Sayan's Revol[ve]ution

I’m a bit on the fence when it comes to our society’s growing love affair with technology.

On the bright side technology can be used to save precious resources (e-books vs. paperbacks, e-mails vs. letters, downloading through iTunes vs. buying CDs and DVDs). Unfortunately, those who use this omnipresent force have a strong tendency to fall to the dark side. By this I mean a gluttonous lifestyle in which perfectly good products are thrown out just to make room for negligibly improved newer versions.

I know, I know, I’m starting to sound like a grumpy granola cruncher, but you should know by now how bittersweet of a guy I am. I often start off bitter, but always end on a sweet note :).

Well folks, this entry’s sugary content revolves around my friend Nick. You probably know him he runs an upbeat multimedia/tech blog just a few doors down, which is so refreshingly filled with :)s that I have decided to 🙂 a bit more also.

In particular his post on Fox News’ criticism of a new game really got my attention. It helped me see some really interesting parallels between the sustainability movement and the video game industry. Both groups have had a hard time communicating their relevance and gaining acceptance within society. Both groups continue to face strong opposition that they must sway by providing information, through marketing of course. Environmentalists try to change the perceptions of those who ignore climate change, while video game producers have to continually defend themselves against pundits who claim mass gaming leads to laziness, obesity, and violence.

Well anytime I notice commonalities, I look for opportunities for synergy and this brought to my attention a book called “Reality is Broken.” In this book renowned game designer Jane McGonigal shares some groundbreaking research concerning the merits of video gaming. Her findings show that by spending extensive hours solving puzzles and using teamwork to progress through levels, video gamers actually have extremely adept critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration skills. She goes on to argue that if real world crises can be incorporated into online video game mediums, we can examine how gamers handle these situations in order to find and test innovative solutions that may be applied in the real world. The greatest benefit to this form of idea generation is that it is essentially free (the game designers may even make a profit if the game is appealing enough) as opposed to the high price tag of professional researchers.

An example of this new breed of video games is “World Without Oil,” a game in which video gamers are tasked for finding ways to cope in a post-peak oil world. Another is SimCity Societies in which players must design and manage an entire society, and most importantly have to deal with the consequences of poor design. “For instance, if players choose to use coal power instead of more sustainable energy sources like wind and solar, they will be forced to invest more in health care as their population becomes sick as a result of the excess pollution”.¹

Clearly there are substantial social and environmental benefits to developing and promoting this line of technology. Though I am usually against taking advantage of untapped resources, I think we are warranted in capitalizing on the extensive creative capacity of video gamers. Their ability to see patterns, put pieces together, and work with others to overcome challenges have saved and brought peace to many fictional realms, so why not use their mental abilities to save our own :).

Source:

1 – http://www.brighthub.com/environment/green-living/articles/19821.aspx

At first I was confused, admittedly, a bit angry as well. Confused because I didn’t understand why BC Liquor had started selling reusable bags; what were they hoping to achieve? Sure it goes along with their slogan (“enjoy responsibly”), but I didn’t see many customers actually buying the bags since its large size and shape seemed more appropriate for grocery shopping. I was angry because my big brother had bought not one, but four of them.

“We already have a dozen reusable bags! What’s the point of buying them, if we’re not actually reusing them?”

“Well, these ones are really good,” my brother rebutted. He pointed out how the pouches that were stitched on the inside, not only safely stored multiple bottles, but could also be folded aside so as to make room for any other kind of purchase. “I’ll use them a lot,” he said reassuringly.

I tried to argue that he shouldn’t be buying that many bottles to begin with, but he just flashed me a smug smile that said “I probably will, and you can’t do anything about it” – thus bringing the conversation to an end.

Flash-forward to about a month later:

I’m at the parking lot of T&T with my mom, who unfortunately has to visit a different store for practically every vegetable on her list (“the eggplants are better here, but the mangoes are much cheaper there”) when I realize that I had forgotten to pack our usual Save-On-Foods shopping bags. It was a tremendously embarrassing moment. My mother was disappointed. I felt like a hippie-crite.

Then I noticed the bags my brother keeps stashed in the car, ready for any occasion that requires the assistance of alcohol. Despite my disapproval of us owning them, having no other alternative I preceded towards the supermarket with the BC Liquor bags in hand.  

Once inside I felt a bit self-conscious. “I’m carrying four BC liquor bags on a Saturday morning in a supermarket. I hope these people don’t think I’m an alcoholic or something,” I thought to myself. That’s when it hit me – the marketing brilliance of it all!

Retail bags have always been a form of advertising. They establish a sense of credibility, add to the perceived value of the purchase, and as shoppers walk around with their purchases other people will see the bags as well (exposure = brand recognition = increased traffic = increased sales). Until recently, however, this cost-effective form of marketing was severely limited by the short-life span of the plastic shopping bags that were typically being used. “It is estimated that more than 95% of all [plastic] retail bags are thrown away when the consumer gets home”.  Even if they are not disposed of immediately, a standard plastic shopping bag is not something a consumer will likely take out on their next shopping trip¹.

Realizing this, and thanks to the growing social trend towards responsible consumption, firms are starting to invest in reusable shopping bags. Though the fabric may be slightly more expensive, intelligent firms see the value in creating this long-lasting form of advertisement. Since consumers have to purchase these bags, not only are they less likely to throw them out, they are more likely to carry the bags, and thus the brands, with them on various shopping trips. Take for instance my T&T experience. BC Liquor was able to market its brand in an environment where it has never before had any exposure. That’s why, I now realize, the BC Liquor bags are so conveniently designed for grocery shopping – the company doesn’t want us marketing their brand to customers already at their stores, they want us out in the world attracting new customers.   

Indeed, successful firms of the future will be those that capitalize on this connection between sustainability and marketing. By providing greener options, firms not only appeal to environmentally-conscious consumers, but as seen in this example, can penetrate a variety of other markets as well.

Source:

1 – http://www.ntake.com/bags-as-advertising/

Marketers are learning. Sadly, they don’t think the rest of us are, and perhaps they’re right. Case in point: Glaceau Vitamin Water. Everything from its self-righteous slogan (“hydrate responsibly”) to its nutritional label is a bit of an insult to our consumer intelligence.  

A full bottle is actually 2.5 servings of what is mentioned on Vitamin Water’s nutritional information. This means that unless you really are planning to drink under half a bottle, this chic substitute for water is loading you up with 125 calories and 33 grams of sugar per bottle – that’s equivalent to a can of Coke (140 calories and 39 grams of sugar)¹.

Would you ever drink a can of Coke to hydrate yourself before or after a workout? Of course not! Drinks that are full of sugar only serve to dehydrate your body no matter how much water they contain², and therein lays my beef with Glaceau. I would have no problem with Vitamin Water if it was promoted like any other sugary beverage, but by selling it as a healthy, responsible, and tasty alternative for water, Glaceau is playing with the health of those who fall for this fallacy.  

Now I know you’re probably thinking, “what about the vitamins, they have to count for something right?” Well according to Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, the only vitamin that we may not get enough of in a day is Vitamin E, which is a fat-soluble vitamin, along with vitamins A, D, and K. This means that they “can only enter the blood stream to carry out their function if dissolved in dietary fat, like that in a meal.” Plus there is no nutritional benefit in stocking up on vitamins. Vitamins like B and C, which are water-soluble, get immediately flushed out of our system if not needed. ¹

I can go on and on, but I also want to move on to my next point (check the links at the bottom for more shocking revelations concerning Vitamin Water’s “health” impacts).

As an aspiring marketer, though I do feel embarrassed by these tactics, I also wonder if consumers should share some of the blame. If we’re going to repeatedly fall for the same tricks, product launch after product launch, can we dare ask for more from our marketers? With the abundance of information available to us, are we excused from our responsibility to ourselves and our planet by simply pleading ignorance?  

Well I can tell you that ironically, it is because of those of us who saw past “The Dasani Deception,” that Coca-Cola has become increasingly desperate and attempted to pull this Vitamin Water ploy on us.  Dasani was Coca-Cola’s answer to its decreasing soda sales as consumers became more health conscious.  Now that consumers are becoming more environmentally conscious and saying no to plastic water bottles, they are trying to hold on to consumers leaving both these markets, by differentiating yet again. Sugary-beverage, then water, now again sugary beverage – we’ve gone full circle. I know I’ve been talking a lot about cyclicality, but this is not what I meant. Still with marketers always having the first-mover advantage, is it possible for consumers to think two steps ahead and take control of what we really want?

Sources:

1 – http://thesparkpost.com/cuff/vitaminwater-tells-its-customers-to-hydrate-responsibly-that.html

2 – http://healthy-eating.fitsugar.com/Truth-About-Vitamin-Water-541747

Both these sites expand on the misconception of Vitamin Water being healthy. The first link does a great job breaking down Vitamin Water’s ingrediants (highlights include a description of what Vitamin Water’s sweetner, crystalline fructose, really is and how it may harm our liver). The second link does the same, but in less detail.

“Sir, did you need bottled water? I can give you a cup of water for free?”

This is how I respond to guests who come to my concession stand asking for bottled water (I work at a movie theatre). This line has an 80% diversion rate: 8 out of 10 people who initially wanted a bottle, will walk away with a cup. Even those who specifically asked for Dasani opt for tap water after being asked this question.

I wasn’t always this successful. It took me a good month of trial and failure to formulate the pitch, but I believe it’s now near perfection. Previous versions include:

“Did you want the Dasani or would you like a cup of water for free,” which later became “did you want bottled water or would you like a cup of water for free.” These statements however had little effect on people; around 90% would stick to bottled.

So how is it that a simple change in word choice, has allowed me to not just influence, but actually change what people want? Well it’s because I realized that what I was dealing with was just that, a manufactured want.

My first lesson in trying to change wants was to never mention the brand. When they asked for Dasani, and I replied with a choice between Dasani or tap water, the alternative I was trying to nudge them towards had no chance. In the customer’s mind, the generic tap, of “questionable” water quality, was being pitted against the powerful, globally recognized, and long marketed Dasani brand. It wasn’t a fair fight.

However even when I caught on to this, and started rephrasing the choice as one between bottled and tap water, my results didn’t significantly improve. Why do they want the more expensive option? Well for one thing it’s what they’ve been socially conditioned to ask for, but I knew they didn’t need bottled, they just wanted it. Then it hit me. The direction I had to point my question towards was their actual needs.

As such, now I ask “do you need bottled water,” to which the chooser will answer in their head, “well no I don’t really.” Then this is where I get real sneaky, instead of making it a choice between two options like before, I just ask another question before the chooser has a chance to verbally answer the first. When I say “I can give you…for free,” the chooser who undoubtedly has positive conceptions about receiving free things would answer, at least in their head, “sure why not!”

———————————————————————————————————–

Now you may be wondering why the heck I’ve tried so hard to “direct” my customers in this manner, especially given the risk to my employment (managers don’t appreciate me hindering the bottom line, but I’m helpful in other regards so they keep me around). Well it’s because the plastic water bottle market serves a manufactured demand that is extremely dangerous to the environment. I implore you to watch the following video, as it explains unequivocally what I mean by manufactured demand, and the resulting environmental effects. Even if you already don’t buy plastic water bottles this video presents an abundance of facts and arguments that might help you convey to your friends why they shouldn’t buy as well. Also next week I will dig deeper into this topic, so you can think of this video as required homework for us to continue our movement.

Have you watched the video? Awesome! You learnt a lot didn’t you? Most people don’t know all that stuff though and that’s why I try hard no matter where I am to nudge people in a more sustainable direction. We’ve got a lot of work to do. Don’t believe me? Next time you’re sitting in the library, look around and you’ll see so many plastic bottles that you’ll cringe, I know I do. But there’s no point looking down upon our peers, it’s not their fault, they don’t know any better. Their behavior is the result of successful marketing, but I hope by reading this entry you can see that we all have the power to counter market in our own spheres of influence. Spread the facts, share the videos, and join the revol[ve]ution! We’re going back to cyclical consumption, by ending this disposable lifestyle.

Note: If you liked the Story of Bottled Water, you should watch the Story of Stuff, that will blow you away even more! Also you can check out the documentary called Tapped, it’s very cheap on iTunes.

The human population is growing, exponentially. It is estimated by 2025, our species will number over 9 billion, a 22% increase in our population! That’s alarming – not because humans by nature are a threat to the environment, but because of our species’ current consumption patterns.  

Skeptics don’t have to look far; according to the City of Vancouver we have a 4-Plant ecological footprint. What this means is that if every human in the world, consumed (and disposed the resulting waste) like Vancouverites do, we would need no less than 4 planet earths just to provide for the resulting demand. What scares me is that we are considered one of the better cities in North America by this standard.

Relax, I’m not about to go on a rant condemning our consumer economy or antagonizing corporations. That is not what this blog is about.  My interest in marketing is not its role in creating this problem, but its unequivocal capability to amend it. My motto: marketing got us into this mess, so why not use marketing to get us out.

Now by this I don’t mean just spreading awareness. Everyone already knows that climate change is a problem. Basically when it comes to influencing consumer behavior through attitudes, environmentalists have covered the cognitive (think) component by providing information on why our environment is in danger, and the affective (feel) component by acknowledging what we may lose. The trouble now is getting people to act on the behavioral component (do), and I don’t think this can be achieved simply by further educating people on environmentally friendly behavior.

More emphasis has to be made on using social factors to curve behavior by creating green social norms. Majority of green marketing right now focuses on green as being the right thing to do, which it is, but this only influences a select group of people who are motivated by their needs for self-actualization. Instead green should be promoted as the cool thing to do! The sexy thing to do! The socially expected thing to do! This will influence a much larger segment of society, the part that is trying to fulfill their love and belonging and esteem needs, as described by Maslow’s hierarchy, and for these reasons the segment of society that consumes the most.

This misguided bunch should be our priority. If we can get them acting right, the entire system will adjust to please these dominant consumers’ shift in demand. In the coming weeks I hope to explore (with your help) how we can start reversing social perceptions and start making things like thrift and cyclic consumers something that is admired and looked up to again. It’s time we revolve our consumption.