Last time out I wrote Don’t Listen To Your Customers. That focused on ideation, strategy and innovation, but there is an exception - when it’s a core need that consumers care strongly about - Sustainability.
When customers say If I buy from your brand I expect you to stand for something.
And expect you to act on it.
What we’re (not) doing is squandering brand trust. Read on to see how we can change that.
If you haven’t already subscribed please consider doing so. You’ll show support for my work - and join a community of hundreds who read me and care about the trajectory of CX
Whilst pretty good at meeting the demand for new attributes and needs, we’re not when engaging with consumers in their demands for sustainability.
Time and again, sustainability is near the top in every survey about our consumers’ priorities. Higher than convenience, higher than product benefits.
So it has to be a burning customer experience issue.
But.
Sustainability creates tension between your brand and your customers.
There’s a ton of evidence that showing strong credentials in sustainability creates stronger reach and attracts consumers.
Yet in surveys of consumers who say they want to buy from sustainable brands, typically onlyhalf do, which is not a good thing. It’s because they won’t pay a price premium.
With rare exceptions, sustainability by itself will not secure a brand leadership position. Consumers buy to get core benefits - food that tastes good, homecare products that work well, computers that have good processing power, and so on.
The majority of consumers believe at best we’re failing to align enough with purpose and social responsibility and at worst, greenwashing.
We’re communicating a loud message, but often insincerely or protectively - we’re not reaching consumers with something authentic.
As is often the case with consumer behaviours, there’s a paradox. Whilst consumers realise that their contributions can only do so much, they expect us to step up for them. And to show proof of our pledges.
The trending growth in “green” consumer products suggests that consumers have a desire to be more environmentally conscious. But we can’t rely on them to make sustainable choices for altruistic reasons.
We need to figure out what is that personal motivation that is going to make a customer say, ‘This is right for me, this is right for my family,’
We can’t expect our customers to alter their behaviour without any incentives to do so.
It’s Confusing, Misleading, and Overwhelming.
Consumers either don’t know what to believe or are turned off by the conversation. It drives scepticism about the authenticity of many CSR efforts.
So, it’s squandering trust in your brand
And as brand trust is the cornerstone of loyalty towards a brand, most of us need to take action.
Does Anyone Care About Purpose?
When my mayonnaise has purpose I know we’ve lost the purpose of purpose.
After Unilever’s announced all 400 of its brands are getting mission statements, The Wall Street Journal asked, somewhat rhetorically, “Does Your Mayo Need a Mission Statement?” Unilever’s move showed a sad truth.
Persil:
Persil soap (a Unilever brand) is one of the UK’s most popular soaps. Its washing-up liquids and dishwasher tablets are used by millions of people each year so Unilever upped its game to appear eco-friendly. But their ‘Dirt is Good’ TV ads have been banned for unsubstantiated claims of being ‘kinder on the planet’.
H&M & Fast Fashion
We know the fast fashion industry has a large environmental impact. So we shouldn’t be surprised by a high level of greenwashing. H&M were found to be the worst offenders with 96% of their claims not holding up.
It feels like for so many brands it’s just the status quo thing to say.
It just all ends up sounding the same.
Microsoft:
At Microsoft, we’re taking measurable steps toward becoming carbon-negative, water-positive, and zero waste by 2030 …
Apple:
We have a plan and a promise to make every single Apple product carbon-neutral by 2030….
Delta:
That’s why Delta is committed to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and why we’re also getting rid of 4.9 million pounds of single-use plastics annually …
So What?
For consumers, this matters.
What defines a consumer - their hopes, fears, and morals - show in what they consume.
So simply investing in CSR isn’t enough anymore - we must make a connection.
Because consumers, in today’s atmosphere of institutional distrust and social isolation, want to trust, want to connect, and want to find meaning in what matters to them.
So whilst trust levels are spiralling down, consumers want brands to fill the space.
For CX teams, this must matter.
The Opportunity.
Low trust, high expectations.
Consumers say they are willing to reward brands. Not to pay a premium price but with loyalty.
It’s an exchange.
If I buy from your brand, I expect you to fill that space and stand for something….
But they won’t unless CSR efforts are real – genuinely tied to a company's broader purpose.
…And I expect you to act on it.
Some brands are making strides in actions, but are not messaging effectively.
There are ways to message effectively.
There are ways, using more subtle sustainable language and some behavioural science, to express other differentiators for your brand.
Cognitive dissonance:
First, recognise 3 things about human/consumer behaviours and trends:
We all tend to view ourselves as good, morally superior people.
We strongly identify with our preferred brands. When we see them as an extension of ourselves, then that brand’s actions are an extension of our actions.
We are purchasing more and more things that make us feel ethical, good, and just.
If we view ourselves as highly ethical, and the brands we identify with fail to deliver that, it feels personal. A hypocritical exchange.
Perhaps something that makes us feel like we may not be as moral as we thought we were.
With today’s economic pressures, many consumers aren’t themselves walking their talk - yet still expecting brands to do so - but some (much?) of this could be put down to our behavioural bias to choose smaller immediate rewards over larger future rewards (it’s called hyperbolic-discounting) amidst weak brand messaging.
This is cognitive dissonance.
It makes us feel uncomfortable.
And the consequence?
Brand disengagement.
Failing to have bold and tangible goals risks this psychological conflict.
But we can do three things: be authentically tangible and impactful, and also powerful and personal in the eyes of our consumers.
The personalplays a key part.
Story #1:
Patagonia’s “Don’t Buy This Jacket” Campaign:
Have you ever come across a marketing campaign that encourages you not to buy their product?
It’s counterintuitive, but that's how Patagonia showed the way.
Their famous ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ ad went viral with its recognition of being an eco-conscious clothing manufacturer whose products are environmentally damaging to create.
Patagonia had long been pioneering new techniques in recycled fabrics and repairing worn-out Patagonia clothing.
They went further: with advocacy and sacrifice.
While needing to stay in business, Patagonia aligns itself with customer’s desire for durable, reusable, repairable clothing.
This is called reciprocity.
By using a paradoxical approach, Patagonia grabbed attention. The campaign's message was simple: ‘Don't buy what you don't need.’ They wanted customers to question their buying habits.
The Impact?
The campaign made waves. Beyond their industry.
It sparked conversations about sustainability and consumerism while challenging the traditional norms of marketing. Patagonia effectively used their platform to educate and engage customers, and the impact was significant.
Patagonia saw an increase in both brand awareness and loyalty.
The campaign prompted individuals to question their consumer habits and inspired them to make more conscious choices.
It became a wake-up call for many, a reminder that choices as consumers have a direct impact on the environment.
Story #2: Who Gives a Crap
The toilet paper industry is a dirty one
Toilet paper is environmentally destructive and bad for our plumbing.
For decades, some in the industry have been trying to remedy this.
The toilet paper company Seventh Generation has been making 100 per cent recyclable toilet paper since the early 1990s - but has failed to build a community around its solid CSR practices.
Yet there’s Who Gives a Crap, a start-up that provides a subscription-based bamboo toilet paper service. A quick search through their Instagram demonstrates how much cultural cache Who Gives A Crap commands: customers willingly post pictures of their toilet paper, restaurants proudly display it in their bathrooms, and thousands of comments sing the product’s praises.
What’s the difference?
Product design
Who Gives A Crap has slick, recognizable packaging that operates as a social signal – using the toilet paper demonstrates the customer values charity, sustainability, and kindness.
Mission
This marketing is backed up by action: they donate half of their profits to building sanitation facilities in disadvantaged countries, an easy-to-understand metric of change.
Both brands have solid CSR, but Who Gives a Crap’s method of change is tangible, sacrificial, and designed to signal positive social norms.
Fandom follows.
The Lesson: Inspire Change
These campaigns teach us valuable lessons about sustainability and the power of marketing for change. Here are some takeaways:
Challenge the status quo:
Going against the grain of traditional marketing and challenging the idea that profit should always come first, taking a stand and focusing on sustainability can be a powerful growth and loyalty tool.
Educate and engage:
Your platform can be used to educate customers about the environmental impact of consumerism. By engaging in meaningful conversations, they empowered us to make more conscious choices.
Lead by example:
Patagonia didn't just talk the talk; they walked the walk. They demonstrated authenticity and inspired others to follow suit.
Who Gives A Crap shifted the conversation from their self-interest and instead provided consumers with actionable steps to reduce consumption.
And it benefited the brand, as their sales grew 30 per cent over the next year.
To get personal, demonstrate you understand the difficult realities of our world, as well as your brand’s potential implications in them.
Nothing builds brand trust better than sacrifice - in the short term for your customers' long-term well-being.
This is the basis of reciprocity – we give to those who give to us.
Walk the walk.
Use a simple behavioural framework for making CSR efforts stick
1. Build trust through reciprocity - make big changes and broadcast them well
2. Make CSR personal - We self-identify with brands, so try linking your product/service to affirming social norms to help consumers feel like part of the change. Thwarting Hyperbolic discounting (our tendency to choose smaller immediate rewards over larger future rewards) through social norms.
There’s research on this: The ESG initiatives that generate better returns have some kind of tie to the company’s core products or services.
A food brand committed to sourcing ingredients in a more sustainable, environmentally conscious way is more powerful than promising to build a more sustainable new office for its headquarters becauseit’s demonstrating something tied to its core business.
Vagueness is a killer for CSR.
If you poorly communicate and omit salient information about how using a product or service helps change the world, as well as providing an immediate consumer reward for doing so, there’s little impact.
High-performing sustainability claims indicate consumers are ego-centric and respond best to messaging regarding ‘my health, my wealth, my world’.
Lower resonating sustainability claims indicate consumers care less about scientific causes, traceability, certifications, and packaging.
Address Challenges.
Focus on authentic, measurable impact.
Avoid misleading claims.
Communicate progress and challenges.
Make sustainability a core value, not just an add-on.
Track progress and transparently communicate impact through storytelling and data.
Create opportunities for employee participation, volunteer programs, and internal communication about CSR efforts.
Partner with NGOs and other stakeholders to amplify impact.
The problem with thinking it is better to be cautious and pursue a business-as-usual approach is that other brands will pass you by.
You may not be able to single-handedly change the world, but you can help nudge it to a better place.
NEW: Tiny Thinks
These are tiny video files you can click to play or download. I’m starting to embed them in newsletters and run a library of them on my substack, here.
I sometimes use this type of content in my workshops to trigger thinking and discussions and I thought in your staff meets it may help prompt some thinking and discussion around CX topics. You’ll find some are lighthearted, some more serious.
Thanks to Tensie Whelan / December 21, 2023, for the following read which researched which type of messages resonate best: in short, messages that work best relate to the consumer and their world.
NYU Stern CSB and Edelman partnered on a novel research project with nine iconic brands to understand which environmental sustainability messages (if any) work best with consumers. They found that the right sustainability messages operated as an amplifier, significantly strengthening a brand’s positioning and attracting new audiences, versus a core category claim alone. As you might expect, communicating about the core attribute of the product is the first and generally most important message. Nobody wants to buy sustainable chocolate that does not taste delicious. But laddering up to two sustainability messages onto the core attribute message drives far greater appeal, from 44 to 74 per cent across political party, age, education level, and income.
The messages that work best relate to the consumer and their world.
Messages related to how the product could help their health (made without ingredients harmful to human health), wallet (uses less energy to save you money), children (made to ensure food supply is available for future generations) animals (not tested on animals) and their local farmers (working with local farmers to…) were extremely effective. Local and 100 per cent sustainable sourcing claims also drove significant purchase intent.
Claims that did not work well included scientific claims (e.g. biodegradable, climate neutral), traceability claims, packaging claims (except made with 100 per cent recycled material) and certifications (though credible certifications provide proof points and help to guard against greenwashing). In one interesting departure, Gen Z tended to respond better to scientific claims related to climate, perhaps because that is their world for them.
The takeaways from these studies are that:
People are willing to buy sustainable products and are continuing to ramp up those purchases.
Sustainability messages that build on core attributes and show what is in it for the consumer work better across all cohorts.
When market leaders change, adapt, and communicate sustainable messages, then the category changes because it is table stakes to compete.
Climate optimism leads to action and brands can build on a belief in opportunity through genuine sustainability action carefully and authentically expressed.
Great stuff, Michael! Especially the section on purpose and cognitive dissonance, and the case studies. Very well done.
Well done for calling it out Quckrush