from http://www.greenmarketing.com/Green_Marketing_Book/Chapter02.html
GREEN MARKETING:
Chapter 2: Consumers with a Conscience
Jacquelyn A. Ottman
The notion of a "typical green
consumer" continues to be elusive. Unlike discreet target groups such
as Hispanic women or college-aged men, green consumers are hard to
define demographically. Greenness extends throughout the population to varying
degrees, and because green concerns are extremely diverse, encompassing a wide
range of issues from global climate change and gritty smokestacks, to graffiti
or lawnmower noise on Saturday mornings.
However, research into recent buyers
of green products and empirical evidence suggests those consumers most
receptive to environmentally oriented marketing appeals are educated women,
30-44, with $30,000-plus household incomes (see
Exhibit 2.1). They are motivated by a desire to keep their loved ones free
from harm and to make sure their children’s future is secure. Influential in
their community, they rally support for local environmental clubs and social
causes. Their buying power and their potential to influence their peers makes
them a highly desirable marketing target.
That women are in the forefront of
green purchasing cannot be underestimated. They do most of the shopping and
although it sounds sexist, they may naturally exhibit a maternal consideration
for the health and welfare of the next generation. Poll after poll shows that
women place a higher importance on environmental and social purchasing criteria
than men. This may reflect differences in feelings of vulnerability and control
between the sexes, leading men to feel relatively less threatened by environmental
ills. However, not all green consumers are as "deep green" or as
active as the women discussed here–there is a host of more passive green
consumers as well.
In conventional marketing, demographics are often a key
determinant of intent to buy specific products. But in green marketing, what
seems to determine willingness to purchase environmentally conscious products -
more than demographics or even levels of concern for a specific environmental
issue - are consumers' feelings of being able to act on these issues, or empowerment.1
After all, consumers may be concerned about a specific issue
like fumes emanating from the local power plant or protecting a local wildlife
sanctuary and have the time or money to act - but if they do not believe they
can make a difference, they will likely not act.?
Research has corroborated that the most accurate predictor
of individuals willing to pay a premium for renewable energy was not education
or income, but membership in - or prior contributions to -environmental groups.
Supporters of such utility "green pricing" programs are
"surprisingly diverse, including both urban professionals and rural
families."2
Levels of concern and feelings of empowerment, not
surprisingly, vary among the population. A segmentation of consumers isolated
by Roper ranges from a 15 percent core of educated, upscale individuals who say
they are willing to pay a premium or forego certain conveniences to ensure a
cleaner environment, to 37 percent of the public who are doggedly
non-environmentalist, characterized more by indifference than by
anti-environmentalist leanings. The in-betweeners are
more or less pro-environmental–they label themselves
"environmentalists" when pollsters ask, but for various reasons are
not fully acting on their concerns (see
Exhibit 2.2).
Roper has tracked these segments of consumers since 1990. As
of 1996, the five segments, which have exhibited only modest movement overall
since first identified, break out as in the following table.
True
Blues. This 10 percent of the population hold strong environmental beliefs and
live them. The most ardent of environmentalists, they believe they can
personally make a difference in curing environmental ills. Politically and
socially active, they dedicate time and energy to environmentally safe
practices themselves and they attempt to influence others to do the same. True
Blues are six times more apt to contribute money to environmental groups and
over four times more likely to shun products made by companies that are not
environmentally responsible. Among the most educated of the five groups, these
people are likely to be white females living in the
Greenbacks. Greenbacks, representing just 5 percent of the
Like the True-Blues, they are more likely than the average
American to purchase any number of green products such as environmentally
preferable cleaning products, and products and packages that are made from
recycled material or that can be refilled. Moreover, at 22 percent, they are
twice as likely as the average American to avoid buying products from companies
they perceive as environmentally irresponsible. Greenbacks are likely to be
married white males living in the
Sprouts. One-third of the US population is classified as Sprouts. They are
willing to engage in environmental activities from time to time but only when
it requires little effort. Thus, recycling, which is curbside
in many communities, is their main green activity. They read labels for
greenness - although less often than the True-Blues and Greenbacks neighbors. Their greenness ends at the supermarket
check-out: even though Sprouts and Greenbacks have similar median incomes,
Sprouts generally won’t choose a green product if it is more expensive than
others on the shelf. When they do, they are only willing to pay up to 4 percent
extra. More than half (56 percent) are female and at 43, they have the highest
median age of any of the five groups. Sprouts are distributed evenly across the
country. They are well educated, and just under two-thirds of them are married.
They comprise the swing group that can go either way on any environmental
issue. With more education, they are often the source for new Greenbacks and
True-Blues.
Grousers. Fifteen percent of the
Basic
Browns. Representing 37 percent of the population, Basic Browns are not tuned
in or turned onto the environment. They are simply not convinced that
environmental problems are all that serious. Basic Browns do not 
make excuses for their inactivity; they just don’t care. The
indifference of this group makes them less than half as likely as the average
American to recycle and only 1 percent boycott products for environmental
reasons as opposed to the 11 percent national average. Three percent buy
recycled goods compared to 18 percent nationally. The largest of the five
groups, Basic Browns have the lowest median income, the lowest level of education,
and live disproportionately in the South. For the Basic Browns, there are just
too many other things to worry about.
As noted in Exhibit
2.3, environmental behavior varies significantly
across these segments, suggesting that not all categories of products or
individual brands are affected equally by consumers’ environmental concerns. A
close look at the behavior of the most active
segment, the True Blues, demonstrates the relative depth of their commitment.
Given their societal influence, this suggests the types of behavior
that can be expected from a much bigger group of consumers in the future. More
than half of the True Blues return glass bottles, look for green messages on
packages, recycle newspapers, and do the laundry with "biodegradable"
detergents. As social and style leaders, their forceful presence can be
expected to exert increasing pressure particularly on the Greenback Greens and
the Sprouts–underscoring the opportunities of marketers who can win over these
influential True-Blues.
Three
Deep Green Sub-Segments. Not all deep green activists are
alike. It is possible to further segment them into three groups mirroring the
major types of environmental issues and causes: Planet Passionates,
Health Fanatics, and Animal Lovers (see
Exhibit 2.4).
With the goals of protecting wildlife and keeping the
environment pristine for recreational purposes, Planet Passionates
focus on issues relating to land, air, and water. They recycle bottles and
cans, avoid overpackaged products, clean up bays and
rivers, and boycott tropical hardwood.
As implied by their name, Health Fanatics focus on the
health consequences of environmental problems. They worry about getting cancer
from too much exposure to the sun, genetic defects from radiation and toxic
waste, and the long term impacts on their children’s health of pesticides on
fruit. Health fanatics frequent natural food stores, buy bottled water, and eat
organic foods.
Animal Lovers, the third major group of deep greens, protect
animal rights. They boycott tuna and fur, and their favorite
causes include manatees and spotted owls. Animal Lovers check to see if
products are "cruelty-free." They are likely to be vegetarians.
Green Consumer Psychology and Buying Strategies
Although they express their environmental concerns in
individual ways, green consumers are motivated by universal needs (see
Exhibit 2.5). These needs translate into new purchasing strategies with
implications for the way products are developed and marketed.
Green consumers put familiar products under a magnifying
glass of environmental scrutiny, and their buzzwords
signifying environmental compatibility abound. Starting in
the late 1980's, such terms as "recyclable,"
"biodegradable," and "environmentally friendly" made cash
registers ring throughout upper-middle-class neighborhoods
from coast to coast. As we approach the millennium,
"sustainable," "compostable," and
"bio-based" are being added to the list.
As shown in Exhibit
2.6, the broad scope of these buzzwords suggest that green consumers
scrutinize products at every phase of their life cycle, from raw material
procurement, manufacturing, and production, straight through to product re-use,
repair, recycling, or eventual disposal. While in-use attributes continue to be
of primary importance, environmental shopping agendas now increasingly
encompass factors consumers can’t feel or see. They want to know how raw
materials are procured and where they come from, how food is grown, and what
their potential impact is on the environment once they land in the trash bin.
As a second control strategy, green consumers patronize
manufacturers and retailers they trust and boycott the wares of suspected polluters.
In the absence of complete knowledge about a product's environmental
characteristics, purchasing from upright manufacturers and retailers provides
an added layer of assurance that products are safe.?
At 11 percent, a near record number of consumers boycott
brands of companies with poor environmental track records (see
Exhibit 2.3). Apple growers well remember the boycott waged in 1989 by
mothers who feared the long-term effects of the Alar
pesticide on their children’s health. In 1995, to protest French nuclear
tests in the Pacific, wine drinkers targeted the 25 million - 30 million bottle
harvest of
As a final control strategy, a small but growing number of
consumers now search for simpler times. In 1991, researchers for the Yankelovich Monitor reported on a long-term
trend that showed new products, the lifeblood of marketers, were losing appeal.
They attributed this to two factors - a growing dislike for shopping in general
and the perception that "new" is risky.4 For proof,
consider what's happening to women's shopping habits.
The New York Times reports that women’s apparel sales
are on a long-term slide (from a record $84 billion set in 1989 to $73 billion
in 1995), despite a thirty seven percent gain in overall personal spending
during the same period. Apparently, women are deciding there are better ways to
spend their money than shopping. Picking up the slack are "other passions,
from one’s children to investing, to a variety of goods and services being
marketed as salves for a stressful life: backpacking trips and gardening tools,
vanilla-scented candles, spiritual retreats and manicures."5
Women are not the only ones tired of the "live-to-work,
work-to-consume" rat race. A nationwide survey conducted for the Merck
Family Fund shows that most Americans are concerned about materialistic values
and the impact of indulgent consumption on our environment. According to the
poll, 82 percent of Americans agree that "Most of us buy and consume far
more than we need." Suggesting that consumers intuitively understand that
today’s lifestyles are unsustainable, 58 percent say it would make a "big
difference" in helping the environment "if we taught our children to
be less materialistic."6 Attempting to reconcile values
centered on family, responsibility and community, more than a quarter said that
"in the past five years, they had voluntarily made changes in their life
which resulted in making less money in order to have a more balanced
life." When asked what would make them happier, two-thirds said they
wanted to spend more time with family and friends.
The mass consumer is still ambivalent about how to reconcile
his/her values with present consumption modes. However, a small but growing
number of consumers address their needs to protect the environment, enhance
spirituality, reduce stress, and build long term financial security with
strategies such as avoiding unnecessary purchases; buying high quality, durable
products; and using products that do several jobs. Representing a growing
movement called Voluntary Simplicity, these lean consumers account for an
estimated 4 percent of the Baby Boomers, and are projected to represent 15
percent by the year 2000 as the current simplifiers are joined by youngsters
now in their early teens.7
Not to be confused with the back-to-basics crowd of the
early 1970s, this small but growing contingent of upscale, educated adults do
not reject consumption out of hand; some have secondhand
BMWs in the driveway and designer clothes among their pared down and largely
monochromatic (black/white/gray) wardrobes. They
happily trade in high-powered jobs and the hefty incomes they provide to spend
additional time with loved ones, appreciate nature, and pursue creative
activities. Expect their ways to depress sales of new homes, convenience foods,
and second cars, while at the same time accelerating momentum in natural foods,
easy-to-care-for clothes with classic styles, travel and other leisure
pursuits.
CASE STUDY:
Profile of a Simplifier
Kathy Bryant was living the American Dream. As an editor,
writer, and photographer for Duke Power in
In 1988 when her father died, Kathy realized she was too far
from her home and family in
She called her uncle, a career utility executive, for
advice. He urged her to "get off the phone and tell your boss you are
quitting." She did.?
A week before moving home she received an offer for
freelance work. With her mother’s support, Kathy restructured her life and
work. As a freelancer, she controls when and for whom she works. She loves the
variety of jobs she has done–including photographing Al Gore and Queen
Elizabeth–opportunities she never would have had otherwise. And her mother
benefits too. Kathy provides companionship, helps care for the house, and
encourages her mother to be active. Her mother is no longer lonely but thrives
on the activity.?
"I am really happy since I moved home. I cherish the
time with my mother, the time in my garden. I can garden all day if I
want," says Kathy. Managing her time required some discipline, she notes,
as did learning to tailor her spending needs to her new income.?
Kathy thinks not in terms of money and career, but in terms
of life and happiness. She has learned to live with less by eliminating small
items like magazine subscriptions. When considering a purchase, she thinks
about the articles she needs to write to pay for it. Being more deliberate
about her purchases makes her spending "more real".?
"Too much of our ‘throw away society’ is based on
creating and consuming," says Kathy. "Leading an alternative
lifestyle demonstrates that you can consume less and have a very good
life."?
Kathy defines herself not in terms
of career choices, but life choices. She values the
opportunity to create her own life. She looks for fun ways to make money, and
volunteers with local organizations.?
The quality of Kathy’s life has increased dramatically, as
has the quality of her work. "This is," admits Kathy, "the
golden period of my life." She has found the vital ingredients previously
absent–self-respect, self-definition and satisfaction. That is Kathy Bryant’s
equation for fulfillment.8
*************
A final control strategy relates to health, and it is best
depicted in the revolution that is now underway called "clean food."
Described as "a new standard for health and reliability," clean foods
are "free of artificial preservatives, coloring, irradiation, synthetic
pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, ripening
agents, fumigants, drug residues and growth hormones," and exclude those
that are "processed, packaged, transported and stored to retain maximum
nutritional value."
Motivated in part by lack of trust in government's ability
to keep food pure, the appeal of clean foods has fueled
escalating sales for organic produce, bottled water, health-food supermarkets,
alternative medical treatments, and dietary supplements.9
Clean food and organic food provide irresistible aesthetic
and spiritual benefits as well. According to Alice Waters, one of the first
chefs to stress the importance of locally grown, organic food for its taste and
environmental preferability, "It’s also a
connection with the kind of food that is alive, fresh, seasonal
and a connection with the people who are growing it. A deep and lasting sensual
connection is made, and once you eat food like that, you can’t turn back."10
Keep an eye on this trend. Now representing a small (3
percent) portion of the population of those most concerned about food and its
relation to health, by one analyst’s estimate, it could engage up 30 percent of
the population in the next 20 years by one analyst's estimate.11
Reflecting a deeply felt need of Baby Boomers to assume
responsibility for their actions, green consumers want to feel that they can,
at least in some small way, make a difference. It is no coincidence that they
respond to such empowering promises as those represented by the best seller, 50
Simple Things You Can Do To Save the Earth. This need stems as much from a
desire for control, as it does from the corresponding need to alleviate guilt.
Consumers feel especially guilty about environmental ills
they can do something about but do not. They readily acknowledge the role their
own consumption in despoiling the environment (see
Exhibit 2.7), and while they feel they have improved slightly since the early
1990s, they rate themselves just a little better than large businesses when
asked "Who's Dragging Their Feet on Environmental Protection?" (see Exhibit 2.8). They see themselves as being able to
do little to fix serious problems like global climate change or ozone layer
depletion. However, they do feel a responsibility to cut down on excess
packaging, and take steps like recycling and conserving water.
Everyday behavior such as
disposing of what is perceived as excessive packaging or keeping the water
running while shaving, can serve as daily reminders of personal environmental
transgressions. Use of products that are, rightfully or wrongfully, associated
with environmental blight–disposable diapers, plastic foam cups, and aerosol
spray cans–reinforces their guilt.
Consumers' desire to alleviate guilt manifests itself in
indirect ways. New mothers may continue to use Pampers knowing they will wind
up in a landfill. However, to compensate, they may go out of their way to
recycle the family’s bottles, cans and newspapers to help offset the space in
the landfill taken up by the diaper. This compensatory behavior
suggests that each consumer has a unique repertoire of activities and
trade-offs he or she is willing to make to help out the planet. One’s
environmental repertoire likely reflects such factors as age, lifestyle,
income, and particular environmental interests and concerns, as well as
geographic location, including access to recycling and other after-use or
disposal options. Consumers’ feelings of guilt and eco-inadequacy have not been
assuaged since the early 1990s; a lengthening list of environmentally driven
activities and purchasing continues to fill the gaps.
Green consumers are by definition, very sincere in their
intentions. As much as they are willing to do today, as their knowledge and
commitment grows, they become more aware of what else they can do. The gap
between what they feel they should be doing and what they are now doing makes
them feel guilty and sometimes defensive. Purchasing green products and taking
measures around the house give environmentally concerned consumers a psychic
lift by helping them align beliefs with actions. For instance, anecdotal evidence
suggests that consumers feel positively reinforced by recycling (typically one
of their first steps down the path to green). Once engaged, they start asking,
"What else can I do?" The significantly high levels of recycling that
now occur may provide one explanation for the current rebound in green-product
purchasing.
Consumers heading off to supermarkets and health food stores
in search of greener goods need to know how to tell the "green"
products from the "brown" ones, which stores or catalogs
to find them in, and how to spot the products and packages that can be recycled
in their community. Their task is tricky.
Such environmentally preferable products as mercury-free
alkaline batteries or paper towels made from recycled content are oftentimes
indistinguishable from "brown" ones. Some green products with as yet
limited appeal like low-flow showerheads and citrus-based cleaning products are
often tucked away in health food shops and direct mail catalogs
beyond the reach of mainstream shoppers. Such alternative cleaning products as
baking soda and white vinegar are easily found in supermarkets but are not
necessarily labeled as "green".
Products representing new and unfamiliar technologies are
constantly being launched onto supermarket shelves. Consumers' understanding of
environmental issues is growing but continues to be low – only 8 percent of
consumers claim to know a lot about environmental issues.12 So even
the most environmentally enthused consumers need to be educated on why some
types of products represent less environmental harm than others. Providing such
information and education still represents the biggest opportunity to expand
the market to mainstream consumers.
Information aimed at filling in consumers’ knowledge gaps is
now in plentiful supply. Sources include manufacturers; packaging; advertising;
consumer media, including several green shopping sites on the World Wide Web;
and the specialty environmental press composed of consumer-oriented magazines,
including E, Mother Jones, and Utne
Reader, as well as such advocacy group publications as Sierra,
Audubon, Worldwatch, and Amicus
Journal. Although much of the information is more consistent and less
confusing than its late 1980s counterparts, a profusion of labels, claims,
eco-seals and images on products and packaging, as well as inconsistent media
stories, often confuses and frustrate consumers who are just beginning to give
green products another try.
Win consumers over by educating them with clear consistent
information about the environmental issues associated with your products.
Although a small number of highly committed consumers will
sacrifice in the name of altruism, the great majority of consumers,
understandably, are still not prepared to give up such coveted product
attributes such as performance, quality, convenience, or price. Product
efficacy continues to strongly influence consumer purchase decisions. As too
many green marketers learned the hard way, environmentally preferable products
still need to work, and they still must be priced competitively or project
superior primary benefits in order to attract a wide market.?
For the great many working women - and working mothers in
particular - short-term, immediate concerns like getting through the day often preempt longer-term and more remote environmental goals.
Greened-up versions of major products such as super-concentrated laundry
detergents available at local supermarkets meet their needs and sell well as a
result. Consumers want the products they buy to be delivered in a safe,
sanitary, and attractive manner. Their desire to buy products with minimal
packaging conflicts with their greater needs for safety (e.g., tamperproof
lids) and convenience (e.g. microwavable food).
Historically, how food looks determined its appetite appeal
and perceived purity. This is slowly changing, due largely in part to education
efforts on the part of organic growers as well as more effective distribution
methods. Fewer consumers now need to choose between organically grown apples
with an inconsistent appearance and perfect-looking apples ripened with
chemical agents.
Resistance to paying a premium will not go away any time
soon. Many consumers simply cannot afford to pay extra for any types of
products, green or not; today's consumers are especially spoiled by everyday
low-pricing strategies and mass merchandiser discounting. Although wallets are
gradually opening wider for green goods as a result of increased education,
most consumers are still not willing to pay extra money upfront for products
that promise a long-term payback such as energy-efficient refrigerators or
light bulbs.
The inconsistent or even downright poor quality of green
products offered in days gone by–low-flow shower heads that sputtered and
green-hued fluorescent lighting that flickered, for example–seems to have given
their modern day successors a bad name. Happily, most of today's crop of green products adeptly combine performance with
environmental quality. Now that they can have their cake and eat it too, expect
mainstream consumers to drop more green products into their shopping carts in
the years ahead.
In the past, premium pricing and vaguely worded
environmental claims made consumers suspect manufacturers of price gouging. If
they are smaller, more compact, or simpler looking than their "brown"
counterparts, by their own calculations consumers intuitively believe products
should cost less, not more. But this is slowly changing. For example, a small
but growing number of consumers seek out products and packaging that have been
"source reduced." This is particularly true in the 1,800 or so
Historical reluctance to pay a premium for green goods seems
to be softening, as consumers connect environmental responsibility with health
or other direct benefits. Sales of organically grown "clean" foods,
natural cosmetics, and cottons grown without pesticides demonstrates that when
it comes to green products, the greater the self interest, the greater the
perceived threat, the greater the willingness to pay. The small but growing
Voluntary Simplifier movement suggests that a small number of consumers will
even go so far as to change jobs or rearrange their lifestyles altogether if
the rewards of more time and a richer life are present.?
The success stories of the many marketers who are developing
greener products that balance consumers' primary needs with environmental
responsibility are told in the next chapter.
Notes
1. This is also referred to
as "perceived consumer effectiveness" in "Green Consumers in the
1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising," James A. Roberts, Baylor
University, Journal of Business Research, Volume 36, p. 226.
2. Baugh, Keith, Brian
Byrnes, Clive Jones, and Maribeth Rahimzadeh,
"Green Pricing: Removing the Guesswork," Public Utilities
Fortnightly, August 1995, p. 27.
3. Whitney, Craig R.,
"Nuclear Tests Cutting Sales of
4.
5. Steinhauer,
Jennifer and Constance C. R. White, "Women’s New Relationship with
Fashion," New York Times,
6. "Yearning for
Balance: Views of Americans on Consumption, Materialism, and the
Environment," prepared for the Merck Family Fund by the Harwood Group,
7. Valdes, Alisa,
"Living Simply. ‘90s Style Means Earning Less to Enjoy
Life More," The
8. Barry, Sam, "Kathy Bryant
Profile," Co-op
9. Burros, Marian, "A
New Goal Beyond Organic: Clean Food," The New York Times,
10. Ibid., p. C4.
11. Ibid., p. C4
12. Roper Starch Worldwide,
Green Gauge, 1995.