Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Be ethical when promoting 'green' products and services

By Kim Harrison,

Consultant, Author and Principal of www.cuttingedgepr.com
People around the world have become more concerned about environmental (‘green’) issues. They worry about climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, fuel prices, and the impact that products may have on the environment. In response to this, organizations are turning more and more to environmental or ‘green’ themes to promote their products and services. Environmental claims can be a powerful marketing and public relations tool.
Environmental claims are being made for more products than ever before, ranging from small household items to major whitegoods and appliances. Many consumers consider environmental qualities for a product, such as water and energy efficiency, as a major consideration when evaluating products they wish to purchase.
But ‘green’ claims need to be true – and they need to be accurate. Such claims need to be scientifically sound and can be substantiated. Consumers are entitled to rely on any environmental claims your organization makes and to expect these claims to be truthful.
Not only is this good business, but it is usually required by law. For instance, in my country, Australia, the Trade Practices Act states that businesses must not mislead or deceive consumers in any way. The Act carries large penalties for businesses that stray from these requirements.
Last month the federal government forced Goodyear Tires to apologize to customers and offer refunds on its Eagle LS2000 tire because of the company’s false and misleading marketing hype:
  • The Eagle LS2000 is a revolutionary, environmentally-friendly tire.
  • The tire is designed for minimal environmental impact.
  • The manufacturing process for the tire results in reduced carbon dioxide emissions.
  • The technology used to produce the tire improves fuel economy and reduces the impact on the environment.
This hype was also written in the company’s media release promoting the product, which raises ethical issues about the public relations handling of the claims.
The government found that Goodyear was misleading consumers about the environmental benefits of the tire, which was a breach of the Act.
Goodyear also had to publish a “corrective advertisement” in the daily newspapers of every large city in the nation and also on its website, admitting to the infraction of the law.
These apologies and negative publicity would undoubtedly have affected sales. Goodyear is considered one of the most admired companies, and so negative media coverage would have affected its reputation.
Environmental claims are shaping up to be used even more in the future. Most communicators haven’t been able to refer to guidelines when making claims about this important area, so I go into some detail below.

Guidelines for environmental claims

What should our guidelines be for making environmental claims? Generally a claim should:
  • Be honest and truthful
  • Detail the specific part of the product or process it is referring to
  • Use language that the average person can understand
  • Explain the significance of the benefit
  • Be able to be substantiated
If companies see the market share of a product with environmental advantages increase, they will feel encouraged to do the same in order to compete.
Environmental claims should only be made when there is a genuine benefit or advantage. You should note advertise environmental benefits where they are irrelevant, insignificant or simply advertise the observance of existing law.
Don’t let marketing hype overpower you! If you believe marketing claims about environmental benefits are dubious, then say so. It is better you raise your concern now rather than let a customer sue your organization for making false claims. Insist on proof of environmental benefits.
In my part of the world a company making a fruit juice called Ribena used to claim the drink had 50% more Vitamin C than oranges. Two schoolgirls in New Zealand performed a lab experiment on the drink, and discovered it contained hardly any Vitamin C! The company received huge negative media coverage and was fined heavily for its outrageous claims. The problem would never have surfaced if the company’s PR person had simply said, “Show me the proof” when asked to write promotional material about the product. Or, more tactfully, they could have said, “If a customer challenges this claim in court, what proof do we have?”
Don’t overstate environmental benefits. Avoid implying a product has significant environmental benefits if the benefit is negligible. A claim of “now 50% more recycled content” is misleading if the product only had 1% of recycled product in the first place!
The same principles apply to pictures, symbols, photographs and captions.
Claims should relate to the whole product life cycle. There is no point in promoting a product as being environmentally friendly when disposal at the end of its life cycle will cause an adverse environmental impact.
Claims shouldn’t overstate the level of scientific acceptance of the product. When the scientific basis for your claim is debatable or inconclusive, you should be careful not present the claim as being universally accepted.
Green.’ This term is vague and conveys little information to the consumer apart from the message that your product is in some way less damaging to the environment than others. This word invites consumers to attribute a wide range of meanings to the claim, which risks misleading them.
Environmentally friendly’ or ‘environmentally safe’ are claims that are vague and could potentially mislead consumers into thinking the product causes no harm to the environment in the production, use or disposal. But almost all products have an adverse impact on the environment in their life cycle, and therefore using these phrases is likely to deceive.
Energy efficient.’ Energy efficiency claims should be quantified by comparison with existing benchmarks or rating systems, or otherwise explained in more detail. Simply claiming that a product is ‘energy efficient’ makes it difficult for consumers to compare products, and they may be mislead into drawing wrong conclusions about your product.
Claims that a product is ‘recyclable’ can potentially be dangerous if the product isn’t actually recyclable because consumer may do something with the product under a mistaken impression. You need to verify that the product can be recycled before making such claims.
When making a claim that a product contains recycled material, consumers may believe the product has been through a previous life cycle or it has been recycled by another consumer. But if the material has been recovered from a waste stream during manufacture and reused, this should be made clear by using words like ‘materials reclaimed from manufacturing.’
Companies are increasingly making claims that their products and services are ‘carbon neutral.’ Any such claims should be factually based and not overstated. Such claims should also relate to the total life cycle, not just one part of it such as manufacture because disposal of many products creates pollution of some sort.
When advertising participation in a carbon-neutral program, you need to distinguish between past and future activities. For instance, trees may already have been planted in a reforestation project, which actually had another purpose different from planting trees as carbon offsets.
Terms like ‘renewable’ and ‘green’ energy need to be carefully assessed as well before going public. Sustainable and renewable energy resources are important to many consumers and so it is essential they have accurate information on which to base their purchasing decisions. Any assertions about cost, amounts supplied or associated benefits need to be truthful and correct. For instance, if you promote your energy as ‘green’ or ‘renewable’ you should disclose the proportion of energy obtained from renewable resources if it is less than 100%.
The federal government gives a checklist as a guide when making environmental claims in your promotional work:
  • Avoid using terms like ‘safe’ and ‘friendly’ and photographs or graphics that don’t have relevant captions.
  • Be specific in plain English the beneficial qualities of a product.
  • Link the environmental benefit to a specific part of the product or its production process such as extraction, transportation, manufacture, use, packaging or disposal.
  • Ensure any claims about a product can be substantiated. Think about how you would answer a query about the environmental benefits you are claiming for your product. What scientific authority could you use to justify the basis of your claim?
  • Explain how a product’s qualities are beneficial to the environment. For example, explain how a phosphate-free product is less damaging in river systems because phosphates lead to algal growth, which can clog up and poison rivers.
  • Avoid giving the impression that your product is totally environmentally benign if it isn’t.
  • Use the claim only in an appropriate context or setting. For instance, don’t claim a product isn’t tested on animals if it is a product that would never be tested on animals anyway.
Observing these guidelines is an ethical action on your part.

About the Author

Kim Harrison is a recognized authority in the public relations field. His website, www.cuttingedgepr.com, provides a wealth of informative articles and resources on public relations techniques and management.

People trust social media more than advertising

By Kim Harrison,

Consultant, Author and Principal of www.cuttingedgepr.com
In his keynote address at the recent New England Direct Marketing Association conference, Paul Gillin, author of The New Influencers, talked about the impact of social media. One of his key points was that 78% of consumers trust each other more than they trust advertising – which is why they read blogs and go to chat rooms etc.

As social media usage becomes more widespread, consumers are using it to share their personal experiences of customer service and purchasing processes. This is among the initial findings of a new Society for New Communications Research study, “Exploring the link between customer care and brand reputation in the age of social media.”
Around 300 consumers who are active Internet users participated in a survey focusing on how customer service influences brand reputation as evidenced in social media. Top findings include:
  • 59% of respondents used social media to ‘vent’ about a customer service experience.
  • 72% of respondents researched at least sometimes companies’ customer service policies online prior to purchasing products and services.
  • 84% of respondents considered the quality of customer service at least sometimes in their decision to do business with a company.
  • 74% chose companies/brands based on others’ customer service experiences shared online.
  • 84% of respondents considered at least sometimes the quality of customer service in their decision to do business with a company.
  • 81% believed that blogs, online rating systems and discussion forums can give consumers a greater voice in customer service, but less than 33% believed that businesses take customers’ opinions seriously.
Dell and Amazon were nominated more often than any other company by respondents when asked which types of companies have done the best job in using social media to respond to customer issues.
“This study indicates that there is a growing group of highly desirable consumers using social media to research companies: 25-55 years old, university-educated, earning more than $100,000. They are a very powerful group in terms of buying behavior,” said Dr Ganim Barnes, senior fellow at the Society for New Communications Research.
“These most savvy and sought-after consumers will not support companies with poor customer care reputations, and they will talk about all of this openly with others via multiple online vehicles. This research should serve as a wake-up call to companies to listen, respond, and improve.”
“With consumers increasingly using social media to share feedback on their care experiences, it has become increasingly difficult for businesses to ignore or hide from bad experiences,” said Lynda Kate Smith, vice president, Care Business, Nuance Enterprise Division.
“Our mission is to help organizations better support, communicate with, and understand their customers during customer care interactions. As this research highlights, the consumer’s voice is louder and travels further than ever before. One poor customer interaction can have a very significant impact on a public impression of a brand.”
This feedback is a warning signal to the many top executives in large organizations who are increasingly trying to force customers into using their automated call centers more than ever before.

Source

  1. Dianna Huff, www.dhcommunications.com.

About the Author

Kim Harrison is a recognized authority in the public relations field. His website, www.cuttingedgepr.com, provides a wealth of informative articles and resources on public relations techniques and management.

Integrating media contact

By Shonali Burke

With all the hype surrounding social media, you’d think traditional media is dead, social media is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and we’re on the cusp of a communication revolution that will dramatically change public relations as we know it.  
Relax. It isn’t, yes and no, and not necessarily. 
There’s no arguing Internet use and participation in social media has had a significant impact on our media consumption habits and the way we develop relationships.  
In January 2009, the Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that the share of adult Internet users with a profile on an online social networking site has quadrupled since 2005 - a jump from 8% in 2005 to 35% in December 2008. If you look at statistics from the Newspaper Association of America, newspaper circulation has dropped 18% between 1998 and 2008. And love it or hate it, Twitter is growing by leaps and bounds, even among teens. 
For all the hype, there are communication basics that will not - and should not - change. There are five questions you need to make sure you’re asking as you address client or organizational needs: 
  1. Do you see communication as a business function?
  2. Do you know your audience?
  3. What are your measurable objectives?
  4. Are your communications integrated?
  5. Are you listening? 
Think about it. None of these are new questions that have mushroomed in our industry since social media took over the world. Strategic communication activities are those that support the accomplishment of specific organizational goals in a measurable way. That means you have to know your audience, which means listening to them, and good communicators have been doing that for years, it wasn’t invented by social media.  
It means knowing your organization’s business objectives, and figuring out how you’ll implement a mix of communication tactics to support and achieve those business objectives. And if you don’t set a benchmark, you’ll have no way of knowing whether or not you did in fact achieve them, or whether your communications were completely off the mark. That means focusing on outcomes, not just outputs, as the Institute for Public Relations has been writing, talking and teaching about for years. 
Don’t get me wrong. Digital platforms have made us more efficient, extended our reach and given us a plethora of new tools to add to the communicator’s toolkit. If there’s one thing that social media has taught - or reminded - professional communicators of, it’s the importance of engaging with your audience. So rather than decide willy-nilly what social media tools you’re going to incorporate into your outreach, spend a little time learning about, and how to use, them.  
There are tremendous resources available online; if you’re feeling really clueless, head over to Mashable or ReadWriteWeb and do a search for the topics you’re interested in. If you’re still part of the “I don’t get Twitter” brigade, get over it. I did. And don’t forget to investigate social networks like LinkedIn and Flickr; depending on the needs of your audience and where they like to engage, they could add tremendous value to your outreach.  
The Pledge to End Hunger, a campaign for Share Our StrengthTyson Foods and Hum conceived and led by Scott Henderson of MediaSauce, is a great case study in doing digital communication right. It had clear goals: raising awareness of childhood hunger in the US, giving people the tools to take action to do so, and organizing outreach efforts around the SXSW ’09 Interactive Festival - an event the target audience would be highly aware of and follow closely. So the team focused on active “Twitterati” and bloggers as the primary audience, along with SXSWi attendees and followers, but they didn’t disregard their corporate and non-profit e-mail databases.
With a standalone site as the online hub, the campaign integrated several social media “outposts” including TwitterFacebook and YouTube into its outreach, making it easy for people to “give, volunteer or share,” the last being the most important, since every time someone “shared” the campaign, it extended their reach that much further. There was fun stuff too; an avatar that folks could use on Twitter or Facebook, a Twitter hashtag to track conversations and online badges that could be used on blogs to show support. There were extremely measurable objectives: number of pledge signees, donations to Share Our Strength, unique site visitors, and members of the Facebook cause. 
Over the course of the campaign, there were more than 4,600 signatures to the Pledge, more than 19,000 site visitors and about 2,600 people who joined the Facebook Cause. Approximately $28,000 was donated to Share Our Strength with 95% from first-time visitors. 
Success? I think so. Not just because Scott and his team used social media platforms well, but because they targeted their audience and set measurable objectives, integrated a range of tactics into their outreach, and focused on getting specific outcomes. (You can read more from Scott on campaign lessons on his blog here as well as over at Beth Kanter’s blog.) In other words, they made sure that their outreach incorporated the principles of good communication. 
It’s easy to get lost in the "shiny new toy" aspect of social media. After all, it is fun. But at the end of the day, let’s not forget that good communication is about using a range of tactics to support and achieve business objectives - and social media is a part of that mix. Anything else, and we’re in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 
Shonali Burke is the award-winning Principal of Shonali Burke Consulting, Washington, D.C.

Good risk management is a valuable skill for PR projects

By Kim Harrison,

Consultant, Author and Principal of www.cuttingedgepr.com
Risk concerns have been pushed into our thinking, especially since 9/11 in 2001. We are much more aware and concerned about the risks to ourselves, our organization and our community. Reflecting this, risk management is becoming an integral part of good public relations practice.
Risk is defined as the chance of something happening that will have an impact on objectives. Risk is measured in terms of likelihood and impact. Some people think public relations practice doesn’t involve much risk, which they think is more about operational matters such as safety and security.
However, there is an element of risk in all public relations activity. Think of the risks to the organization inherent in a bad reputation, in controversial public issues, corporate crises, sponsorships turning bad, poor counsel to senior management, hyped product claims in marketing communication, use of celebrities in marketing, and in corporate events that go wrong. Many risk management experts believe that reputational risk is the most important of all – a PR risk that has dollar value.
Just this week, Goodyear Tyres Australia was forced into a humiliating backdown when the federal government ordered the company to pay for “corrective advertisements” in major newspapers about its false and misleading marketing hype. Goodyear had claimed in 2007 and 2008 that one of its tyres was “environmentally friendly,” had “minimal environmental impact,” its production process resulted in reduced carbon dioxide emissions and the tyre technology “increases the life” of the tyre and “improves fuel economy.” No doubt the company’s reputation will suffer, along with its sales. Clearly there was no risk management process in place to prevent such unsubstantiated hype from going public.
Probably the most common risks encountered in PR life are in corporate events, which range from the formal – such as annual general meetings, conferences, staff and client briefings – to the informal – such as social events and staff recognition activities. The risks in these events can be predicted and minimized with a little thought.
In addition to the potential risks in public relations activities, risks are prevalent in all areas of corporate life. We should be alert to these because communication may be needed to address internal and external corporate and operational risks.
Key benefits from risk management:
  • It reduces the likelihood of unpleasant and costly surprises.
  • It provides better information for strategic planning and decision-making.
  • It leads to more realistic allocation of resources, especially financial resources.
  • It generates better results from communication programs and projects.
  • It creates better compliance with regulatory requirements.
  • It helps to more accurately define the scope of required insurance cover, which can lower insurance costs.
Risk management comprises the culture, processes and structures that are directed towards the effective management of potential opportunities and adverse effects. The role of risk management is to identify potential risks and take action to reduce the chances of those risks becoming reality and to reduce the magnitude of incidents if risks do turn into reality. Note also that the risk management process can identify potential opportunities from risk, just as issues and crises can create opportunities as well as problems.
In simple terms, risk management is intended to answer three questions:
  1. What can go wrong?
  2. What is the likelihood and impact of something going wrong?
  3. What can we do about it?
Risk management should be a continuing process starting at the planning stage of all significant communication and public relations programs and projects.
Seven steps are commonly used for risk management:
  1. Establish the context.
  2. Identify the risks.
  3. Analyze the risks.
  4. Evaluate the risks.
  5. Treat the risks.
  6. Monitor and review.
  7. Communicate and consult.
More discussion of risk management will ensue in future articles. I will also be writing an e-book about risk management in public relations and communication because it is an area about which there is little direct content.

About the Author

Kim Harrison is a recognized authority in the public relations field. His website, www.cuttingedgepr.com, provides a wealth of informative articles and resources on public relations techniques and management.