A Sustainable Train of Thought

I was just reading the Salon.com Books review of Hungry Planet: What the World Eats, and several pieces of the review stood out for me:

The dominant sentiment evoked by “Hungry Planet,” however, is not one of shame but one of anxiety. Out of the 30 family portraits emerges a larger picture of a global civilization rushing headlong toward an economy in which food is a thing produced remotely by machine labor and a handful of experts and then sold (or given away) by multinational organizations—an economy in which we identify a piece of food by its logo rather than by its biology. This is an economy already familiar to many of us in what is called the developed world, and it is growing grab by grab on the international market. (_My emphasis_)

Shades of branding again. What about considering a future that’s the inverse of what’s suggested here, where people are more concerned about where something comes from and whether it is GM or organic than if it has a certain company name on the packaging? Branding can still exist, of course, just as Italy is fighting to retain the “brand” of Parmigiano Reggiano, but the focus will be on more substantive qualities: location, process, ingredients. (Continued)

In my earlier posts about branding (1, 2), I mentioned how Toyota and Honda have an edge over their American competitors because the word “hybrid” is now associated with their cars and not their competitors’ cars. In contrast, the best the Americans can come up with is “SUV”, which in our current climate of rising gas prices and oil uncertainty is becoming as much a liability as it is a cash cow. (Continued)

Triple Pundit takes a different tack to branding, focusing instead on its usefulness in situations such as natural disasters:

Strong branding efforts on the part of disaster relief organizations may be important for differentiation from other organizations. Many people don’t know the difference from one to the next and are mostly familiar with the American Red Cross. Creating brand equity may be helpful because it may enable the public to take the messages more seriously that they are receiving in regards to a particular disaster if the organization is seen as having a strong presence.

In short, it appears they’re proposing that messages from the Red Cross can be seen as holding more weight than some relatively unknown organization because of the brand equity the Red Cross has developed over time. My question is who the branding serves best: people in Third-World countries, or people in the First World?

It would seem that branding requires a relatively strong media presence, something which is most likely absent in the Third World (let’s forget about the likes of Coke and Disney for the moment), at least in the sense that the Red Cross is not advertising there on a regular basis. In a disaster situation, the person holding the water you need is the sole focus of your attention. Perhaps if people in the western world see the Red Cross on the scene they can feel a sense of comfort knowing “the experts” have arrived to take charge.

In situations like the recent hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the Federal or State Government would seem to have the most pull in the situation (speaking from an outsider position). I’d be interested to know whether the National Guard or the Red Cross was seen in that situation as having more pull.

Natural disasters can even be branded by the media and relief organizations. The Pakistani earthquake can be branded as an event where the world turned their backs on Pakistan in a time of dire need. Some more background on the country may be helpful. Many Americans could not find Pakistan on a map and therefore don’t share a sense of kinship with the people. As cultures become more global in nature, natural disasters can be branded as a way for the world to join together and aid their fellows.

Branding natural disasters is an interesting idea, actually. My question is how effective such a strategy would be in the long term. How many earthquakes can we brand until people stop caring? Does the brand value of a past natural disaster weaken if a newer, stronger disaster strikes? Do we care less about the 6.7 earthquake if an 8.0 strikes? In both cases the situation is about the same: it’s pretty crap.

It seems to me that in some cases the efforts might be misguided, directed at the results and symptoms of much larger problems. While certainly the assistance offered at the moment is important, particularly in the case of earthquakes, isn’t it also true that an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? That is to say, in the case of Katrina, wouldn’t money have been better spent on such things as improving the infrastructure and conserving wetlands as had been originally requested?

In short, wouldn’t branding the solution, rather than the relief effort, be a much better long-term choice?

In a recent advisement session, my thesis advisor Neil Churcher was going on about the recent efforts by BP to brand the concept of a carbon footprint as part of their alternative energy initiative. I’ve personally seen mention of the word “carbon footprint” on the web and in print, with a print ad employing a big foot made out of text which talks about carbon footprints. BP offers on its website information about carbon footprints in addition to a carbon footprint calculator.

Neil’s point is that now no other oil company can come along and talk about carbon footprints. This is interesting and disturbing, as it is almost a hijacking of a language, that language being the language of sustainability. What if a company comes along and brands the concept of green roofs? Would such a move help or hinder the green roof movement?

Naturally, BP does not own the concept of carbon footprints. But what they have effectively done is staked out some territory that no other oil company can now lay claim to (or any other company, for that matter). I see this as part first-mover advantage (all other oil companies will be seen as following in BP’s footsteps when they talk about carbon footprints) and part smart branding strategy (following BP’s evolution from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum—now whenever you hear carbon footprint, you think BP, even if it’s outside the context of BP).

What concerns me is the annexation of terminology needed to describe change: what exactly does it mean if the language is no longer associated with the changes we need to make but rather with the corporations enacting those changes? Should we be glad that corporations are enacting changes, period? Or should we worry about their methods, means, and motivations?

I for one am a little worried.

Worldchanging has a brief piece about mainstreaming the carbon footprint.

Grist also talks about the BP carbon footprint phenomenon.

I suppose, in a roundabout way, this is what Honda and Toyota have done with hybrid cars. Now whenever someone thinks of “hybrid,” they think of those two companies, not of American car manufacturers. BP is just taking a very intentional step into this arena and consciously linking the concept with the brand with some very specific marketing. It also helps to have a product, and while Honda and Toyota have an edge here (the cars exist and work and are visible to everyone who drives down the freeway, whereas BP can’t really show what it produces), of the existing oil companies out there, it would seem BP is one of the leading candidates to enact such a change in thinking and perception.