Gulf seafood regains “comfort food” status

Observation:   Gulf of Mexico seafood producers were among the hardest hit by the effects of the BP oil spill of 2010.  But a story from Supermarket News suggests that many consumers are once again comfortable with eating goods from the waters of the Gulf coast.  Click here to see the story.

Implications:   If you run a restaurant or a grocery store, this story might lead you to add more Gulf products to your menu… or if you’ve already done that, it might lead you to bring more attention to those offerings.

If you run any other kind of business, it should serve as a reminder that trust lost is not easily regained; the BP oil spill happened almost two years ago, and there has been little bad news on that front since the well was successfully capped.  It has taken all of that time—with little or no bad news coming from the Gulf—before some categories could finally show a comeback.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

Energy choices impacted by world events

Observation:  Two stories in the New York Times within the past month have me thinking about how world events can influence longer-term choices and consumer trends.  Last week, one article covered a renewable energy conference where experts considered the impact of the global economic strife on the alternative energies (click here to see that story).

Another article explained how life in Japan has changed since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was destroyed.  Since that event, many of the nuclear reactors which generate the country’s power have been shut-down for inspection, leaving a country that is intensely reliant on electricity in somewhat of a quandary as winter approaches (click here to see that story).

Implications:   Environmentalists who seek to advance policies and practices that reduce greenhouse gases would be smart to consider the influence of economic issues on their cause.  Consumers are likely to “give until it hurts” where environmental protection is concerned, but then revert to their old ways if a new energy alternative becomes too costly or inconvenient.

Ironically, Japan gives us the example of what might happen in a situation where a population is over-reliant on any one energy source… an example that favors the cause of reduced energy use and creating a more diverse supply (beyond fossil fuels).

We have learned that lesson before, both during the oil embargo of 1976, and in the Northeast’s Halloween weekend snowstorm of 2011.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

UPDATE: Conventional compacts cut into hybrid sales

Today’s USA Today carried a story which supports and further enlightens our posting from yesterday about hybrid vehicle sales.  Click here to see the story.

Implications:  As I wrote yesterday, conventional cars were already eating into hybrid sales.  But one must wonder how much further hybrid car sales might be impacted by the recent falling gas prices. 

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

Higher gas prices did not compel hybrid consideration as expected

During a symposium talk last Friday, AutoPacific President George Peterson explained that, “Small car and hybrid consideration is not tracking anywhere near the rate of the price of fuel as it did in 2008.”

Earlier this year, some hybrids and other small cars were selling at above list prices, driven by climbing gas prices and the fear that there would be shortages of the hottest cars after Japan’s tsunami disaster.

Click here to read more about Peterson’s remarks from Automotive News (subscription required).  He notes that improvement in the fuel efficiency of larger vehicles is one factor that has led more people to remain comfortable with the idea of holding-on to their larger car ways.

Implications:  I’ve written extensively here about The Fuel Economy, fearing that a sustained increase in the price of petroleum could have a domino-effect on inflation.  But for now, that fear seems to have passed.

At your company, are you seeing a windfall of spending in response to falling gas prices this past month?  Are your customers talking about lower gas prices?

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

An apparently welcome casualty of high oil prices: Clamshell packaging

A story in today’s New York Times suggests that petroleum-based plastic packaging could be an attractive target for cost cutting in the eyes of many retailers and manufacturers.  Click here to see the story.

Implications:  While those clear plastic packages help companies display products in an inviting manner and deter shoplifters from stealing what’s inside, few consumers are likely to complain about the demise of the clamshell package.  They’re hard to open, and they’re not the most environmentally-friendly of packaging options.

But here’s a thought:  Instead of just accepting that you’re reducing the use of clamshells as a cost-saving measure, why not present this shift toward different packaging as something the consumer will appreciate?  “We’ve been listening, and we’ve made our product easier to live with.” 

Just an idea… for manufacturers and retailers alike.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

Another measure by which to judge (vehicles, and more)

We’ve long been able to compare prices and gas mileage.  But now, consumers can look at the emissions a car puts out, as well as the gas they’ll put in.  Here’s a story from the New York Times that explains (click to link).

Implications:  Watch for many industries and categories to be judged in ever more sophisticated ways by the consumer and your critics.  Paper or plastic?  Lots of people used to favor paper because it was thought to be more bio-degradable.  But depending on manufacturing techniques, paper bags can be just as—or more—harmful than plastic.*

When consumers think “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable,” chances are they won’t be thinking of a single issue (like consumption of fossil fuels).  As people become more educated about the many moving parts involved with manufacturing, consumption and disposal, they are likely to scrutinize a purchase in a variety of ways.

When you consider the life cycle of the product or service you sell… does it compare well to competitive alternatives?  What can you do to improve that product or service, and thus make it more appealing to the consumer’s growing sense (and sophistication) of social responsibility?

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

UPDATE: Making it easy to be green.

Last week, I offered a posting about the importance of making an environmentally-friendly product or service easy to understand.  [See:  Earth Day, 4/22/11.]  

In today’s Marketing Daily, there was a story about a Whole Foods initiative to evaluate—and communicate—the extent to which various cleaning products are, in fact, green.  (Click here to see that story.)

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

UPDATE: The green gap

To follow-up on the Earth Day posting from earlier this morning (immediately below), I’ll share this article from Marketing Daily, which suggests that “the green gap” is widening (click to link).    The story is based on a report called Mainstream Green from Ogilvy, which you can read by clicking here.  The green gap generally refers to the distance between people’s belief or opinion about environmental issues, and their willingness to act on those beliefs.

Implications:   Perhaps your green marketing message should focus less on getting people to believe, and more on the ways you make it easy to act.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

Happy Earth Day: How are your customers celebrating?

Consumers love an environmentally-friendly offer.  But with a nasty recession very fresh in their memories (and with gasoline at roughly $4 per gallon), the cost of going “green” is making consumers feel conflicted.  That’s the essence of this story from today’s New York Times (click to link).

Implications:   Some interesting points are made by this story.  One of them, which I wish could have been explored further:  Companies (like Proctor and Gamble) who simply layered-on an additional “green” product offering (like Green Works) were not having as much success as those niche players whose product line is “green.”  Could that be because—just like consumers—corporations cut back during the recession, spending less to market their environmental upstarts than they did on their more mature, core product line?  While that was happening, could it be that those companies who have only an environmental story tend to stay true to course, and tell that story better?

But that wasn’t the only take-away from the NY Times article.

As an avid, hands-on conservationist, I love it when companies employ sustainable practices or launch eco-friendly products.  But passion, alone, is not enough; while any of us would love to save the planet, we would also like to make ends meet until the next paycheck comes in.  Sometimes, needs that are urgent displace matters of importance. 

It can be hard for the consumer to justify paying a premium when the product rationale can seem more ethereal than tangible.  A high-mileage car is saving the planet because it uses less gas, but it also saves the consumer money on their commute; they can see, feel and understand the environmental benefit.  For the typical consumer, connecting the dots on a specially formulated cleaning product might not be so easy. 

The bar has been raised since the first Earth Day was celebrated.  For as long as household economies are feeling strained, green products will have to provide more than the “novelty” of being environmentally friendly.  They will also have to be competitive in terms of dollar-for-dollar value delivered, and their environmental benefit must be made easier for the consumer to understand and appreciate.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

On being Green

A couple of stories from Marketing Daily this week have me thinking about how much opportunity there is—or isn’t—for companies who focus on the space of environmentally-friendly products and services.  Certainly, a lot of consumers and companies will be reflecting on this issue, too, as Earth Day approaches.

Today's Marketing Daily shares research indicating 68% of consumers feel that it’s worthwhile to spend more for environmentally-friendly products.  Click here to see that posting.

Another recent story comes from Research Brief, and provides Gallup polling data about the environmental issues that consumers worry about most.  Click here to see that posting.  The findings hint that people see environmental protection as one casualty of government cost-cutting.  But it also suggests that people worry less about some issues than they did ten years ago.

Implications:   Like any other trend (and this one is significant), this one must be considered in context.  People have suffered through some pretty big financial traumas over the past few years; could that have consumers less pre-occupied with being green? With the price of gas putting additional pressure on the family budget, could it be harder to rationalize spending more for green products/services?

I believe, firmly, that a lot of folks are concerned about matters environmental.  Does your company, product or service do anything to help consumers act on those concerns, without having it be too difficult?  Are you already providing options that might resonate as a “green,” but overlooking the chance to maximize them as such?  

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

If you want to be green, you had better be authentic

A recent story from Marketing Daily serves as a reminder… that an environmentally-friendly campaign is not enough; the consumer expects truthfulness and transparency when companies lay claim to being green. Click here to see the story.

[By the way, a similar story ran last week on the Supermarket Guru blog, but focusing on cause marketing rather than green initiatives. Click here to see that story.]

Implications: I enjoyed the way this story clarified consumer sentiment toward “green” marketing. Few consumers expect any company to have a spotless track record, with regard to environmental issues. But they expect companies to be honest. The consumer can forgive a mistake… but they are less likely to forgive a cover-up or a false claim.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

A new chapter in return policies?

Amazon.com has launched a new return policy: When you’re done reading the book, they’ll buy it back. Early returns justified a wider application of the program, according to today’s newsletter from Springwise. Click here to read the full story.

It seems to me that this idea fits nicely into the consumer’s stronger sense of post-recession frugality, as well as the desire to be socially responsible (this is a form of recycling).

In another example of "own to rent," Target stores are offering credit toward used-up mobile phones, according to this recent story from Marketing Daily (click to link).

Implications: Auto dealers and tuxedo shops have been doing this for years… why not bookstores? I’m thinking about some retailers who sell rarely-used power tools (although many also offer a rental department), or other situations where single-use items are sold.

For more ideas, browse CraigsList a bit. There, you will find that consumers have plenty of ideas about items they have used but do not need to own, outright.

Any opportunities here for your company here (do you sell anything that is a one-time or rarely-used product)?

Mike Anderson

Supply and demand could impact clothing types and styles

A story from the New York Times says that cotton prices are going up in response to limited supplies and increasing demand. Click here to review the article.

Implications: People could move to other fabric alternatives in the clothing they choose… when confronted with the prospect of higher prices for cotton garments. That states the obvious. But I’m wondering about other implications…

What impact this might have on clothing as a gift choice this holiday season?

Cotton is one of those rare products that is seldom challenged when referred to as “sustainable.” What other fabrics/clothing could emerge as an environmentally-friendly alternative? (Will people just bite the bullet and pay the higher prices for cotton garments?)

Mike Anderson

What do you mean by "sustainable," exactly?

This morning, a story from Marketing Daily cites Mintel online research to explain that many people haven’t the foggiest idea what some eco-friendly advertising claims mean, much less why they are relevant. Click here to read the story.

Implications: It is easy for marketing folks to get caught-up in the fashionable language of the day… not realizing that they’ve been exposed to a lot of environmentally-friendly nomenclature for much longer than most consumers. While there is a vocal minority who understand what you’re talking about when you say, “fair trade,” a majority of consumers might appreciate having you explain specifically what you mean by that, and why it’s important.

Mike Anderson

UPDATE: Companies cleaning-up, continued

Earlier this month, I offered a posting about the sustainability efforts at P&G [see “Companies like this could clean up,” October 4, 2010]. Today, Marketing Daily offered another story about corporate sustainability efforts, this time from Walmart. Click here to read the story.

Implications: This seems like another example of a company that is fixing the inside of its operation before telling it’s “sustainability” story to the outside world.

Smart.

Mike Anderson

The price of pollution edges closer to the consumer

California residents are facing a surcharge related to vehicle ownership… to help pay for the cost of air pollution. That’s according to a story in today’s New York Times, which you can read by clicking here.

Implications: I suspect that the closer pollution gets to consumers’ pocketbooks, the more likely consumers will be to embrace behavioral change related to their personal, environmental impact.

This may be a long-term trend, but absolutely one to watch.

Mike Anderson

Benevolence is nice, but benefits are even better

In case you missed it, there was an interesting story in the New York Times last week explaining all the perks received by early-adopters of the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle. Click here to read the story.

Implications: On a personal level, I would describe myself—personally—as a little more environmentally aware and active than most. Even so, my “green” pursuits know a limit. I do not have solar panels on my roof, nor a wind turbine in my back yard.

Nissan has demonstrated an understanding that “green” is not a black and white issue. There are shades of green… that might help illustrate the degree to which different people consider themselves, “environmentalists.”

Do we all want to save the planet? Of course. But it helps if there is a consumer benefit or payoff that is more immediately gratifying. Few families consider themselves non-profit organizations.

As you plan your next environmentally-friendly campaign... it might be a good idea to include very specific ideas about why the product or service offering is also "consumer-friendly."

Mike Anderson

Companies like this could really clean-up

Last week, an article from Marketing Daily touted the new “sustainability initiative” of Proctor & Gamble. It talks about making their distribution system (including trucks) more energy-efficient, reducing the amount of materiel that goes into their packaging, and powering their manufacturing centers with more solar and wind energy. Click here to read the story.

Implications: Aside from convincing people to wash with cold water instead of hot, there did not seem to be a huge marketing focus behind this announcement (yet). Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that P&G is getting the back-end of their operation into good environmental condition, before shouting about it on the front-end of their marketing strategy.

Smart.

I’m not at all opposed to green marketing. But I appreciate it when a company’s environmental policy is created by its leadership, rather than by a copywriter. (I suspect consumers will, too.)

[Also see: “Learning Opportunities,” posted 7/23/10, or other stories from Elm Street that are “Environmentally Friendly.”]

Mike Anderson

“Eewww! That person just left without washing their hands!”

A story in this morning’s New York Times confirms what you already knew: Lots of people are leaving the washroom without washing their hands. Click here to read the story.

Implications: The numbers are up, with regard to hand washing hygiene, since the recent H1N1 pandemic. But the world remains a less than perfectly hygienic place. And when reminded of this issue—many of us have observed people leaving a public restroom without washing their hands—it makes some people visibly uncomfortable. (Did you get the creeps just reading the NY Times story? Did your face involuntarily take-on a look of disgust?)
Could your company take advantage of this issue? Yes, I’m serious.

Perhaps the conventional restaurant could muster images of a buffet-style competitor, where customers are selecting their food choices from an open cafeteria-style serving table. The headline or voice-over says something like: “One in six people don’t wash their hands after visiting the restroom. I wonder which of these people has dirty hands.” The body copy of the ad would conclude: “[Conventional] restaurant. Where your food is only touched by professional, clean hands.”

Do you offer microbe-killing hand sanitizer at your bakery or produce counter? Are your products packaged in a more hygienic way?

How could you talk-up the concept of clean?

Mike Anderson

Naturally, I'm watching trends impacting "green marketing"

Yesterday, there was a story in the New York Times about a campaign for corks. No, really. The Portuguese cork industry is going to try bottle-up the idea that plastic or metal bottle caps are a good idea, by focusing on the sustainable nature of cork production. (Click here to read the story.)

I found this story in the Marketing Daily newsletter about a new campaign from Timberline, focusing on “environmental heroism.” (Click here to see the Tuesday story.)

Today in the Marketing Daily newsletter, there is a story about a partnership between IBM and The Nature Conservancy, which has to do with mapping the health of rivers in the U.S. (Click here to see the story.)

Implications: Obviously, the campaigns mentioned above have been in the works for some time, and their proximity (in terms of timing) to the Gulf oil spill this summer are purely coincidental. But as the next few months unfold, I would expect to see a number of additional environmentally-friendly campaigns roll-out; smart marketers know that many consumers have a heightened sense of environmental awareness right now, a reaction to the catastrophe and massive coverage given to the Deepwater Horizon incident.

According to a breaking news alert from the New York Times this morning, BP has issued a statement about the complex set of decisions and equipment failures—involving a wide variety of companies—that contributed to the disaster. (Click here to read that story… or click here to see the statement from BP.) To date, BP has largely been the focal point, if not the poster child, for this tragedy. It will be interesting to see whether their attempt to broaden the blame to other companies is another early sign that they’d like to draw a line in the sand, with regard to liability. (I wrote about the same idea back on September 3; click here to see the Elm Street blog posting “UPDATE: Oil industry incidents and implications.”)

More interesting still: The possibility that all of this could increase the sophistication of consumers... both in regard to their ecological savvy, and in terms of the way they decide to trust large companies and their marketing and PR departments. (Or not.)

Mike Anderson