Hi All!
Today's "Think About It" is a fun one!
"Because sustainability drives creativity and innovation, the move towards more sustainable products and services can revitalize a brand. Consider a brand that you think is growing tired. Does it have a reputation for social and environmental responsibility? What could be done to make it more sustainable? How might increased sustainability reinvigorate the brand? Consider the ten keys described earlier"
The 10 Keys to Sustainable Branding
1. Understand your brand
2. Understand your consumers
3. Get your own house in order
4. Integrate CSR
5. Innovate
6. Motivate
7. Collaborate
8. Communicate
9. Enlist your customers in achieving your sustainability goals
10. Measure, monitor, and report
I had a bit of a hard time coming up with a brand, so I enlisted the help of my roommates. One roommate mentioned Gillette. Although, the brand has stayed up to date with advertising, I think that the products are getting tired. I mean, how many more blades can they put on before it becomes excessive? How many types moisture strips can they come up with? "Sensitive skin, dry skin, double moisture, two moisture bars...", really?
After scanning the Gillette site map, and seeing thousands of takes on a single product, I was a bit surprised to see that there was not a link listed that suggests any type of sustainable practice. The closet thing listed was a product extension for "Pure and Sensitive" shave gel. However, the product is angled more towards free of harsh chemicals that would irritate the skin, not harm the environment.
I think that by following the 10 steps listed above, Gillette could successfully begin a new campaign to invigorate the brand and become more sustainable in the process. I think that consumers would respond well to them considering shaving gels, razor blades, and other creams are made up of chemicals and are intended to be washed down the drain or thrown out.
What do you think? Consider your shaving habits. Isn't it a bit wasteful? Toxic? Share your thoughts!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
P&G Future Friendly Campaign
Hi All!
Have you heard about this yet? P&G has started (in 2010 that is) a Future Friendly campaign to promote greener products in the home in order to preserve our Earth for future generations. Apparently, this campaign was launch in the U.K. and Canada in 2007. P&G has put the Future Friendly logo on the packaging of all environmentally friendly products to help consumers navigate greener products. Additionally, the company says that it is working towards,
"[work] to educate its customers on how best to reduce the impact of their daily lives. In an interview in 2008, Procter & Gamble's Peter White explained how home use is responsible for the biggest overall energy use in a P&G product's lifecycle. The graphic below lays out the energy used at each phase of a product's life. The tall red bar represents customer energy use for laundry products, i.e. washing laundry in warm water."(source).
• Nearly three in four (74 percent) report they would switch to another brand if it helped them conserve resources without having to pay more and a similar amount (69 percent) report they would recommend the product to others.
• More than a third (37 percent) cite the lack of enough information about what to do as the top reason preventing people from leading a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle.
• A majority (58 percent) would be at least very likely to change the way they do daily chores if it helped them reduce waste, save energy and save water in their homes.
• Saving money is the most frequently mentioned reason for why consumers would take measures to reduce waste, save energy and save water in their home (64 percent) followed closely by preserving resources for future generations (56 percent).
(source).
Have you heard about this yet? P&G has started (in 2010 that is) a Future Friendly campaign to promote greener products in the home in order to preserve our Earth for future generations. Apparently, this campaign was launch in the U.K. and Canada in 2007. P&G has put the Future Friendly logo on the packaging of all environmentally friendly products to help consumers navigate greener products. Additionally, the company says that it is working towards,
"[work] to educate its customers on how best to reduce the impact of their daily lives. In an interview in 2008, Procter & Gamble's Peter White explained how home use is responsible for the biggest overall energy use in a P&G product's lifecycle. The graphic below lays out the energy used at each phase of a product's life. The tall red bar represents customer energy use for laundry products, i.e. washing laundry in warm water."(source).
Procter and Gamble has committed to provide conservation education at least 50 Million households in the U.S.
Here are some interesting statistics that companies should be interested to act on. P&G picked up on it...
• Nearly three in four (74 percent) report they would switch to another brand if it helped them conserve resources without having to pay more and a similar amount (69 percent) report they would recommend the product to others.
• More than a third (37 percent) cite the lack of enough information about what to do as the top reason preventing people from leading a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle.
• A majority (58 percent) would be at least very likely to change the way they do daily chores if it helped them reduce waste, save energy and save water in their homes.
• Saving money is the most frequently mentioned reason for why consumers would take measures to reduce waste, save energy and save water in their home (64 percent) followed closely by preserving resources for future generations (56 percent).
(source).
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Think About It
Hi All!
This week's "Think About It" is on a topic that I am somewhat passionate about.
"How do you feel about the news that your drinking water, streams, and rivers may be contaminated with prescription drugs? Who shares in the responsibility for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment? Does a marketer have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold?"
I have always been passionate about health. Recently, I have begun to research the connection between prescription drugs and health. I find that I am a minimalist when it comes to prescription drugs as a way to promote health. To hear that prescription drugs, that are typically pharmaceutical company pushed, are evading our ecosystems and potentially affecting people who are not on prescription drugs, really ticks me off.
In as much of a non-political view as possible, I really disagree with the pharmaceutical world because of how passionate I am about natural health. I don't know who should be responsible for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment, because I am not sure of how to really prevent it from happening. Should we blame the government for the treating waste properly? Should we blame the companies for creating such drugs? Should we blame the doctors for prescribing them? Or should we blame the population for depending on them?
As for if a marketer should have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold? I think that it could be hypocritical to say that they shouldn't. I would argue that marketers accept the glory of successful products, but won't carry the burden for products that harm people. I believe that the "success" of the large prescription drug industry is very dependent on how heavily marketers/pharmaceutical companies push the importance of their products to human health. But isn't it our responsibility as a society to educate ourselves in the reality of it all? I would say that it is a marketers job to inform the public, but instead they are doing an injustice to the public in pursuit of a dollar.
What do you think? Do you have as strong of feelings about this as I do?
This week's "Think About It" is on a topic that I am somewhat passionate about.
"How do you feel about the news that your drinking water, streams, and rivers may be contaminated with prescription drugs? Who shares in the responsibility for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment? Does a marketer have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold?"
I have always been passionate about health. Recently, I have begun to research the connection between prescription drugs and health. I find that I am a minimalist when it comes to prescription drugs as a way to promote health. To hear that prescription drugs, that are typically pharmaceutical company pushed, are evading our ecosystems and potentially affecting people who are not on prescription drugs, really ticks me off.
In as much of a non-political view as possible, I really disagree with the pharmaceutical world because of how passionate I am about natural health. I don't know who should be responsible for controlling the amounts of pharmaceutical waste being introduced to the environment, because I am not sure of how to really prevent it from happening. Should we blame the government for the treating waste properly? Should we blame the companies for creating such drugs? Should we blame the doctors for prescribing them? Or should we blame the population for depending on them?
As for if a marketer should have any responsibility for a product once it has been sold? I think that it could be hypocritical to say that they shouldn't. I would argue that marketers accept the glory of successful products, but won't carry the burden for products that harm people. I believe that the "success" of the large prescription drug industry is very dependent on how heavily marketers/pharmaceutical companies push the importance of their products to human health. But isn't it our responsibility as a society to educate ourselves in the reality of it all? I would say that it is a marketers job to inform the public, but instead they are doing an injustice to the public in pursuit of a dollar.
What do you think? Do you have as strong of feelings about this as I do?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)