet paper or coffee beans, yet the production of
these products has a substantial environmental footprint given the large
quantities that consumers purchase. In many cases, consumers take environmental
marketing at face value. Reports have indicated that consumers look favorably
upon products that are marketed as “green,” yet they often cannot differentiate
between brands that are Greenwashing and those that are not.[v]
For example, Toyota
created a marketing campaign for the Prius called “Harmony” emphasizing the
lessened impact that the car has on the environment. A report revealed that
consumers perceive Toyota to be one of the top “green” brands,[vi] yet the company’s fuel efficiency rates as a whole have decreased
since 1985.[vii]
It is also important
to consider that consumers have criteria beyond the environmental impact of a
product when making a purchasing decision. A study released by the University
of Minneapolis indicates that many consumers purchase “green” products for
reasons related to status.[viii] This consumer insight has implications for marketing. Some consumers
want to be seen as altruistic but may not be entirely concerned with the
impact their purchasing habits are actually having. This suggests that
marketers can drive consumers from one product to another perhaps with simple
changes. This eco-branding may take the form of packaging colors or symbols,
labels that suggest endorsement by a third party, or the use of vague language
like “all natural” in advertisements.
What does this mean
for the future of eco-marketing? While Greenwashing has the potential to drive
company performance in the short-term, it is not sustainable in the long-term.
This is, however, an opportunity for marketers to educate consumers about
sustainable environmental practices and carve out a new space in the
marketplace. Some companies have already begun to do so. For example, Unilever
created the Cleaner Planet Plan and educated consumers in Turkey about the
environmental impact of washing clothing.[ix] While consumers are currently making their purchasing decisions based
primarily on reasons related to status, consumer behavior is ever changing and
so will the criteria by which they purchase.
Environmental
marketing is on the brink of change. Companies have already begun investing in
education programs. As consumers become more informed they will demand higher
standards. This has been seen in the past with the movement to eliminate child
labour and the efforts to boycott companies like Nike. Brand image is built
upon consistency and the misalignment that exists in Greenwashing poses a
threat to companies who are not devoted to making a change.
No comments:
Post a Comment