Note: This is an article I wrote for CREATE Magazine at the height of the sustainability craze.

Ever since Al Gore delivered his wake-up call to America in “An Inconvenient Truth,” there has been an explosion (or maybe blossoming is a better word) of “green” brands. Cleaning products, washing machines, light bulbs, clothing, cars, and even petroleum companies are rushing to adopt Earth-friendly names, bright springtime colors and even floral logos in an attempt to own the color green. The entertainment industry is in the midst of its own “green rush.” Green celebrities grace the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, programming for the green do-it-yourselfer appears on HGTV, Wisdom TV goes LIME green, Sundance and Robert Redford launch “the Green,” and now Discovery Networks is set to roll out an entire green network. Name? “Planet Green.”

In the midst of such a groundswell one must ask whether green really represents a viable brand position. Lee Hunt, a premiere brand strategist in television industry, shows each of his new clients a simple chart to help them understand what makes a brand position successful. (leehunt.com)

SUCCESSFUL POSITIONING

According to Lee, in order for a brand position to be successful it must be differentiated from the competition, true to the company, and relevant to the consumer. Failure on any of these three fronts results in an unsustainable (pun intended) brand position.

So, let’s apply these metrics to green brand positions. Consider a brand that is using “green” to differentiate itself from its competitors because it believes environmental issues are really relevant to its customers. Sadly, however, the company is also mowing down the rainforests to grow soybeans for its popular and highly profitable green soy lattes. The green positioning is not true to the company. The practice, known as “greenwashing,” really pisses off environmental activists and bloggers, who quickly mobilize and mount grassroots PR and viral marketing campaigns to expose the corporate hypocracy. Adopting a green position then, without “walking the talk,” results in an unbelievable position that can backfire, and even potentially destroy a corporate parent’s or sibling’s brand equity.

Is a green position appropriate for all brands? It depends on whom you are trying to reach. According to Jacquelyn A. Ottman (Green Marketing, Opportunity for Innovation, 1998. P19) “The notion of a ‘typical green consumer’ continues to be elusive. Greenness extends throughout the population to varying degrees, and green concerns are extremely diverse, encompassing a wide range of issues from global climate change and gritty smokestacks, to graffiti and lawn-mower noise on Sunday mornings…However, research into recent buyers of green products and empirical evidence suggests that the consumers most receptive to environmentally-oriented marketing appeals are educated women, 30-44, with $30,000-plus household incomes. They are motivated by a desire to keep their loved ones free from harm and to make sure their children’s future is secure.”

If you are trying to reach a different audience green may not be the most relevant position. Further, every green issue is not equally relevant to every demographic. To avoid a green but irrelevant position you must dig deep to find out what, if any, green issues are important to your target audience.

I once had the joy of working on a video that touted the benefits of giving chickens contact lenses. It seems that chickens on industrial farms like to peck each other to death, and this costs chicken farmers a lot of scratch. It also seems that it is the red combs on the top of their coop mates’ heads that drives chickens into a murderous rage. The solution? Red contact lenses placed in the chicken’s eyes make everything they see red. You might think this would cause them to peck anything that moves, but no, it pacifies them. When everything is red, nothing is red. Likewise Green brands are sprouting up faster than weeds in my lawn. Soon greenness will not be a meaningful differentiator in marketplace. If everything is green, nothing is green. While this will be a good thing for the Earth it will result in a parity position for green brands. Even for the early movers, Green will not long be an ownable position.

In order for a position to be a good differentiator in the market you have to believe that your competitors might actually want to adopt the opposite position. While white and whole wheat, global and mom & pop, fastest and safest represent equally valid positions I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be thought of as the opposite of green, as bad for the environment. However, green may also be interpreted as placing the needs and safety of future generations in front of ones immediate self interests, and thereby constitute a real alternative to the “all about me/instant gratification” brand positions that abound in America. Whether this position, while valid, will be more successful in attracting consumers remains to be seen.

So, even though we are still in the throes of a vibrant springtime growing season for green brands, the summer where these brands mature, and the fall and winter where many of the weaker ones die off, are just around the corner. In the end, greenness alone will not guarantee a successful or sustainable brand position. The green brands that survive and thrive in the future will come from companies that embrace the movements’ principles at their core, not those jumping on the bandwagon. They will not be generally green, but target a specific demographic by focusing on the subset of green issues relevant to that group. And, hopefully, they will usher in a new social era by differentiating themselves from the “all about me” brands by being “all about us.”