PD green

Images > Charts > Words

Over the last few days I have happened upon a few sets of powerful images that tell the story of the effects of our current economy's product life-cycle.  The idea that pictures and video are compelling ways to deliver a message is well known, but these images are a reminder that even one powerful image might be enough to move a consumer or community to action:

I have read about the "giant garbage patch the size of Texas," but Chris Jordan's photos of Albatross Chicks on Midway Atoll really make it hard to ignore:

It is one thing to hear stats about heavy pollution in China, but Lu Guang's photo documentary project “Pollution in China” drives right to a personal level:  

 

Another set of images from China were compiled into a video that explains the issue with e-waste better than any set of charts and graphs can do.  There is also a 60-minutes story about the same town.  

Each of these image sets represent only a tiny piece of large, wicked problems.  The images only help us to understand, but without understanding a viable solution isn't likely.

The Volt-iest States...

One out of every 8,400 Michigan residents is on the waitlist for a Chevy Volt at gm-volt.com.  Other states with levels of interest are:

• Washington (1 in 9,100)
• District of Columbia (1 in 9,500)
• New Hampshire (1 in 10,400)
• Arizona (1 in 10,700)
• Virginia (1 in 11,000)
• California (1 in 11,000)
• Colorado (1 in 11,100)
• Maryland (1 in 11,300)
• Oregon (11,500)
• Connecticut (11,700)

At the other end of the spectrum are South Dakota (1 in 32,000), Louisiana (1 in 32,000), and Mississippi (1 in 38,000).

The interest numbers for Michigan, DC, Virginia and Maryland are probably being helped by interested industry and political insiders, but New Hampshire, Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Connecticut are some of the usual "green" states.

Due to its limited fully-electric range, many see the Volt as most ideal in urban settings.  It was most interesting for me to see the relative low interest in New York, Rhode Island, and my home state of Pennsylvania.  This isn't the most scientific sample as it is unclear to me how the gm-volt site has advertised, and the nature of the viral growth.  That said, seeing 4-5 times the per capita interest in certain states as compared to others illustrates the heterogenous nature of the American market for cars in general and for "green" products.

Why Gillette? Why?

When it comes to shaving, the most sustainable decision is probably not to shave at all.  At the other end of the sustainability spectrum is the disposable razor.  Falling between, would be using a straight razor, an electric, or a system of disposable blades with more permanent handles.

A couple of recent shopping trips have left me a bit confused by the sustainability intentions of Gillette (P&G), Target and Costco.

1.  About a month ago, I was at Target and called my wife to ask if she needed anything while I was there.  She asked me to purchase some refill cartridges for her "Venus" razors.  After being taken aback, by the cost of a refill blade.  I realized that the blades only (~$3 per cartridge) were more expensive than the disposables at $2 per razor.  After looking closely, I became convinced that the blades that are part of the $2 disposable razors are the exact same as the cartridge refills with one exception... they are not removable.  I purchased the disposables and felt conflicted.  I saved $1 per cartridge/razor, but made a conscious choice that will eventually add a relatively larger amount of material to a landfill.

2.  Yesterday, my wife returned from Costco with a 14 pack of disposable Mach3.  I am a long-time user of the Mach3 system (handles with disposable cartridges).  Just like those of Gillette's Venus line, the Mach3 cartridges come in small boxes with multiple blades.   When I asked my wife about the disposable razors (also Mach3), she said they were cheaper than the refill blades and she had a coupon from Costco...

• Cartridges - a little more than $2 per
• Disposables - $1.89
• Disposables with Costco Coupon (only good for disposables) - $1.53

I'm left wondering why manufacturers and retailers would nudge consumers towards the disposables.  Perhaps they believe their market share is at a plateau because there is a segment that only purchase disposables.  Perhaps they see it as a way to attract new consumers to the franchise.  Perhaps they have excess inventory of these disposables.  Perhaps the larger packaging is more eye catching on the shelf. 

On the other hand, the disposables have a higher per unit shipping cost and almost certainly cost more to produce.  I have to believe they produce less value per square foot of shelf space, and there is less loyalty built into a purchase.

I suppose it is possible that these firms haven't thought this through, but these are among the most savvy companies in the world.  Although I don't know why they are doing this, a recent interview with Mike Marcinkowski, senior engineer of Gillette, suggests that there may be a good business reason to not further encourage a migration away from full disposable usage towards disposable blades. 

"Probably the biggest thing is that we have to maintain the marketing goals and objectives. We have to be able to come up with solutions that still meet those requirements and needs of the consumer and also our customer. That involves finding the balance between sustainability, materials, and marketing and branding objectives."

Unfortunately, I (a consumer) now have a negative impression about all three parties.  It sends a signal that none of these firms seriously consider sustainability.  Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this pricing regime is that it can make a consumer question his or her own behavior.  Even a small price premium for the disposables would reinforce a consumer's green choice, rather than pushing them to choose the less green option. 

Do Green Products Suck?

One of my favorite bloggers, Megan McArdle, posted yesterday that traditional products are not greener because the industry understands the performance tradeoffs associated with green products.

They knew how to make more energy efficient dryers, which is why even on high, I have to run every load through the dryer in said house twice. And they knew how to make inexpensive compact flourescent bulbs, which is why my head hurts from the glare emitting from my bedroom lamp. They also knew how to make asthma inhalers without CFCs, which is why I am hoarding old albuterol inhalers that, unlike the new ones, a) significantly improve my breathing and b) do not make me gag. Etc.

In fact, when I look back at almost every "environmentally friendly" alternative product I've seen being widely touted as a cost-free way to lower our footprint, held back only by the indecent vermin at "industry" who don't care about the environment, I notice a common theme: the replacement good has really really sucked compared to the old, inefficient version.

Initially, this struck me as an overly aggressive and simplistic take on the traditional vs. green product dynamic.  However, after further thought, I think that this sums up the perception and reality of many green products, especially those that are mandated.  Products are the way they are for a reason... it certainly is not true that they have been fully optimized, but companies don't stick harmful chemicals into their products for fun.  Taking out toxic chemicals, replacing virgin plastics with natural materials, and other green manufacturing techniques can improve the footprint, but may reduce product performance by other measures.  This strikes at the heart of the challenge that product developers face and what this blog is seeking to address...

To create truly sustainable products, the green version needs to be the mainstream product.  This means that it needs to perform better than the non-green alternatives on the things that are important to the masses... cost, convenience, aesthetics, usefulness, time, etc.

Greener Gadgets 2009

I attended Friday's Greener Gadgets conference in New York, sponsored by the Consumer Electronics Association.  I was impressed by the quality and diversity of the discussion, and got a lot out of it.  I want to share some of the key things I took away from the day, but first here are some links that summarize the day's events:

- Conference Liveblog (Summary)
- Design Competition Winners
- Key note by Saul Griffith

As with many conferences, one leaves with more questions than answers.  Here are a few of the bigger questions or insights that emerged for me:

Can an heirloom product culture be adopted?   Saul Griffith initially discussed the idea of heirloom consumer electronics.  His analogy was the Mont Blanc pen -- buy 1 and own it for life.  The idea was referenced throughout the day by various panelists.  Businesses throughout the value chain including manufacturers and retailers have business models and incentives to encourage a more disposable approach to product.  At the same time, consumer's desire for new, different, better, etc. drives the actions of business.  I don't know of one person (presenter or attendee) who sees a 25 year cell phone workable for any of the key constituents in the mobile phone business...

How does the developing world fit into the sustainability topic?  I was challenged by and enjoyed the panel discussion focused on "Design for Good" more than anything else.  Each of the panelists would have been entirely engaging individually, but as a group they provided a great balance to the rest of the day's discussion.  

Mark Bent of SunNight Solar offered a number of compelling stories about how his company's flashlights can change people's lives.  He shared the story of a farmer who had more live goats because of having a flashlight to be able to more quickly get to the aid of a mother goat in labor.   

Later in the discussion, they argued (especially Gadi Amit) that we are undervaluing intuition and aesthetics and overvaluing hard data when considering sustainability.  A beautiful product that has a more negative initial environmental impact may be better if it is something that is the purchaser is going to want to hold onto and continue to use for a long period of time.  

In addition to aesthetics, durability is a key attribute.  In Africa, a durable flashlight can free up money that would have otherwise been spent on fuel for a kerosene.  For manufacturers, the car industry has shown that vehicles with reputations for durability can demand a premium price.  

One of the more sticky aspects surrounding how we go about addressing climate change issues is the developed vs. developing world priorities.  In a nutshell, the US and others don't want to put too many constraints on their economies if the developing world isn't also going to be playing.  On the other hand, the developing world is trying to develop, and since the developed world created this issue, it is difficult argument for the industrialized world to be making.  Perhaps the issue of product durability and family sustainability is one area we all can agree on that will make the macro global sustainability discussion easier to have.

This is going to be difficult.  One of the more amusing, instructive and unplanned learning moments was during lunch.  The conference organizers were encouraging us to walk the green walk while we were listening to the green talk.  The plates and forks were compostable, and there were numerous bins for recycling.  In theory, there was very little that should have been going into the trash cans.  Unfortunately, this rather "green-leaning" cadre of conference attendees, was baffled by the trash/recycle/compost system.  You can imagine the questions that would arise as one approached the trash area... "Are napkins compostable?  How about uneaten scraps of meat?   What about recyclable?  Are the plastic cups recyclable?  They aren't at home, but maybe here in New York the are."  It only take a few people to just throw whatever into a bin for there to be a confusing feedback loop. 

Unfortunately, I didn't get a picture of this minor debacle, but it shows that even among a group of individuals who, on average, are more apt to be concerned with green issues, it is a challenge to get them to follow through.  I am picking on the organizers a bit with this point, but it is only to illustrate the point that behavioral design is an interesting/challenging topic. 

Overall, I applaud the conference organizers for a great conference. 

photo credits:  phones - Gaeten Lee (flickr CC) Mark Bent & Gadi Amit - inhabitat (flickr CC)

A conversation on LOHAS

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Gwynne Rogers of the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI).  NMI is a market research and strategic consulting firm with expertise in health, wellness & sustainability.   Gwynne is the LOHAS Business Director at NMI.  She focuses on strategic analysis and planning for LOHAS related companies.  She holds a Masters in Environmental Management and an MBA from Duke University. She brings five years of specific experience in environmental marketing where she served various companies such as Pitney Bowes, Advanced Coal Technologies, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Matt Benson: What is LOHAS?

Gwynne Rogers: LOHAS stands for Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability. Our consumer segmentation model shows that 17% of US consumers fall into the LOHAS segment.  These consumers are dedicated to personal and planetary health.   They make environmentally friendly purchases, they also take action – they reach out to politicians, engage in daily efforts to protect the environment (such as taking a bag to the store or composting), support advocacy programs and are active stewards of the environment.

Source: 2008 LOHAS Consumer Trends Database

MB: Why is the LOHAS segment important?

GR: For most firms offering sustainable or green products and services, this segment of the population will form the core of their customer base.  They are the early adopters and influencers.  They are the most engaged consumers on green issues and most likely to buy sustainable offerings.

However, for many of our clients, for instance those in the consumer packaged goods (CPG) space, the 17% is not sufficient to be an attractive business.  Therefore, they will look to appeal to NATURALITES or DRIFTERS to make the business case work.   Even when a company is looking at a mainstream green product it is unusual for them to not consider the LOHAS segment the gatekeepers to success.

MB: What are some misconceptions of LOHAS consumers?

GR: For one, even the LOHAS consumer, the most green of the green have a variety of behaviors.  They don’t recycle everything.  They don’t buy organics at every opportunity.  They don’t always ride their bicycles to work.  There are so many ways to be green, no one consumer simply can not do them all.

MB: You alluded to the mainstreaming of “green,” I have recently seen the concept of “greenhushing,” where companies are hiding or being less aggressive in marketing their green activities. Have you seen this?

GR: I have seen it.  I think we have shifted a bit from companies trying to get credit for every single green activity towards something a bit more real.  There is a sense of authenticity that comes from not screaming about your green performance.  We see companies being more reserved and I think it could pay off.  Companies like Aveda and The Body Shop for instance – They are humble and transparent.

MB: What does your consumer research suggest about the perceptions of renewable power?

GR: Well, consumers are aware of renewable power more than they used to be.  There is increased awareness certainly, but they are not buying it.  The benefits are not clear, and most consumers consider it a donation rather than a value-added product.  They are generally supportive of policies and efforts to make our energy infrastructure more sustainable, but the majority of consumers are not willing to pay a premium on their utility bill.

MB: One thing that frustrates many about consumer research is that what people say they will do is often different from what they actually do.

GR: That’s true.  You will see that in many different product categories.  What is encouraging and compelling is that there is less of a gap between “Say vs. Do” for LOHAS consumers.  We have coded Nielsen panels with our segmentation model and shown that the LOHAS segment is more apt to follow through in their shopping.

MB: One of the concerns that many have is that the economic meltdown is going to derail the momentum for clean tech and green behavior.  What do you think?

GR: Well I’ll go back to basics.  Life is about tradeoffs….from work-life balance to deciding to go to the gym or go to the pub.  Green is no exception.  There is going to be a drop in green activities that have a cost premium to them.  On the other hand, many green products actually include an economic incentive.  One thing we have seen is that the zero cost green activities like boycotting, composting, and writing congressmen have increased.  That is encouraging.  The other thing that is encouraging is that those decisions and activities where there is a small cost have not dropped as much as some might have expected.  For example, for people who buy organic foods,  only 20% say they are buying less because of the economy.  These are committed consumers.

Simultaneously, for the 52 weeks ending in December, sales of organics were up 6%.  This is less than the historically typical 15%, but decent all things considered.

MB: What advice do you have for someone who is interested in thinking more about the market segmentation for green products?

GR: We have a number of white papers and reports available on our website, and our segmentation model might be useful analytic tool in future consumer research projects.

Note:  I originally wrote this post for CleanTechies, but decided to repost it here since it is relevant.

Consumers vs. Conservers

Some environmentalists see a silver lining in the current economic downturn.  They believe that a recession will reduce consumption and have the potential to create a new "normal" level of consumption.  An opinion piece by Brad DeLong suggests that humans have an insatiable appetite for consumption.
 

And everybody I know finds it very difficult to imagine how people can survive on less than one-third of what they spend—never mind that all of our pre-industrial ancestors did so all the time. There is a point at which we say "enough!" to more oat porridge. But all evidence suggests Keynes was wrong: We are simply not built to ever say "enough!" to stuff in general.
Our economic appetite - THE WEEK.

This issue is at the core of the discussion of green demand.  Over the last several hundred years, the price of most products has dropped relative to income.  This has resulted in increased living standards in the developed world and more consumption.  Is there consumer value to conservation?  Is sustainable more expensive?  What if we can't consume as much in a "sustainable" world? 

hat tip - Andrew Sullivan

A bit less greenwashing

UL, the organization that is known for product safety testing announced a new environmental claims validation program.  Without knowing all the details, this seems like a big deal for consumer products.  Unlike the building industry, with the US Green Building Council's LEED program, green claims in the packaged goods space have been uncontested.  This strikes me as a big opportunity for UL, and something that companies interested in making green marketing claims will want to watch.

"UL Environment Inc.'s services include two new offerings -- Environmental Claims Validation (ECV), a program that tests and validates manufacturer's environmental claims, and a soon-to-be-released certification program that will test and certify products to industry-accepted environmental standards. In late 2009, the organization plans to expand with additional services."

Press Release

UL Environment

What is Green?

"Green" means many different things to different people.  Illustrating this is green tech media's map of "clean tech market taxonomy.  Green, clean tech, sustainability, etc. are almost meaningless at this point.  Be specific.

Abstract vs. Specific

A typical consumer:

Is the environment important to you?  Yes

Do you buy disposable diapers for your infant?  Yes
Do you ride your bike to work?  No
Do you drink bottled water?  Yes

Consumers may think of themselves in a certain way at a high level of abstraction, but their actions and thoughts may appear hypocritical when confronted with the more concrete trade-offs (e.g. convenience, cost, time, quality) of more specific decisions.  When reading research reports, designing consumer surveys, and developing businesses keep this lesson in mind.