The Four Simple Steps to Pitch-Perfect Green Marketing

GreenBiz logo jpeg
Joel Makower offers some advice on how to avoid the common mistakes made with green marketing.  He states that companies must keep in mind four things: Credibility, Relevance, Effective messaging and Differentiation in order to have truly successful green marketing campaigns.

Published Nov. 24, 2008
By Joel Makower,

How do you create a green strategy that is pitch perfect and tuned for
long-term success? It's not easy, based on the efforts I've seen.
Companies executives — and their advertising, marketing, and public
relations partners — are prone to make broad, sweeping statements
about their environmental commitment or the green attributes of their
products or services, statements and claims that often pose more
questions than answers.

In other cases, companies simply seem uninspired. (How many more times
can we stand yet another takeoff on Kermit the Frog's plaintive
proclamation, "It's not easy being green." Kermit first crooned that
song lyric in — Would you believe? — 1970, and nearly four decades
later it still seems to be the best copywriters can come up with. (In
mid-2008, I conducted a Google search of the phrase "easy being green,"
which yielded 1,570,000 returns. By contrast "til death do we part"
yielded only 17,500 returns, while "check is in the mail" garnered
20,500 returns.) Moreover, each new slogan or press release quoting or
paraphrasing Kermit seems to revel in its cleverness, as if its
creators were the first to have thought it up.) Is it any wonder that
the public is skeptical about companies' environmental commitments?

It's not just Kermit, of course. Too many green strategies, and the
messages behind them, are variously vague, vapid, or vacuous.

How do you avoid this fate? To answer this, I turned to my colleague
Andrew Shapiro, founder and CEO of GreenOrder, the sustainable business
strategy firm with which I am affiliated. I've learned a lot hanging
around Shapiro, managing principal Nicholas Eisenberger and their team
for the better part of a decade, but what sticks most is GreenOrder's
framework for crafting green strategies and messaging that work. It's
called CRED.

GreenOrder — whose blue-chip clients have included Allianz, BP,
DuPont, General Electric, General Motors, Office Depot, and Pfizer —
isn't the first consulting firm to come up with a multipart strategy
acronym. Over the years, as I've encountered or worked with some of the
leading consulting, PR, and marketing firms, I've seen my share. They
all have value.

CRED evolved from GreenOrder's experience working on C-suite executive
strategy and implementation, including creating the metrics companies
must use to measure success and make their environmental initiatives
thoughtful, effective, and believable. After all, it's no use having a
green strategy and message if they don't work or if they don't drive
value and fit with a larger vision — the story the company would like
to tell about itself, both today and over the longer term. And telling
a green story that isn't rooted in real-world accomplishments amounts
to little more than arm waving.

This is only part of the problem. An equally vexing challenge is how to
stand out in the crowd, to be heard amid the growing cacophony of green
messages. Therein lies the green-strategy paradox: As green becomes
increasingly mainstream, it gets harder to be heard. The louder the
noise, the more people tune out. And the more companies boast, the
greater is the risk of backlash.

GreenOrder's CRED strategy is aimed at mitigating this risk. It is comprised of four key parts: Credibility, Relevance, Effective messaging, and Differentiation. Let's take a look at each.


Why should people believe you? To be effective, your strategy and
messages need to be convincing. This means that they must be backed by
facts and figures. This is not to say that everything you say on the
topic needs to be laden with dense data. Far from it. But you need a
solid foundation of proof points, if only to have in your back pocket.

Credibility also begs larger questions. Does your company's performance
match its green rhetoric? Can you prove it? How does your company or
its products compare, whether with competitors' best products, the
installed product base, what the government requires, or even the
historical performance of past generations of the same product? You'll
be credible if you can show that you've done your homework. It needn't
appear in ads, product labeling, or point-ofpurchase information, but
it should be available somewhere, whether on product fact sheets, Web
sites, customer service lines, or some other place. "GE has done that
well with ecomagination," says Shapiro. "They've had very detailed
information about the environmental and operating performance of
ecomagination products on a dedicated Web site, even though the
advertisements on television, for example, haven't overwhelmed
consumers with factoids."

The volume and nature of data may depend in part on your sector, as
well as on how well your company is regarded from an environmental
perspective. An eco-hip and well-regarded brand such as Patagonia, the
maker of outdoor apparel, or Method, which makes cleaning products, may
have a lower burden of proof than a company that lacks a green image or
history. (Then again, maybe not. Informed, eco-conscious customers such
as Patagonia's and Method's can be among the toughest audiences in the
world in terms of questioning and challenging green claims.) Business
and institutional buyers likely will have much deeper information needs
and may not spend a lot of time hunting it down. Also, you may want to
dial up or down the amount of information to reflect the importance
you're placing on a product's green attributes and how aggressively you
want to promote them. Sometimes, less is more.

The point is that it's important to assess what your customers and
other audiences — activists, regulators, the media, etc. — know, need
to know, and want to hear to ensure that you are meeting or exceeding
their expectations. And then you must marry whatever environmental
attributes you are promoting with all the other attributes customers
expect for that product. "We call this 'twinning the benefits,'"
explains Shapiro. "You're trying to talk about the environmental
benefits while also emphasizing whatever else is appropriate —
quality, durability, price, performance, style."

By the way, the principal reasons for doing this may not be your
customers at all but rather your employees. They're the first group
that needs assurance that any claims you make hold water and the first
to become cynical if they find out otherwise. Thus, supporting data can
be important to getting your number one constituency on board.


This is using green to create value with key stakeholders. How do you
craft a strategy that's not only going to meet your immediate business
objectives — to move product, increase revenue, and be seen as a
"good" company, for example — but also is going ensure that your
efforts have staying power internally because they are generating
business value for the firm? In other words, how do you ensure that
they are sustainable from a business perspective?

Companies that don't leverage their environmental achievements and
commitment in a way that produces business value often find that green
is the first thing to go when times get tough — when there's a change
in leadership, when shareholders raise questions, or when your company
otherwise finds that being seen as an environmental leader is no longer
convenient. On the other hand, if you can say, "Our sustainability
initiatives have reduced costs and boosted revenue by creating new
markets, adding new products, and deepening loyalty with customers,"
this creates a long-term justification for a sustainability strategy
and for environmental issues broadly.

"It's critical that a company figure out the difficult task of aligning
its sustainability initiatives with its core business objectives and
its growth trajectory," says Shapiro. "If a company is in a
product-introduction mode or a geographic-expansion mode or a
cost-cutting mode — whatever mode the business cycle requires — it
can leverage and use sustainability as a source of value creation, as
opposed to simply something that is a marker of good corporate

Companies run into trouble when they get too far ahead of themselves or
too far away from their core business goals. Bill Ford, when he was
president and CEO of the car company his great-grandfather, Henry Ford,
built, took his eye off the prize partly in the name of building a
greener image. Bill Ford was, arguably, one of the most committed
environmentalists among CEOs of major companies and certainly within
his sector. Under his leadership, he placed a major emphasis — and a
lot of his political capital — on greening his company's historic
manufacturing site, including increasing the building's energy
efficiency, putting on a green (planted) roof, and transforming the
surrounding site from an industrial eyesore to a community gem.

What about his company's cars? During this same period, Ford made and
then retracted a commitment to achieve a 25 percent improvement in fuel
efficiency in the company's light truck fleet, including sportsutility
vehicles (SUVs); backed off from a pledge to build 250,000 hybrid
vehicles a year by 2010; and terminated the company's ongoing electric
vehicle program as impractical and unaffordable.

The obvious question: How relevant was the grass on the roof of the
Rouge River manufacturing facility to the end customer compared with
creating more fuel-efficient cars, producing more energy and
environmental innovations, and marrying green attributes with high
style, performance, and technology? Ford's financial woes aren't based
entirely on the company's green focus, of course, but the timing
suggests that the company's particular green focus and messaging
weren't relevant to the marketplace.

Again, the relevance of your green strategy may not necessarily be to
sell more stuff. It could be to attract and retain talent. "As
companies start to think about their various constituencies, they may
come to learn, 'We didn't realize that a huge number of our employees,
as well as our recruits, are interested in working for a company that
excels in green leadership,"' says Shapiro. "And they could actually
reduce the cost of turnover and the cost associated with hiring and
retraining people by demonstrating their green leadership. So the
relevance factor could be, 'Is this something your customers want to
buy?' But it could also be, 'Is this something you'll be rewarded for
by your employees, or by investors, or by other actors in the


How can you translate complex information into distinctive, compelling
messages? Few companies do a good job at making sense of what often can
be mystifying and mind-numbing facts and transforming them into a
compelling story.

It's not that companies don't try. It seems like every other energy- or
climate-related advertisement or press release I've seen in recent
years offers some comparison with taking cars off the road. "In 2005,
HSBC purchased carbon offsets equivalent to 125,000 tons of carbon
emissions — the same as taking 29,000 cars off the road," says the
bank's Web site. Xerox prevented the emission of 87,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide in 2006, "the equivalent of taking more than 18,000 cars
off the road," according to a company press release.

There's nothing wrong with either of these, of course. I'm assuming
that the authors of each of these claims did the math correctly — that
a typical late-model sedan emits about 5 tons of carbon dioxide gas in
a year. The point is: Is an impressive number of eliminated cars — or
planted trees, electrified homes, conserved Olympic-sized swimming
pools of water, Eiffel Tower heights of reduced waste, trips to the
Moon of saved driving, or other comparative metrics — even meaningful
to consumers, especially after they've heard similar statistics from
myriad other companies? (I sometimes wonder whether adding up all the
cars-taken-off-the-road marketing claims would yield a number that
exceeds the actual number of cars on the road. But I digress.)

So figuring out an effective way to translate environmental data is key.

It's also about figuring out the right channels. What are the
appropriate media? What are the best moments to reach people on these
issues? Are advertising and PR the answer? Not always. "We're hearing
more and more that consumers and activists are pointing out the irony
that a company may spend twice as much promoting a green achievement as
they did on the achievement itself," says Shapiro. "An effective
message is not always one that's marketed with the most dollars."
Rather, the effective message may be the one that's done cleverly,
virally, or humorously. Or it may be one that's tied to a partnership
or delivered through nontraditional means.

In other words, it's the medium as well as the message.


Are you doing something that's unique and distinct? Does your strategy
sound like you're truly committed or simply mimicking or mirroring what
others have done?

Differentiation is difficult because the bar continues to rise. Just a
few years ago, only a handful of companies had prominent green
initiatives. Now you'd be hard pressed to find a major company that
doesn't. So differentiating is getting harder than ever.

This is one place where smaller companies may hold an advantage. Small,
local firms have been slower to the green scene because they lack both
the human and financial capital needed to make changes and the prodding
from activists, customers, employees, investors, and others. Because of
this, it's easier for, say, a local printer, travel agent, or retailer
to distinguish itself as an environmental leader. They don't have a lot
of green competition, and environmental expectations of them typically
are lower than for larger companies. A small company could distinguish
itself simply through a single action — encouraging employee
volunteerism with environmental groups, for example, or locating in a
certified green building.

Even for larger companies, differentiation can have a lot to do with
the competitive environment. For example, in the information technology
arena, where Dell, Epson, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lexmar, and other
hardware manufacturers have engaged in a race to see who can be
greenest — with equipment that is energy-efficient and can be recycled
easily, for example — it's harder to stand out.

"Differentiation doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing more than
everybody else," says Shapiro. "It's doing something that is distinct
in signature, so that people can identify you and what you do as green
in a particular way."

Credibility. Relevance. Effective messaging. Differentiation. These are the components from which a successful green strategy are made.

The order of these four components may change for some companies. For
example, it may be more appropriate to begin with relevance,
identifying the value proposition that's appropriate for your customers
and company culture, and then thinking about how to go about messaging
it in a manner that's credible, differentiated, and effective.

"We've had this interesting debate internally about the right place to
start — which of these four factors," says Shapiro. "I have come to
the conclusion that it depends on where you are as a company. A company
that is newer to sustainability may want to start with credibility,
since that's most important for them. But if you're more evolved —
say, Patagonia — you're going to be in a different place; you might
start with differentiation."

Bottom line: You can start anywhere. The important thing is to cover all the bases.

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply