Griffith University Fails Green Marketing 101
I applaud any educational facility creating any kind of course in sustainability. We already have eco-accreditation in building design, why not in other enterprises too? So, it was with some delight that I welcomed the flyer from Griffith University that fell from the pages of my current edition (July 9-15, 2009) of BRW Magazine.
Printed one-sided on gloss-coated paper over 110gsm in weight, it spruiked a triple bottom-line approach; it claimed that planet was as important as profit, and urged the creation of social, environmental and economic value. It invited readers to make a positive mark on the planet by taking action and contacting the Griffith University executive development website, where one could find the details of this combination on campus and online program.
Now, any takers on why I’m taking them to task here?
Yeah, hello? Griffith – a little authenticity goes a long way. How can you stand there straight-faced and invite people to learn FROM YOU how to make a positive mark on the planet when you:
1. Distribute your message by an additional piece of paper inserted into the magazine (that can fall out and become rubbish) rather than taking a one page advertisement in the magazine.
2. That as an insert is printed one-side only (you could have halved the size and printed the sell on one side, the contacts on the other).
3. Does not use recycled paper, or water-based ink.
Perhaps your marketing people should do the course before you start offering it to others. Perhaps too, you can think about making it online only, and save the planet some extra carbon generated by people driving to your campus.
We all learn in public speaking that 70% of the message is the non-verbal communication. Even with the written word in marketing, how you say something matters equally if not more than the words themselves. The how is more than language – it is the paper, the ink, the colours, the font and so on. If you are selling a green message, lesson one is deliver it in a green package.
This is green marketing 101. And if perchance I am wrong – and the ink is water-based, the paper made from thrice recycled rabbit turd, say so on the package. That (for your information) is green marketing 102.
That packaging by the way, doesn’t in fact have to be coloured green – as yours is (a deep olive green with woman holding seedling in a pile of dirt, with clean hands of course). In fact, Getty Images released its second MAP Report(shorthand for what Makes A Picture and very much worth a read) about environmental-related marketing on February 10th, 2008.
A key finding of relevance here is Any Color but Green:
Expect the future to be any color but green because right now everybody uses green (and darker shades are predominant). The environment comes in all colors, and visual clichés do not compel interest. Expect to see a backlash on all familiar environmental iconography. Innovators will embrace the mucky, the messy, the colorful.
Griffith, with (clearly) your very first step in this direction, you destroyed any credibility or believability you could have dared claim in this space. I wouldn’t boast too loudly about being one of the best business schools in the world as this is a pretty dumb effort.
Or am I being too harsh? Genuine question. Is it OK for companies to claim green credentials while continuing to conduct themselves in a business-as-usual environmentally devastating manner?
© 2009 – 2010, Reputation Report. All rights reserved. Reproduction of articles from this site only allowed with attribution and link.
Category: CSR & Sustainability, Reputation Management
