Green Marketing

Accomplishing our two main goals: Tools, resources needed

As environmental marketers, we always look in two directions. We serve the business interests of our clients and employers as well as their customers and stakeholders. At the same time, we look out for ecological and social values and do our best to keep ourselves and our audiences accountable and engaged. Nothing new there.

But, things become more difficult when you try to verify whether eco-themed marketing actually helps accomplish any desirable outcomes in terms of environmental or societal benefits. There are many more resources and tools that help us validate the business value of the marketing efforts. So, this short note is really a cry for help: Where are the best practices, measurement tools, and resources that help verify the "green" and "social" results of eco-marketing?

So, where to start over? Maybe a visit to EcoAmerica is worth a few minutes of your time. I'm encouraged because I don't see the same old ideas there, but some new approaches and practical resources. And, if it's really true that the public mindset regarding environmental concerns is changing with the souring economy, we need to get a lot more creative and engaging.

And, by the way, should green marketers get into issues such as, for example, population control and find connections between their more traditional practice and those other urgent concerns? Or, in case of population control, has that train left the station and we just have to wait? Not that I would want to ruin your day.

It's still too early to retire the g**** word, but if you carry on this way, we'll have to

Apologies if you've seen too much of g**** as a noun, verb, adjective, or plain buzzword, including all the tired expressions the poor word features in so frequently. It really shouldn't be this easy being g****. I promise I won't use the g**** word in this post, so you can enjoy a break from it.

The language mavens at Lake Superior State University definitely hit a nerve when they declared g**** and "going g****" to be on top of their 34th annual list of words to be banished. Not only has that article been copied, excerpted, and recycled ad nauseam, there's also been a lot of discussion—much of it less than reasonable—about the merits of the banishment. Google it and your eyes will be hurting in a minute. A client recently told me her company was moving away from using the g**** word entirely and instead would be using "sustainability," "ecologically responsible," and other alternatives.

G**** fatigue is not just a result of remorseless overuse and loss of meaning of that poor word. I believe many of us also associate the word with a nagging sense of wanting or having to do something, of being nudged to take some or other responsible action, and of being unable to make up one's mind quite properly. G**** has become attached to a sort of limbo. On the other hand, some people may also doubt that environmental concerns are really that urgent and interesting when they're stuck to such an obnoxious label.

To get us past g**** burnout, just follow this one simple suggestion. In your marketing and other communications, don't use terms you can't define or don't really understand.

If you know what g**** means in a given context and can be certain that your readers will understand it exactly that way, no problem. If you have any doubt, find another way to express yourself. Also, don't use the word g**** when you could substitute something more practical or precise. I've seen good replacements including "accountable," "conservative," "careful," "smart," "responsible," and others, even "sustainable." But don't replace g**** with another cliché. If you can't define to yourself, for example, what "sustainability" really means, stay away from it.

When you address consumers of a product or service, I would discourage using g**** at all. Many people are sick of it and feel they're being conned by being told something is g****. If you can confine g**** to internal discussions and keep it away from marketing communications, that's probably a good idea. Or at least aim your content carefully at a well-understood audience and use the term within a proper context. If you want to do a little homework, download issue 18 of The Architecture Journal from MSDN and examine how g**** is used in the articles. Does a reader receive enough context to make the term meaningful, or would it have been preferable to replace it?

And if g**** is making us all blue this time next year, we should definitely retire it for good.