Only four years after Sen. Inhofe (R-Okla) attempted to label Global Warming as a hoax the business world seems to have embraced environmental sustainability so thoroughly that 'green' has become the new 'black' in marketing.
Intel, AMD, VMware, Microsoft and many others have developed green facets to their advertising. The motor manufacturers have become so enthusiastic in boasting environmental claims that their advertising is now being labeled as potentially misleading. While it could be assumed that the marketing gurus are more in touch with the public mood than the politicians, it wouldn't do to forget that many of the products being advertised in this manner were under development well before Sen. Inhofe's amazing gaff. That being the case, it may also be assumed that the features so enthusiastically touted as green aspects were designed with completely different motives in mind.
Certainly, in computer manufacture, the new quad processors from Intel and AMD do require less energy for the same level of performance than earlier offerings, but a cynic would say that the motive behind the development was increased productivity rather than reduced electricity consumption.
The same thing could be said about American bio-fuel development and production. Research into fuel produced from algae by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) started in 1978, well before environmental sustainability was on the general public radar. The motivation back then was national motor fuel independence, only now is it seen as having a broader import for the world.
So, is it wrong to for business to claim environmental benefits for products in this way?
If a product uses less energy, produces less heat or has significantly reduced emissions than its predecessor, it does have less of an environmental impact. Therefore, it would seem perfectly valid to use that benefit in promotion, especially if the feature also gives an edge in a competitive market.
The general mood is changing and that change is moving very rapidly. It is now socially acceptable throughout the western world to drive a smaller car, walk or cycle when possible, re-cycle waste and generally show an environmentally concerned attitude to life.
Did that come about because certain enlightened politicians led public thinking in that direction? Did it come about as a result of the enthusiastically waving of placards by concerned environmentalists?
Or, did corporate advertising and marketing have something to do with the sway of public opinion?
http://cawatkins.blogspot.com/
http://www.ffox.biz
© Copyright 2007
Intel, AMD, VMware, Microsoft and many others have developed green facets to their advertising. The motor manufacturers have become so enthusiastic in boasting environmental claims that their advertising is now being labeled as potentially misleading. While it could be assumed that the marketing gurus are more in touch with the public mood than the politicians, it wouldn't do to forget that many of the products being advertised in this manner were under development well before Sen. Inhofe's amazing gaff. That being the case, it may also be assumed that the features so enthusiastically touted as green aspects were designed with completely different motives in mind.
Certainly, in computer manufacture, the new quad processors from Intel and AMD do require less energy for the same level of performance than earlier offerings, but a cynic would say that the motive behind the development was increased productivity rather than reduced electricity consumption.
The same thing could be said about American bio-fuel development and production. Research into fuel produced from algae by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) started in 1978, well before environmental sustainability was on the general public radar. The motivation back then was national motor fuel independence, only now is it seen as having a broader import for the world.
So, is it wrong to for business to claim environmental benefits for products in this way?
If a product uses less energy, produces less heat or has significantly reduced emissions than its predecessor, it does have less of an environmental impact. Therefore, it would seem perfectly valid to use that benefit in promotion, especially if the feature also gives an edge in a competitive market.
The general mood is changing and that change is moving very rapidly. It is now socially acceptable throughout the western world to drive a smaller car, walk or cycle when possible, re-cycle waste and generally show an environmentally concerned attitude to life.
Did that come about because certain enlightened politicians led public thinking in that direction? Did it come about as a result of the enthusiastically waving of placards by concerned environmentalists?
Or, did corporate advertising and marketing have something to do with the sway of public opinion?
http://cawatkins.blogspot.com/
http://www.ffox.biz
© Copyright 2007
Comments