Author: Drew Neisser

I had a refreshing reminder of how little I really know this weekend. A New York Times article on Saturday went into depth about how much the writings of Ayn Rand had inspired Alan Greenspan. Evidently, Mr. Greenspan married into the Rand philosophy, his wife being a member of her inner circle called “the Collective.” Shortly thereafter, he became a full convert, embracing the primacy of profit over all other considerations. For some reason, I found this surprising since I counted myself among the admirers of Greenspan’s deft handling of the US economy for 18 years.

Here’s a quick excerpt from the Times article:

The book is “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand’s glorification of the right
of individuals to live entirely for their own interest. For years,
Rand’s message was attacked by intellectuals whom her circle labeled
“do-gooders,” who argued that individuals should also work in the
service of others. Her book was dismissed as an homage to greed.
Gore Vidal
described its philosophy as “nearly perfect in its immorality.”

All of this is coming out now since Greenspan’s memoir, “The Age of Turbulence,” is being being released today. In the book, Greenspan details his support of Rand’s philosophy:

Shortly after “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, Mr. Greenspan
wrote a letter to The New York Times to counter a critic’s comment
that “the book was written out of hate.” Mr. Greenspan wrote: “
‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is
unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and
rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently
avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should.” Rand’s
magazine, The Objectivist, later published several essays by Mr.
Greenspan, including one on the gold standard in 1966.

I’m really not smart enough to dissect Rand’s philosophy nor is this place to try. That said, more and more companies are an embracing a world of *enlightened* self-interest, where doing well aligns with doing good (or at least not doing so much bad!) A recent study as reported by Industry Week suggests that the notion of corporate responsibility is gaining traction as a means of improving profit:

Over the next few years, a majority of manufacturers (more than 75%)
believe that corporate responsibility initiatives can enhance
profitability, according to a survey by Grant Thornton LLP…

“Corporate responsibility programs have moved out of the realm of
public relations to become real tools for improving the bottom line.
Companies are realizing that strong investment in corporate
responsibility programs is both a civic obligation and successful
business strategy,” he [Jim Maurer, Grant Thornton partner] added.

Sorry, Ms. Rand. Atlas may have Shrugged but it looks like the “do-gooders” are putting up a good fight.

I don’t know a heck of a lot about car engineering so it has been easy for me to say “hey Detroit, can’t you just build a car that gets 100 miles per gallon and better yet, doesn’t pollute?” This plaintiff cry is powered by multiple clichés including “ignorance is bliss” and “if there’s a will there’s a way.” Well, dag nabbit, it looks like those dern Germans have figured out how to make a car, a luxury car for that matter, that runs on hydrogen and emits little more than water.

I learned about this BMW initiative from MediaPost:

BMW launched a TV spot
promoting its yet unavailable BMW Hydrogen car. The spot broke on
Saturday at the BMW Championship in Chicago. The car produces water
rather than carbon dioxide, and the spot morphs a stream of water
into a BMW. “A car that will leave its mark without leaving a mark,”
concludes the voiceover as the water-made car vanishes as quickly as
it appeared.

The commercial, by the way, is quite intriguing and got me to visit their website which outlined all of BMW’s eco-initiatives which they call “EfficientDynamics.” These include ValveTronics (more efficient engines), Advanced Diesel (cleaner engines) and Hydrogen. The BMW Hydrogen 7 is designed as a hybrid so it can also run on gasoline. Here’s the scoop from AutoBlogGreen:

The car is touted as the first hydrogen-drive luxury performance
automobile for everyday use. The BMW Hydrogen 7 will be built in a
limited series, and sold to select customers in the U.S. and
overseas in 2007… The ability to run on both gasoline and hydrogen
gives the Hydrogen 7 a range of more than 400 miles. The high tech
hydrogen storage tank has a capacity of approximately 17.6 lb of
liquid hydrogen, giving the Hydrogen 7 a cruising range in hydrogen
mode upwards of 125 miles. [Source: BMW, full press release. Also,
see more pictures of the Hydrogen 7 here]

Don’t let the fact that there are no hydrogen filling stations in the US today deter you from thinking that this is a pretty cool idea. Here’s what BMW says about that:

Determined to bring the power of hydrogen to the world, our
initiative goes far beyond the vehicle itself. We are already
collaborating with a wide range of dedicated partners, from global
fuel distributors and fuel technology companies to government
agencies and environmental groups. Today in Germany, there are five
liquid hydrogen refueling stations – and soon there will be two in
the US. Developed with Linde AG, they are virtually as easy to use
as normal gasoline pumps.

All I can say is good for BMW for taking the initiative with hydrogen. Nay sayers can probably come up will 100 good reasons why this particular solution to global warming will never work. And maybe it won’t but remember these famous predictions:

* “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” –Charles H.
Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
* “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” –H.M. Warner, Warner
Brothers, 1927.
* “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
–Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
* “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
–Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment
Corp., 1977

You get the idea.

The notion of Marketing for Good is not new. It is, however, a courageous approach that often draws skepticism from bankers and accountants. It is not for the feint of heart and it usually takes a genuine commitment from an iron-willed CEO who believes that doing well by doing good is not just the right way to do business but they only way they can do business. These types of champions are rare and yesterday they got even rarer with the passing of Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop.

Described as “the crusading entrepreneur” in her New York Times obituary, Ms. Roddick built the Body Shop into a global brand with absolutely no traditional advertising. Instead she focused her energies on developing unique products, an engaging in-store environment and an evangelistic commitment to making the world a better place. Anita was never hesitant to take an unpopular stand on an issue and to encourage others in the Body Shop community (employees, franchisees, customers) to do the same.

A woman of fierce passions, boundless energy, unconventional
idealism and sometimes diva-like temperament, Ms. Roddick was one of
Britain’s most visible business executives, and not just because of
the ubiquitous and instantly recognizable Body Shop franchises.
Working on behalf of numerous causes — the rain forest, debt relief
for developing countries, indigenous farmers in impoverished
nations, whales, voting rights, anti-sexism and anti-ageism, to name
a few — Ms. Roddick believed that businesses could be run ethically,
with what she called “moral leadership,” and still turn a profit.

Starting in 1976, Anita built the Body Shop into a global brand, taking it public in the 1990’s and eventually selling it to L’Oreal in 2006 for $1.1 billion.

“Anita did more than run a successful ethical business: she was a
pioneer of the whole concept of ethical and green consumerism,” Tony
Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, wrote in The Evening
Standard on Tuesday. “There are quite a few business people today
who claim green credentials, but none came anywhere near Anita in
terms of commitment and credibility.”

Anita was a brilliant marketer who *inspired* millions with her dedication. She completely understood the power of word of mouth and was not above partnering when it would help her cause. Back in the early 90’s, my wife worked with her on an American Express commercial that featured Anita as a card member, a business owner and supporter of indigenous farmers in poor countries. My wife was pregnant at the time and when she arrived in London to meet her, Anita “couldn’t have been nicer” and more accommodating. My wife immediately became another member of Anita’s “army,” a life long fan of both the person and the great company she so ably led. So did I. We will miss you Anita.

A fellow Renegade just sent me a link to Starbuck’s PlanetGreenGame. I gave it about five minutes of playing time managing after three attempts to successfully balance fuel and speed to complete a test drive, finding 10 out of 12 ways to fix a not so green house, and visiting a Starbucks which asked for my eco-priorities and suggested I bring my own cup the next time I visit a real Starbucks. I also earned two “global solution” credits (of a total of six available) and learned about green architecture solutions in Germany and the Energy and Climate Change Strategy instituted by South Africa. All in all, it was time well spent and if the US Open Finals wasn’t about to air, I suspect it would have received a little more of my attention. (Note: Watching Federer play supersedes any online game however virtuous.)
Not knowing much about the game, I did a little research on it. Turns out, this “advergame” has been out for several months and carefully reviewed in the bloggosphere. Here’s an interesting POV on it from the gamer’s perspective:

Starbucks and Global Green USA bring
us the eco-educational, “Planet Green Game,” a fact-filled, Flash-based,
multi-media experience that sometimes contains some interaction
resembling gameplay. The premise is that you are a citizen of
Evergreen, USA, and you must help make your home, transportation,
and town greener. In most cases, you do this by correctly answering
softball quiz questions, matching identical items, or clicking on
things.

Green focused blogs were quite a bit friendlier. One described it as “great game” that was “fun and educational.” Another went into far great detail despite ultimately acknowledging it as “just another marketing hook”:

One thing that intrigues me about Planet Green Game is its hybrid
status as an educational game and advergame. Social marketing is
always marketing, of course, but Global Green USA clearly hopes to
capitalize on a cross-promotion with a very well-known retail chain,
and likewise Starbucks can’t complain about appearing to care about
environmental issues (whether they actually do care is irrelevant).
The in-edugame product placement fascinates me too. The Starbucks
store is one example, but so is the Energy Star logo on the back of
the home building minigame memory cards.

Starbuck hopes that the greener they get, the more coffee they will sell. And so they should. Thus far traffic to PlanetGreenGame.com has been modest (Alexa ranks it at 645,826 with daily page views in the low thousands). Perhaps if more people take the time to play the Planet Green Game they will indeed be *enlightened* about the need for immediate action of both the big and little variety. Fortunately, this is but one of many genuine efforts by Starbuck’s to be a good corporate citizen, to do well by doing good. In combination, all these efforts makes me feel better about forking over four bucks and change for my Iced Grande Soy Chai Latte twice a week (whether I need it or not!).

Big things come often come in little packages, or so they say. This seems to be the case at retail these days as marketers rush to *enhance* their products by making more out of less. This has started a chain reaction that goes something like this:

* Environmentalists suggest that reducing package size can decrease
landfill waste and energy consumption;
* Wal-Mart announce its plan to reduce packaging by 5% and
challenges its vendors to come up with reductions;
* Unilever launches Small & Mighty All detergent which is 3x as
powerful as regular detergent;
* P&G follows suit by creating highly concentrated formulas for Tide
and its other brands;
* Target and other retailers jump on the band wagon realizing that
small packages will be easier to keep in stock, taking up less
room and allowing for more products on their shelves;
* Marketers figure out that they can actually make more money with
concentrated products since they are less expensive to produce and
to ship not to mention the PR value of being able to taut their
“greenness”;
* Consumers figure out that the concentrated product is easier to
bring home and takes up less space in their cupboards;
* Everybody wins.

Reuters wrote about this trend earlier in the week:

Growing demand from U.S. retailers and manufacturers for smaller,
eco-friendly packages is pushing box makers and chemical companies
to create compact packaging that is bio-based and recyclable. Most
initiatives, although still in their infancy, are being spurred by
increasing environmental awareness and looming legislation. But
companies exploring smaller and ‘greener’ packaging options are also
doing so with a keen eye on profits.

It is easy to see in this case that green is indeed good, helping consumers, retailers and manufacturers alike. The environmental benefit of producing smaller packages is modest now but ultimately could yield massive energy savings (manufacturing, shipping and stocking) and significant waste reduction. This chain reaction may not have been anticipated by Wal-Mart and undoubtedly was motivated by more than simply wanting to do good for the environment–AND this is fine by me.

What interests me now is the possibilities for chain reactions in other marketing arenas. Marketers who seize the day by truly going green may be surprised by the ripple effect across their entire supply chain. The impact may be far greater than they expected pleasing not only the press but also their shareholders and their customers. What do you say, Detroit? How about starting a chain reaction by declaring your call to reduce the weight of your cars by 20% in the next five years? Sounds good to me.

Car companies are really in a predicament. Shareholders expect them to sell more cars as profitably as possible. To do this, often means adding features which add weight which reduces their MPG which makes them even less environmentally friendly. Cars sold in the US have grown with our collective waistlines guzzling a lot more gas along the way. The 2007 Honda Accord is about 1/2 ton heavier than its 1990’s predecessor and gets about 1/3 the MPGs. Asking car makers do go on a diet will probably be as effective as asking the American public to do the same. So what is an environmental responsible yet sales- driven automaker to do?

VW’s answer is to offer carbon credits to its US customers. According to the blog DiscoverHybridCars:

Volkswagen of America has partnered with
Carbonfund.org

to offset one year of carbon emission from each new Volkswagen
vehicle sold in the US from 1 September 2007 through 2 January 2008.
Working with Carbonfund.org, a non-profit carbon offset company,
Volkswagen plans to reforest land in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial
Valley (LMAV) in Northern Louisiana, a wetland ecosystem that had
been largely converted to farmland. The total carbon reduction is
estimated at more than 372,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the
planting of over 250,000 native trees in the Volkswagen Forest.

This is indeed an interesting approach and one that should appeal to Vdubs youthful target. Importantly, VW is not stopping there:

In addition to this carbon offset program, Volkswagen has also
partnered with Carbonfund.org to offset carbon emissions at a
vehicle test drive program at the Teva Mountain Games and for an
upcoming “Clean Diesel Tour” promoting the upcoming Jetta Tier 2 Bin
5 diesel (earlier post) and
VW’s alternative fuel strategy.

Marketing for Good supports these baby steps by VW with a major caveat–automakers collectively need to think bigger about reducing emissions and increasing MPGs. Since Americans won’t settle for smaller cars (unless gas prices hit $5/gallon), automakers need to figure out how to make bigger ones far more fuel efficient. Don’t wait for an act of Congress. Get started now. Make ‘em lighter. Make ‘em more aerodynamic. Or better yet, how ’bout offering $1.0 billion dollars to the engineering team that figures out how to make a car run on air or water. It’s time to Think Big.