Green Branding: Why Originality Matters

Wow, what a post. Great insight and so relevant to many industries, but of course especially the 'green movement'. Actually, I can't even stand the word or color 'green' (gulp, or 'tree-hugger') in relation to these important issues, as it somehow compartmentalizes them into the 'hippy' category which just won't be taken seriously by the mainstream. Without the mainstream you just won't get the kind of change that is aspired by the visionary writers and social entrepreneurs.

Your article is very timely, and I hope helps others to ensure that they don't simply add noise to the cause but cut through to the punters.

Again, thank you.

Hoorah! Finally, someone has addressed (although not directly) the over-use of the Papyrus font in environmental designs.

One can understand the logic that might be behind using this font: "Well now let's see: I need something rugged looking, something with a texture, and something that's free because it's already on my computer...I've got it! Papyrus."

I would urge anyone to rethink their reasons for using this font. In support of Mr. Stifelman, it is a cliche. Next time you're out west, or even in your local grocery store, look around you — how many times can you spot Papyrus? Guaranteed it's more times than you can count on both hands. Try something fresh, something crisp in your designs. You might just find it works better for your brand.

Jerry, nice post. I'm glad you touched on Papyrus and the other cliche's that accompany 80% of all eco, organic, fair-trade, whatever companies...they are such terrible choices when trying to reach a mainstream market with an aesthetic that will instantly turn a lot of people off, myself included.

However, I strongly disagree with your conclusion on Nau. If you read any of the comments on their blog (about their closing) or ever spoke with a customer of theirs, you would learn that there was very much "under the hood" and they were exactly the type of people Nau were looking for—fashion conscious urbanites who appreciate the planet and love to play in it. Their store front and clothing wasn't just "slick" it was well designed and provided well-considered function. Maybe it was too niche, maybe they expanded too quickly, maybe their price-point was too high—these are all valid critiques of their business. But to say their brand was empty, with no single perspective or core characteristics is just plain wrong.

One should develop a brand around the customer. Developing your own little brand heaven that YOU would love does little. If you want market share, spin your message to benefit the customer, not the planet, while doing both simultaneously. People are more likely to spend money on themselves than a huge ball of dirt.

Unfortunately, the reference to Nau is uninformed and simply wrong.

Nau did not fail because of any failure to be original or to poorly articulate their brand.

Nau had done a fabulous job of creating a unique clothing mix at the nexus of high style, technical sport and street wear. Of course, the product did not sport huge logos saying, "Look at what I'm wearing." But the product, once initiated to its attributes, was amazing. Multi-use. Technically detailed. Sustainably made. You could ride your bike to work and then go out to dinner in the same outfit. In an industry driven by fads and copycats, this was something unique and different.

The problem they encountered is shared by many first-to-market pioneers: creating a market fast enough.

And it wasn't that their core market wasn't engaged, In the short 13 months they were around, they had developed a fierce and loyal following - the envy of any new brand. Ask yourself how fiercely loyal a Gap customer is. The answer is not very. Read Nau's customer entries on their blog, and you'll get an idea of how engaged they were.

No, the issue had to do with the scale of their ambition. Trying to do too much too quickly. The decision to open their own stores and forego the watering down process of selling though mass-market retailers slowed the pace of customer outreach. And as they were dependent on VC money, the clock ran out - exacerbated by the tanking of the credit market.

Like many a pioneer, they ended up face down in the mud with an arrow in the back.

Nau also understood that the green market is simply a psychographic description of a broad and diverse consumer group. They also understood that 'green' is not necessarily the primary driver of preference for most eco-conscious purchasing decisions. There needs to be something else. Something extra.

Marty McDonald at egg, a Seattle-based brand consultant, also believes that green is icing on the cake. The drivers of choice are found elsewhere.

In Nau's case, that 'something else' was the qualities of the product and the integrity of the team behind their creation.

Thanks for your comment.

It sounds like I should re-examine my thinking about Nau. From what you're saying, it sounds like I'm not seeing the big picture.

This is easily one of the most insightful posts I've ever read here on treehugger. I am a physics student, and it was science that led me to realize how important it is to be green. But as I dig deeper and deeper into the history and the state-of-the-art in most of the world's industries, I am realizing that most of our environmental problems we have, including global warming, are not scientific. The scientific challenges are mostly long-since solved, recently solved, or easily solved if we set our minds to it. What hinders us, mostly, is marketing and branding. Perception rather than substance.
I will venture that the vast majority of what we call politics is just branding anyway, in which case my claim is even more valid because politicians almost never make a scientific understanding of an issue an important part of their decisions.

A really sillly nitpick: last paragraph: "Because business is hard and its competitive..." Please change "its" to "it's" - "it is."

It's just bothering me. :)

Great post!

Well, it seems we can save the planet, and without it costing the earth:)

I tend to agree with much here, and picking up on the design/copy aspects if I see one more car ad, mainly tinged green, with a flower poking out of an exhaust pipe, I think I'll choke on my Fairtrade tap water.

However, my only caution is to ensure that in seeking to be 'creative' and 'different' one does not end up serving the cause of a good [insert acceptable environmentally beneficial product/service/call to action word phrase here] communication less well, especially as it gets presented to an audience who may not obsess quite so much about the innermost emotional resonances of Bodoni Extra Clio Capturing and some obscure art shot nicked from last year's design annual.

I have found on occasion that the odd cliche still seems to work with the majority That's how they end up as cliches), so in seeking to be new and trendy let not all that might still work well go to waste.

I actually think the leaf on Flock's Eco-minded browser panel (which I get at preview) still kinda works, and maybe my default tends to 'see' more earth-friendliness in the colour scheme than if it were lurid pink.

It's still just branding - a component of the thinking that got us into this mess; the push of marketing against the credulous vacuum of consumption - the idea that manufacturers just make what buyers want when consumers decide what they want based on the ability of marketers to help uninformed and unsophisticated consumers to form (or simply adopt) a self-image that is a match for their brand. We simply need a whole lot less stuff than we're used to. The illusion of limitless prosperity created during the anomalous and unsustainable post-WWII economy has slipped away, as illusions do, and we need to adopt new currencies to measure our happiness. We're already not happy, despite the cheap availability of shiny baubles; simply buying more stuff that is packaged to conform to our evolving, but hardly more informed, self-image, won't make us happier. There's going to be lots of individual pain when many companies go out of business, but they were only in business thanks to subsidized cheap energy and our pathological desire for unnecessary cargo; better marketing, even the savviest "branding" is not going to make a single manufacturer sustainable either environmentally or economically.

Oh yeah, Nau was simply ahead of their time and a very unfortunate casualty of the old, just-obsolete, thinking. They made beautiful clothes so that a few pieces would perform the tasks that we used to think required elaborate quivers of narrowly-differentiated pieces and they were bold enough to define their own aesthetic and style that would not plug well into the old model where seasonal obsolescence passed for "consumer choice". They did everything right, from a product standpoint (and that's what manufacturers do) unfortunately their market (us) was not as sophisticated and did not adequately appreciate Nau's groundbreaking, and genuine, philosophy and products.

Agree with the earlier criticisms of the Nau commentary. There was indeed much "under the hood." Very slick designs, incredibly high quality products, and a creative, innovative approach to sustainable sales processes.

It's tough to compare them to Loomstate, who sell a much smaller line of products (really niche trendy items) and charge even more exorbitant prices than Nau. I shopped at Nau, because they made real clothes (with embedded costs of doing stuff right) that serve my lifestyle (urban, conscienscious, active), and I can't afford to buy Loomstate, because it's more expensive and you're paying for the trendiness of the stuff on top of the sustainable attributes.

Very interesting post, otherwise!
Ben

Well, it seems we can save the planet, and without it costing the earth:)

I tend to agree with much here, and picking up on the design/copy aspects if I see one more car ad, mainly tinged green, with a flower poking out of an exhaust pipe, I think I'll choke on my Fairtrade tap water.

However, my only caution is to ensure that in seeking to be 'creative' and 'different' one does not end up serving the cause of a good [insert acceptable environmentally beneficial product/service/call to action word phrase here] communication less well, especially as it gets presented to an audience who may not obsess quite so much about the innermost emotional resonances of Bodoni Extra Clio Capturing and some obscure art shot nicked from last year's design annual.

I have found on occasion that the odd cliche still seems to work with the majority That's how they end up as cliches), so in seeking to be new and trendy let not all that might still work well go to waste.

I actually think the leaf on Flock's Eco-minded browser panel (which I get at preview) still kinda works, and maybe my default tends to 'see' more earth-friendliness in the colour scheme than if it were lurid pink.

And hopefully one day, sustainability will be so fully integrated into our lives and every single business and system, that it won't differentiate ANYone!

And I agree, this is one of the most insightful articles I've read in a long time- excellent points. Can you add to the article? I'd love to read more!

I agree with everyone's comment above regarding Nau. Especially Rick Seireeni.

I LOVED their concept and clothes. In fact, everything I purchased fits perfectly, and works for a variety of activities. It looks great, fits great, feels great, and the quality is great. What's not to like??

It was a sad event in my life when we lost Nau. It was actually the first time I ever shed a tear over a company...

You are very spot on. Green branding, or any branding, requires originality, authenticity, and guts.

My prediction is that green and "normal" branding will become inseparable in the very near future. Companies will not have a choice but to adopt sustainable practices. Those who don't will suffer the consequences.