Mr. Rogers' Eyes on Sustainability

In Angela Tan’s blog post “fighting bugs with bugs”, she describes how farmers are using the natural predators of certain pest insects to counter their spread and damage. This process of biological pest control is just as effective at protecting crops as traditional pesticides, but uses no dangerous chemicals, and is not susceptible to increasing chemical resistance (such as in the use of antibiotics).

This reminded me of another TED Talk I had seen before, on the subject of biomimicry. In this talk, Janine Benyus discusses how nature figures out how to solve its own problems, and how understanding biology can allow humans to apply the same strategies as nature to our own technology (what she calls “emulating life’s genius”).

Some principles she discuss include “quenching thirst”; how certain insects like the pill beetle can pull water out of air, or the “power of shape”; how colour can be created by using shapes, not pigment, or how surfaces can be cleaned with water like a lotus leaf. These are all solutions that nature has adopted, to live “while taking care of the place that’s going to take care of their offspring”.

It’s really fascinating how a lot of the solutions to our problems already exist. We just need to stop looking towards complex chemicals in the laboratory, and instead start looking at the biosphere around us. Benyus sums it all up, when she states that “the answers to your questions are everywhere, you just need to change the lenses with which you see the world.”

Tags:   GeneralNo Comments.

Akina mentioned an interesting concept in her blog about a square coke bottle design and it’s sustainable benefits. Not only does it look sleek, take up less space on shelves and in shipping, it also collapses to a compact size for recycling once empty.

I think this is a great concept, and something that more food and beverage companies should take into consideration. The “stackability” of a product, or how well it fits together with its compatriots, can offer many advantages to all parties of the products life cycle. Greater volumes in the same amount of space will reduce the number of trips necessary to move product, as well as occupy less space on a store shelf. This could lead to a whole new revolution; imagine a world with smaller fridges, cupboards, even supermarkets, because everything takes up less space.

Wait, this is starting to remind me of something. What about the country that invented the square watermelon? Maybe all of this exists already, and Western society needs to learn how to live the same, but in less space.

Tags:   PackagingNo Comments.

Reading through my peers’ blogs the other day, I stumbled upon a thought-provoking insight on Joana Ho’s blog. She states;

It is interesting to see what actually motivates people: it is not money that economic theorists point to, it is not the benefits you gained; it is fun.

I think that fun is indeed the benefit that most marketers forget about. Aside from the LOHAS segment, nobody is going to expend extra resources (time, money) to buy a product that sometimes offers only intangible, immeasurable value. As much as people may wish to deny it, human beings are selfish by nature: if it doesn’t have direct benefit to me, I don’t want to buy it.

This is where marketers need to come in. Sure, educating the customer on the environmental benefits is important. But showing the customer that the product will allow them to live a more fulfilling, and happier life, might be the better option.

I will refer back to the much-discussed Sun Chips noisy bag example. Sun Chips introduced the compostable bag this year to an uproarious response of the negative kind. They advertised it as green; the customers saw it as noisy. As a response, Sun Chips Canada launched a PSA campaign to highlight the environmental benefits of using such a bag.

They took the education approach. I guess this appeals to my logic, but it doesn’t make me want Sun Chips. I can’t see this bag adding value to my life personally. I propose this: the fun approach. Market it as noisy. Market it as obnoxious. But most of all, market it as fun. “Express your sustainability in a cool new way; the noisy bag, from Frito Lay!”

Now that sounds like fun.

Tags: 1 Comment

Walking through the west-end the other day, I noticed a graffiti tag that made stop and think. While most graffiti tags make me stop and look, this one stimulated a bit of mental activity as well. It said “City tree cut down to see advertising”.

Followed by a long arrow —-> pointing to a stump on the sidewalk.

Before*

After*

Apparently, the adjacent lot had been zoned for condominiums, and sidewalk advertising had been set-up to promote the pre-sale of units. Unfortunately, a humble old tree providing sidewalk shade and scenery was obstructing the view of the gorgeous new advertising. This would not do. The tree had been cut down.

What kind of image does this project, of a company selling condos in the greenest city in the world ? As a buyer, how do you view a company that is more interested in showing off it’s signage than protecting it’s immediate environment? I know all condo buyers are not LOHAS, but it’s fascinating when companies undertake activities with such blatant disregard for the environment, in an effort to promote themselves. This time, I applaud the mysterious graffiti tagger, shedding light on this appalling situation.

*Artists’ Reenactment

Tags: No Comments.

You see it on the streets, on every fixed-gear riding hipster and PBR-drinking indie kid. But whether you like it or not, American Apparel is here to stay. And that’s what I am having trouble figuring out: whether I like it or not.

Like most of my peers, I myself own a few pieces: the token white-zippered hoodie, and the sleazy v-neck t-shirt being a few examples. But these were acquired over years, scouring second hand shops and graciously accepting gifts at Christmas. But I could never really understand why the average person would go and spend $30+ on a blank t-shirt. It just seems ridiculous.

But now it all makes sense; cost-based pricing. The price of this t-shirt encompasses all the costs involved in it’s production (including social and external costs). That means the immigrant workers receive a fair wage for their day in the LA factories. That price premium supports the production of organic cottons. It even enabled the company to react immediately to the earthquake in Haiti, and ship emergency supplies from the port of LA to Port au Prince.

I guess a lot more goes into a t-shirt than $0.50 worth of cotton and $0.05 of dye. Heck, maybe $30.00 is a good deal. Hmmm, maybe not.

Tags:   BusinessNo Comments.

October marks Breast Cancer Awareness month, and any visit to your local mall, Shoppers Drug Mart, or even KFC will remind you of such; pink ribbons plastered everywhere, encouraging you to buy more for a cure. A recent article from the Globe and Mail called The Pink Ribbon Backlash, explored this phenomenon and the emergence of “pink-washing”.

As a sustainability marketing class, we are all familiar with “green washing”. Wikipedia described it as “the deceptive use of green PR or green marketing in order to promote a misleading perception that a company’s policies or products (such as goods or services) are environmentally friendly”. Pink-washing works along the same lines, misleading customers to believe that purchasing these products will lead to a cure for breast cancer. While I’m sure that the $0.50 that KFC donates from each bucket of fried chicken sold will eventually fund some research somewhere, is it enough to counter the damage done to the consumer? Recent studies have shown that a high fat diet increases the risk of breast cancer. Perhaps everyone would benefit more from laying off the Double-Downs, than from half-a-dollar worth of research.

The biggest point to take away from this is that customers need to apply objective thought when purchasing products. Don’t assume that every benefit claimed from a product is truly beneficial. Breast Cancer awareness is important, I agree, but companies trying to make a quick buck off the movement is not the only way to find a cure.

Tags:   PinkwashingNo Comments.

I’m sure this has been covered in discussion many times, but it still never seems resolved (at least in my mind). Marketers want to increase the bottom line for the company. Or from a sustainability perspective, the triple bottom line (people, planet, profits). So in a consumption-based society, how can we tell people to consume less, but keep buying?

The Story of Stuff is an entertaining (if not a little hyperbolic) look at what drives the consumption process in developed countries. It also goes into how this is killing our planet. Moral of the story: we have to stop consuming, for the sake of mankind.

This is where I reach my dilemma. How do we promote the bottom line (through sales), while telling people not to consume as much? Are we being big hypocrites? Sure, we can tell people to “Buy our reusable water bottles!”, but then what? Won’t sales stagnate if we encourage people to use their one bottle the rest of their life?

And it may be cliche, but it never loses relevance from one of the smartest men of the 20th century:

“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”  – Albert Einstein

So what do you think is the better alternative? Reduced consumption or consumption wrapped in 30% recycled material?

Tags:   QuestionableNo Comments.

The time was late 2008. The recession had hit hard, and people were feeling the effects worldwide. One such company was a Slap Magazine. In publication since 1992, Slap Magazine was a publication run by skateboarders for skateboarders. However, as 2008 rolled around, they found it was becoming harder to compete with industry giants such as Transworld Media. They decided then to stop print production of the magazine, and instead focus on the growing Internet community of skateboarders.

Slap Magazine now exists entirely online. Generating large amounts of traffic through their extensive message boards, video content, and promotional giveaways, they are able to sustain their business model through ad revenue and merchandise sales. But the biggest difference is the green effect they have had on the business, a positive externality of this transition.

The magazine publishing industry consumes vast amounts of resources, in terms of paper production, inks, and energy. On top of this, shipping thousands of these magazines around the world consumes even more energy, emitting huge amounts of CO2. Switching to an entirely Internet based format has eliminated all of this.

It’s interesting seeing some companies desperately trying to jump on the green bandwagon, only to lose credibility through greenwashing, spinning, and poor practice. It’s even more fascinating when companies such as Slap find themselves on a greener path of business, purely by coincidence.

Tags:   BusinessNo Comments.

Aside from the typical PETA propaganda, green advertising tends to lean towards the warm and fuzzy side. And I’m sure that’s a great strategy to get all the soccer Moms to buy your window cleaner, but what about when it comes to environmental issues, real issues? If you want to spark a conversation, it takes something really provocative. Like this;

I found this on the Green Advertising blog, and thought it was amazing. Reading the comments posted below the image on the blog post, truly shows how effective this campaign is at getting people to talk. And if a small jpeg on a website attracts such a strong conversation, imagine seeing those billboards in real life, in all their bare-butt glory. It definitely would make anyone think twice before “dumping” into the water (pun intended).

I don’t know the background behind the campaign, but I think it speaks for itself. Maybe some of these environmental types need to add that extra edge to their promotional materials, and get people really talking. Because when it comes to pollution of our natural resources, we really do want people to give a sh*t.

Tags:   GoodvertisingNo Comments.

Riding my skateboard to school today (Zero-emissions, believe it), I had to pull a double take as I passed this gaudy VitaminWater billboard on wheels.

Yes it is huge, and yes it is colourful. But what really caught my eye was plastered on the back:

That’s right. Apparently this van is carbon-neutral. Not only does it make a Hummer look like a smart car, it has speakers built into the exterior for extra obnoxiousness! As I wrapped my head around it, I just could not (and still can’t) comprehend how they are achieving this bold claim. Has Glaceau (a subsidiary of Coca-Cola) developed some sort of alternative fuel, based on vitamin enriched sugary beverages? Perhaps they are purchasing carbon offsets? If so, somewhere in the world a lot of trees are being planted to keep this thing on the road. No information was available from any of their online materials regarding carbon-neutrality, so I was left only to my imagination.

What it really boils down to, is that sometimes when companies make such strong claims to carbon neutrality (or other “green” positive issues), it only works against their credibility if they cannot back it up. And considering that the company is already in hot water over its beverages health benefits (see here), maybe they need to rethink their positioning, before they offend anyone else.

Note: The window was already broken when I got there. I did not kick it in with uncontrollable rage. Although, I did think of it.

Tags:   Badvertising1 Comment