After a one year hiatus, I am back on TypePad. Consider it a break of fast. Breakfast, in other words. That kind of hunger can lead to only one thing. That's right. Advertising and inventions from the world of tomorrow, from long, long ago:
According to the polls (see last post), people think that oil companies are price gouging, but they also said they would be willing to pay more if the funds went to developing renewable energy.
We've all become cynical of advertising claims in general. Which businesses do we support when all claim to support sustainability, especially if they increase prices to pay for it? People are willing to pay more for a just cause. So how will we be able to discern a good cause from a good marketing technique? It seems sincerity will be the victor.
Big companies are mobilizing for a war of green propaganda. Even if most only invest a relatively small amount into the effort, others are dedicated to change. As great as the green boom could be, the greatest danger will be corporations that profit from the perception of sustainable practice while refusing to change core policies. Let's hope the watchdog function of the internet can match the corporate PR machines and be able to tell the difference.
At least people care enough about the future of their energy resources to change brand preference because of it. Now if only our infrastructure changed to allow everyone to choose a low-consumption lifestyle, we'd be in good shape. But it comes down to convenience, or lack thereof.
Would people pay more to consume less? There's the fuel to drive the upcoming green marketing.
Here's a compilation of polls concerning energy from PollingReport.com. Based on the results, the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize that energy policy needs to change, but they differ when it comes to the reason. One question asked if the government should focus on developing new sources of energy or protecting the environment:
Environment: 21
New Energy: 62
Both: 14
New energy development trumps environmental protection. Notice how people had the option to say both, but instead chose energy resources. Of course, renewable energies fulfill both needs.
Perhaps the difference between success and failure of new energy technologies is not whether there is demand for them, but how the energy providers market themselves. The business model is critical, but so is the brand message. Advocates for environmental protection will support clean tech for new energy, but those hoping for new energy don't have a reason to respond to calls for protection of the environment. The demand for new energy resources isn't really in support of green living so much as it is for the "success" of the nation.
In Clean Tech Revolution, the authors give a compelling case for investing in new energy technologies. Environmental concerns are giving way to economic incentives. Investment includes time and work in addition to money. That's good, since time is all I have to offer.
One of the points in the book is that the energy grid will change from being a one-way system, from utility company to houses, to a two-way web much like the internet. Energy will be consumer generated.
How will energy ownership work? Will it be an open commons of electricity? Will it chart borrowing and loaning by volumes of KWs? If all the energy is integrated, will corporations be able to own sectors of the grid the way telecommunication giants control current wireless networks?
Either we'll end up with socialized electricity, or we'll have to pay corporations for the right to use energy produced from our own rooftops. There'll certainly be other economic models. And they'll certainly be bought or forced out by the most successful competitors, and those will be the most aggressive.
Somehow, I don't think we have a shot at free or even substantially cheaper energy. The technology is there, the infrastructure will soon be in place, and the natural resources are limitless. But, there are simply too many business minds churning out new ways to privatize the sun, air, and water that sustain us.
Apparently S.F. will stop using plastic. Bags, that is, not cards. Check out this LA Times article.
Our reliance on plastic for packaging will become like our reliance on gas for transportation. It seems plastic use is the next public battle after emissions are addressed. But how can production of plastic decrease when such items are as much a staple of oil industries as gasoline?
I took a tour of Chevron's headquarters in San Ramon and met with their
global marketing director and internal creative director. Big stuff.
They had both been involved with changing the architecture and
environment of the Chevron headquarters from a cubicle forest into a
branded space, complete with gorgeous murals, posters, old gas pumps,
Chevron toy cars, and a service center/gas station. That could never come from an ad agency. That's client-side marketing and brand management.
After being a copywriter, art director, creative director, and planner, maybe its time for me to take up marketing. It seems to be the upstream (new jargon for me) strategic decision-making.
Sure, I might have to glimpse numbers and wear pants occasionally. But I like pants. When I'm not at home, anyway.
If I end up in marketing as a client-side account planner, at least I'll know how to work with advertising agencies and creative teams. But is there a way to have the best of both worlds -- the creative energy of an ad agency and the strategic prowess of marketing? Ultimately, who decides how a brand lives?
It's here!
The iPhone. Godzilla of gadgets. I can't wait to see how Verizon responds when AT&T stock skyrockets. Maybe there is some deep, convoluted long-term strategy that has assured Verizon's ultimate victory, but Seth Godin seems to have it right. Status-quo is simply easier to pull off.
Trendwatching.com wrote a comprehensive report on this emerging wave of morality. I've added a list of agencies committed to social change to the sidebar, plus a few new links under My Sites.
Any social change advertising agencies hiring? Time to post up my resume, no doubt.
They call the Marines "jarheads." They should call planners "Sphereheads." Most of what they do is understand new, different spheres of people and thinking.
I added some sites that unite account planners under the international flag of the curious. Russell set up a cool wiki, plannersphere, and I also found a social networking site for planners. What a strange new world I've found.
Sustainable business has been treated like a nonprofit, treehugger pursuit. Now that it might be worth something, entrepreneurs and investors are swarming to clean tech.
Sustainability has shifted from referring to the environment to the resources we use every day. "Clean tech" implies an economic future. Using technology to minimize the effects of industry is a decidedly consumerist solution to a conservationist problem.
But with China, India, and other expanding economies around the globe, clean tech such as wind and solar power look to be the new industrial giants.
