Month: October 2010

In response to the upward shift in demand for ecological products by consumers, green marketing has become a trend among many companies, especially in the last few years. According to the American Marketing Association, green marketing is the marketing of products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. However, a phenomenon that is a negative result of green marketing is “greenwashing”. This is a term that describes the deceptive use of green marketing in order to promote a misleading perception that a company’s policies or products are environmentally friendly.

The term was first coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in an essay regarding the hotel industry’s practice of promoting the reuse of towels to “save the environment”. Despite this green marketing, little or no effort toward waste recycling was being implemented by the institutions. The actual objective of this “green campaign” was to increase profit. This environmentally conscientious act with an underlying purpose of profit is a prime example of greenwashing.

According to Reuters, a business and financial news website, more than 95% of today’s consumer products claiming to be eco-friendly are actually participating in some form of greenwashing by committing to at least one of the “sins” of greenwashing as defined by TerraChoice, North America’s premiere environmental marketing agency.

However, despite the consequence of greenwashing on ecological marketing, the rates of greenwashing have declined. 73% more “green” products were on the market today than in 2009. Also, there is an increase from 2% in 2009 to 4.5% in 2010 of products that are completely “sin free”. This increase may seem small but it is early evidence of a positive and long lasting trend – companies are beginning to realize the adverse effects greenwashing has on brands and they are beginning to truly participate in green marketing as a result of a eco-friendly product.

Earlier this month, Gap introduced a new logo to the public. The old logo, an iconic blue box with “Gap” printed in the centre was a pervasive part of American culture and an enormous part of the company’s positioning strategy. It was replaced temporarily with a much simpler design. Unfortunately, this new positioning strategy has not received desireable criticisms. As soon as the new logo was debuted on the store’s online shopping site, mobs of opinionated and angry consumers protested on Twitter and Facebook about how the new logo looked “lazy”, “unprofessional” and “dumb”. A few weeks later, after criticisms from design critics and customers, Gap rethought the new logo, revoked it and went back to the original one.

It seems to me that Gap is trying to build a more modern image in the consumers’ minds. The retail industry is competitive, especially when it comes to fashion, and new, trendy stores are opening daily. By ditching the old, 80’s style, “classic” logo, Gap is trying to become more relevant in the minds of young people. It seems to me that adoping this more sleek, modern logo is not a great way to go about it. Gap is known to be “classic”; excelling in basic clothing, nothing too flashy, nothing too cutting edge. Gap should expand on this marketing strategy as opposed to heading in a new direction.

However, according to brand experts, Gap may have ironically increased its brand loyalty despite this repositioning fiasco.

Have you noticed that recently your female friends on facebook have been posting “I like it on the table”, “I like it on the chair”, or “I like it on [any surface in your home]” as their status? At first, I was slightly taken back when a few of my girlfriends had this as their status, but after a chat with a very socially informed buddy, I learned that it’s really not what you think.

Apparently, behind the innuendo-laden message, is a marketing tactic. Women are writing about where they put their purses when they get home. The idea is to get people talking and bring awareness for Breast Cancer Research by posting the suggestive messages with instructions not to let men understand the point of the game. About 10 months ago, there was a similar effort of trying to raise awareness for Breast Cancer Research which involved women posting the color of the bra they were wearing as their facebook status.

These “I like it on…” and “Bra Colour” facebook statuses have certainly gone viral as similar updates are rampaging my newsfeed. However, no one seems to know how and who started these “campaigns”. My question is, do these “campaigns” have any effect? Does it achieve its purpose of raising awareness for Breast Cancer Research?

According to the Christian Science Monitor, an international news organization, over 350 nonprofit organizations focus on Breast Cancer, but none have experienced an increase in contributions. Coincidentally, October happens to be Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but in an interview with the spokesperson, she told the press that they were not profiting from the “campaign”. Susan G Koman, the woman responsible for “Race for the Cure”, the pink ribbons and other fund-raising efforts, says that they aren’t behind it either (Fuller, 2010).

Despite the ability of these low-cost “campaigns” to reach such a large number of people in such a short amout of time, it is evident to me that the content of these facebook updates have nothing in common with Breast Cancer Research. Could it be that they are tarnishing the meaning of such an important cause without increasing contributions? These “campaigns” are rather mysterious and there are many questions associated with them, however, one thing is certain – they definitely are getting people talking.