According to Nielsen, online buzz about sustainability issues is growing by leaps and bounds.  What’s more, consumer buzz has expanded beyond global warming and climate change (the hot topics of 2006).  Consumers and influential bloggers are now buzzing about a broader range of sustainability issues, such as greenwashing and corporate social responsibility (two topics generating substantially increased buzz volume in 2007).

Nielsen’s findings are no surprise.  Groups like Lohas, which now claims over 40 million members, are growing steadily. Traffic numbers for green Web sites like Treehugger are up (way up).  New services and communities for the green aware (like Scribd and the vertical social network RiverWired) pop up daily.  Consumers are obviously engaged with sustainability issues and looking to connect.

Naturally, big brands are beginning to pay attention.  Dell publishes its own blog on sustainability (ReGeneration Blog) and recently sponsored a Facebook contest for artists (What Green Means to Me), offering a 22 inch, environmentally friendly monitor to the winner. Walmart is announcing a new green initiative regularly these days.  Even Google jumped on the green bandwagon last week, changing its home page to a black background in honor of Earth Hour.

What do consumers think about brands who beat the green drum?  Nielsen’s analysis of green buzz suggests that consumers are skeptical. They check and challenge the green claims made by advertisers.  Most importantly, they take the time to buzz about it online at sites like The Greenwash Index, where members post and rank ads on a 1 to 5 scale for greenwashing. 

Consumers seem especially sensitive to heavy PR and marketing around green initiatives.  Starbucks for example has been criticized for focusing on Fair Trade coffee too much in their marketing initiatives.  Critics say that only 3.7% of the coffee served by Starbucks is Fair Trade.  Dunkin Donuts on the other hand has been applauded for not making a big deal out of serving 100% Fair Trade coffee. 

What – if any – implications does the collective green consciousness have for nonprofit brands?  If consumers scrutinize the claims of commercial brands and point out inconsistencies and weak environmental records, will they eventually turn their attention to nonprofit organizations as well? Some isolated examples of this have made it into the search results already.  

One glaringly obvious area of potential criticism is the massive amount of direct mail solicitations sent out by the nation’s largest nonprofit organizations each year.  The Wilderness Society for example mailed 6.2 million membership solicitations in 1999 (10 years ago!) according to Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee.  This averages out to 16,986 pieces of mail PER DAY and about 348,000 pounds of paper over the course of the year.  As Knudson points out, even if every piece of mail sent out was on recycled paper (which it wasn’t), the address labels, bumper stickers, and premiums (gifts) that are often part of a direct mail fundraising packet cannot be recycled (ending up in landfills).

To be fair, some environmental organizations are using more recycled paper and are looking for direct mail alternatives (Greenpeace for example).  Still, if green consumers hold companies to tough standards, they may not be willing to forgive nonprofit organizations that take a “we’re trying to do better but it’s expensive” position.  Given the general public’s outcry against junk mail (the possibility of a Do Not Mail lists, calls to regulate the Direct Mail industry, etc.), consumers may not be inclined to give nonprofits a free pass.

We’ve been making the case for some time to our nonprofit clients for moving more money into the digital space, primarily for cost and ROI reasons.  Green consumers/donors may make the most compelling argument for moving dollars to digital as they continue to organize and connect online about sustainability issues. 
 

Filed under: Non-Profits, Reputation Management, Social Marketing on Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008 by Nan Dawkins | No Comments
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.