The United States is the world-leader in dollars spent on advertising, according to Sian Jones, researcher for the World Advertising Research Center (WARC). We spent $158.5 billion dollars in advertisements in 2008 according to Jones’ report. So much of that money is spent trying to position goods and services as personifying human characteristics, not to persuade consumers to purchase that good or service. The world of advertising is now focused on giving companies’ goods and services an aura of environmental sustainability around their brands. Enter green marketing.
Carlos Grande, editor of WARC online, defines green marketing as the “promotion of goods, services and policies that claim to mitigate the environmental damage caused by human behavior or, more rarely produce an actual environmental benefit”, defines green marketing. Originally, according to Grande, green marketing was just a part of a company’s corporate social responsibility agenda; however, it has turned into a very visible extension of a company’s brand communication and strategy. With green marketing comes the possible pitfall of green-washing.
Grande explains to us that green-washing is the practice of over-claiming the benefits that a product or service has on the environment that has become so common among corporations. A branch of green-washing is the spotlight effect which Craig Davis, an advertising professor at Ohio University, explains to be when companies do not want to tell consumers if their brand is doing something good for the environment because, while that may result in positive brand experiences from consumers, there are also many groups that are trying to catch mistakes those companies are making in that or other areas. By looking at the practices of three very different brands, we can distil the essence of their positions (messages) and decide what type of advertising would be most effective.
Starbuck’s Coffee launched a campaign with environmental undertones in which the company proclaimed “Good Coffee Can Do Good Things”. In an article written by Rowenna Davis for New Internationalist, she says, “More than any other mainstream multinational, Starbucks tries to present itself as ethically virtuous: the company knows that corporate social responsibility (CSR) sells.” The company grossed net revenue of $7.8 billion in 2006, according to Davis. That statistic alone tells us that consumers do more than desire products that adhere to social responsibility policies – they are willing to fork out the money to purchase those products. In 2007, after findings that Starbucks was not putting their money where their mouth was, so-to-speak, and their fiscal year saw a decrease. “Starbucks’ image of corporate social responsibility might have made a profit in the past,” writes Davis. “But, it’s tempting to think that an irresponsible reality could contribute to making its future bankrupt.” Starbucks was not adhering to social responsibility practices and consumers were noticing. The spotlight effect took hold and now, no matter how much good Starbucks was doing, consumers were noticing all of the bad.
Toyota, however, has been successfully avoiding having a target placed on their back by consumers who feel deceived by their advertisements. According to the company’s website, Toyota has employed an environmental action plan aimed at reducing energy usage, minimizing air emissions as well as capitalizing on recycling opportunities, among other things, in order to reach their goal of “sending zero waste to landfill”. After the launch of Toyota’s “Beyond Cars” campaign, the company seems to have gained the trust of their consumers. This campaign consists of advertisements with the tag line: “We see beyond cars. We see ways to enrich the community.” Toyota has been able to give statistics on their website that substantiate this claim; the company has 14 manufacturing plants in North America and employ roughly 41,000 here, they purchase parts, materials, goods and services from North American suppliers which total nearly $25 billion annually. That’s a lot of community involvement and the advertisements creatively showcase Toyota’s commitment to community. By being able to backup their advertising campaign, consumers feel more comfortable with the Toyota brand and associate them with having an honest position. Despite all of Toyota’s work, one flaw may be that the company has not revealed any information as to whether or not they were able to achieve their “zero waste to landfill goal”.
In my opinion, Absolut Vodka has the best strategy for simultaneously advertising their brand and their stance on environmental sustainability. The company’s campaign includes a multitude of print advertisements that have a desirable object in the shape of an Absolut bottle with a tagline on the bottom. My favorite one is a picture of a factory but, instead of emitting smoke and chemicals, the factory is blowing out bubbles; the tagline is “In an Absolut World”. By advertising in a way that shows the consumer you agree with their desires to make this world a cleaner place without making outrageous claims to be singlehandedly fixing the problem, a company’s advertisements are much more endearing and believable to the consumer.
(Works Cited same as previous post.)
No comments:
Post a Comment