Avoiding green marketing myopia: three principles for environmentally preferable products

Avoiding Green Marketing Myopia

In 1960, Harvard business professor Theodore Levitt introduced the concept of "marketing myopia" in a now-famous influential article in the Harvard Business Review. In it, he characterized the common pitfall of companies' tunnel vision, which focus on "managing products" (that is, product features, functions, and efficient production) instead of "meeting customers' needs" (that is, adapting to consumer expectations and anticipation of future desires) (Levitt, 1960) (Ottman, Stafford, & Hartmann, p.12, 2008).

A bullet summary of this article would be a quote of its subtitle: "Ways to Improve Consumer Appeal for Environmentally Preferable Products." Under that banner, the authors lay out three principles by which to avoid the dreaded green marketing myopia: consumer value positioning, calibration of consumer knowledge, and the credibility of product claims (Ottman, et al., p.20, 2008).

Consumer value positioning includes three ideas. The first is designing an environmental product that performs as well as, or outperforms, the alternative product (i.e. A green light bulb that lasts 5 years). Second is delivering consumer-desired value. Finally, they suggest a final piece which seems eerily reminiscent of the second one -- broadening mainstream customer appeal by bundling consumer-desired value into green products.

Calibration of consumer knowledge includes educating consumers with marketing messages that connect environmental attributes with desired consumer value (i.e. "energy efficiency saves money") (Ottman, et al., 2008). Calibration also includes creating engaging and educational internet sites about environmental products' consumer value.

Credibility of product claims includes three steps which basically say that green marketing efforts should include environmental product and consumer benefit claims that are specific, meaningful, unpretentious, and qualified. This also involves procuring trustworthy product endorsements and eco-certifications and educating the public about them (Ottman, et al., 2008).

Authors Opinion

In their 2008 article, Ottman, et al., have the opinion that many mistakes have been made marketing green products and helping the public to understand the benefits of them. They emphasize that effective green marketing will require applying good marketing principles to make green products desirable for consumers. They think that business experts have treated it as a "fringe" product because of consumer reluctance to accept "limits" on their own activities, and to adapt to conservation activities that do not mesh with business' usual "give the customer what they want" and "sell as much as you can" philosophy.

However, the authors feel strongly that green marketing is the wave of the future and that all marketing will eventually incorporate elements of "green." This will be forced, they say, by rising energy prices, growing pollution and resource consumption is Asia, and political pressures which are driving innovation toward healthier, more efficient products.

The Future of Green Marketing

Commerce will shift from the sale of goods to the sale of services -- providing illumination rather than selling light bulbs. The authors demonstrate this by referring to the Apple iPod.

The iPod gives the consumer the ability to download, play, and store tens of thousands of songs without the environmental impact of manufacturing and distributing millions of CDs, plastic jewel cases and packaging (Ottman, et al., 2008).

Innovations that transform material goods into efficient streams of services could multiply by magnitudes if consumers see them as desirable.

An example is made of the company Electrolux in Sweden. In 1999, to encourage water and energy efficiency they pioneered a "pay-per-wash" service where consumers were given (free) new, efficient washing machines for a small home installation fee and were then charged 10 kroner (about $1.25 U.S.) per wash. The machines were connected via the internet to a central database to monitor use and Electrolux maintained ownership and free servicing of the washers.

Pay per wash" failed. Why? Because it was not marketed per the guidelines presented in this article. Consumers were not convinced of its benefits over the traditional way of washing.

Why? Because Electrolux did not market pay-per-wash's conveniences such as virtually no up-front costs for a top-of-the-line washer, free servicing, or easy trade-ins for upgrades. They did not bundle pay-per-wash with other desirable products or services either (Ottman, et al., 2008).

Had they done those things, consumers may well have accepted the "green" service.