Month: March 2013

Going into this course, I knew a bit about sustainability marketing. After a term of learning about the ins and outs of the subject, particularly marketing products and adopting sustainable behaviors, I’ve gained a better understanding of what a sustainable society might look like. It’s most definitely an ideal that is long ways away (and to some, maybe not possible).

I’m not sure if my views on businesses have changed. If a company has incorporated sustainability into their business model, and it “fits”, and compliments their values/practices, that’s awesome. I’d look at that company, and say “kudos”. I still don’t necessarily think they have to, because ultimately, it comes down to the consumer. Sure, businesses can implement programs to make it easier for us to be sustainable, but we, as consumers, need to take ownership, and do our part, be it big or small, in this consumption process. It’s so easy to blame and villain-ize the big brand names in the world and whatnot, but something about this is a bit like calling the kettle black. We can’t blame companies for forcing consumption on us, because it the end, we’re the decision makes in this cycle, and we have the ability to not support brands that don’t align with our moral/environmental “code”.

In terms of my own “growth”, I’m definitely more inclined to seek out sustainable options, and be critical of those that clearly aren’t good for the environment. Just the other day, I was at West Elm Market, a pretty trendy retail store for kitchen, garden, and house ware, and I saw a small bag of soil, packaged in a plastic pouch. I thought to myself (and said out loud), “Wow, this is completely unsustainable!” The bag literally held no more than a couple handfuls of soil. It was definitely made/marketed to appeal to “green” consumers; apparently the soil is made from recycled materials…from Brooklyn. Okay. Why not just compost?

On the other hand, I still definitely find it challenging to adopt sustainable behaviors, and integrate these things into my daily life. Yes, of course I recycle, take short showers, and turn off the lights when they’re not needed. But I also can’t see myself using my car less (I would use it less to save money on gas, not necessarily because of the carbon emissions), or buying carbon offsets after I purchase an airline ticket.

So my views on sustainability are definitely along this lines of “do what you can/what fits in easily with your lifestyle”. I know that way of thinking in itself is not sustainable, but it’s good to start of somewhere, and make incremental improvements. I’d say I’ve always had this view, more or less, so I guess they’ve remained the same. But I think taking this course has exposed me to certain ways of thinking that are likely to affect my views in the future (if they haven’t already done so). Like I said before, it all comes down to the choices we make, and I know that after taking this course, I’m in a position where I can make more informed choices, and consider the environmental impact of such choices. So I’d say it was a success. Thanks for reading!

One of my classmates recently blogged about the lack of local festivities held for Earth Hour here in Vancouver. The event had taken place last week, on March 23. To be honest, I had completely forgotten about the event, despite participating for the past couple of years (maybe because it was on the same day as our Grad dinner…oh, priorities). After reading my classmate’s blog post, I found an article that said the City of Vancouver was named this year’s Earth Hour capital of the world! Isn’t that ironic? I wonder if this title holds any real value, considering the popularity of Earth Hour seems to have died off in recent years (at least in the opinion of two, busy students taking COMM 486F!).

Well I dug a little deeper, and found this news release from BC Hydro. Apparently, this year’s Earth Hour produced strong results, with British Columbians saving 136 megawatt hours of electricity, and reduced the provincial electricity load by 1.95% during the hour, which is the equivalent of turning off more than 10 million LED bulbs. Impressive! I retract my skepticism!

Ultimately, this all boils down to marketing sustainable behaviour  something we’ve talked about throughout the term. One interesting fact about this year’s Earth Hour is that Vancouver was actually “outperformed” by Vancouver Island communities, namely Comox and Courtney. How is that possible? Vancouver- you’re the Earth Hour capital! Well, arguably, it’s easier (though I say that with minor hesitation) to round up the troops, so to say, in these smaller communities, and get that public commitment necessary for altering behaviour  compared to the metropolitan that is Vancouver.

Here’s another idea to marinade over: Could the lack of Earth Hour festivities be seen as having other, more positive, implications? Maybe we’ve actually integrated energy saving practices into our everyday lives more than before (AKA, we’re turning our lights down low before and after Earth Hour). That’s quite a stretch, but it’s definitely worth mentioning. The whole point of Earth Hour is to not only turn off those lights for 60 minutes one Spring evening, but be mindful of energy consumption every other day of the year. BC Hydro does a great job marketing sustainable behaviours with the different elements of their integrated marketing communications (video, print, online, offline, etc.).

Narissa recently wrote about the prevalence of water in different products, including paint and soft drinks, as well as the idea of reducing the environmental impact of transporting goods that contain a lot of water. She does a great job with challenging the conventional make-up of everyday products. While there are clear, valid arguments in her post, some of the ideas may be somewhat unrealistic. There’s something about moving towards powder-based products that seems both archaic (but not in a farm-to-table kind of way, but rather, a “green” spin on Kool-Aid/Tang) and current/modern (protein shakes ftw!), which presents an interesting dichotomy for consumers. It may also open the doors for a range of companies to claim that their products are more sustainable, given the form that they’re in, without articulating the environmental effect of the particular ingredients/how they are harvested.

Alternatively, to reduce the environmental impact of transporting water-heavy products, maybe companies need to adopt improved supply-chain management operations. Shipping less frequently, but in larger amounts, along the lines of a Just-In-Time system would reduce carbon emissions and (possibly) transportation costs. Efficiency and sustainability; what a happy combo!

This next part of my post is somewhat related, as it talks about water, but it also presents some conflicting notions on sustainability.

In an earlier blog post from this term, I wrote about the Triple Bottom Line concept. While researching different bottled water companies, I came across the brand, People Water. This is a for-profit, cause-based business, committed to alleviating the global water crisis. They do this through their Drop-For-Drop initiative. Think TOMS, but with bottled water, and well-drilling initiatives in impoverished nations with limited access to clean water.

After perusing through their website, what I found interesting was their clear articulation of subscribing to a Double Bottom Line concept, which considers Profit and People/Social elements.  They don’t necessarily ignore the Planet pillar of the triple bottom line concept (even claiming to use mostly eco-friendly plastic water bottles…), but their not fully embracing it either (which is probably best, given the nature of the product). Without a doubt, this company has developed amazing integrated marketing communications; just look at that bottle! On the other hand of course, the whole concept of bottled water is not particularly sustainable (yet the practice of providing clean water to everyone is…).

So what do you think? Is 2/3 good enough with regards to the triple bottom line? Is People Water just another example of a for-profit capitalizing on socially-minded consumers? Is the title of this post as lame as I intended it to be?

Let me introduce you to the newest ice cream to hit the Vancouver market by storm: Earnest Ice Cream! What makes this ice cream different? Well for starters, it’s locally made in Vancouver, which reduces the environmental costs and carbon emissions related to product transportation. Earnest Ice Cream proprietors, Ben and Erica, also use local ingredients whenever possible, which inspires their seasonal flavor offerings. The other unique feature of their ice cream is the packaging. Single pints are packed into re-usable glass mason jars. Upon purchase, customers pay $9 for a pint, plus a $1 deposit for the jar. Once customers finish their ice cream, they can return the jar in exchange for their initial deposit, or save up 10 jars, and get a free pint of ice cream. Earnest can then sterilize and re-use the returned jars to package their next batch of ice cream. This is a great example of a small business initiating a Take-Back Pricing Strategy. Theirs works just like the deposit fees associated with bottled beverages. Of course, customers may find it more convenient or beneficial to find an alternative use for the empty mason jars, which would be considered just as sustainable. After all, nothing screams trendier in 2013 than a glass mason jar! If you prefer your ice cream in sandwich form, you’re in luck, because they sell those too during farmer’s markets! The ice cream sandwiches are packaged in biodegradable paper, and are served right from the cooler of Earnest’s ice cream tricycle. Now that’s old school with a twist!

I wonder how many customers buy Earnest with the company’s local and sustainability factors in mind? Their product is pretty on trend right now, joining other local standouts with similar values such as Cartems Donuterie (who happens to be their kitchen co-resident at Woodland Smokehouse Commissary, and was founded by a UBC alum). Some consumers may be drawn to such products based merely on the popularity, hopping on the “eat-local” bandwagon, without truly knowing the resources that justify a $9 jar of ice cream (conspicuous consumption anyone?). Of course, there are some consumers (like me) who would splurge a couple of times, because this stuff is delicious! Now what about you? Would you buy it?