This Blog Post has a Carbon-Footprint of ___ *

Marketers such as Unilever may soon have to find space on the packages of their 70,000+ SKUs to indicate the “carbon footprint” of each product. What such a logo or label would denote remains to be determined. It would be an attempt to associate a product with a favorable concept a la “natural,” “organic,” or, “socially beneficial.” Potentially it could augment the brand’s positioning – rather than an occasional nagging worry about impending climate disaster, a consumer could perform a pantry check for the reassuring logo.

Some consumer brands are talking in their Marcom and social media as if they take climate change seriously. Public announcements by The likes of mega carbon-emitters Ford and General Motors have announced that they will stop producing gasoline or diesel powered passenger cars by 2030 and 2035 respectively. Apple, which could probably afford the transition costs of carbon neutrality, has pledged to do so by 2030. Amazon recently asserted that it had become the largest buyer of renewable energy in the US Others without a clear alternative to business as usual, such as ExxonMobil, seem to view carbon foot-print as marketing exercise.

Will the consumer notice? Will she be convinced and if so will she care enough to reward the low carbon-footprint brands? Or will this branding effort be viewed as just an attempt at green-washing.

Just Show Them The Money:

BlackRock, the world’s largest investor, recently launched a U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF to invest in companies, which will outperform in a low-carbon environment.

Investors seem to have noticed. Morningstar reports that in the US attracted a record $21.5 billion of net new investment in Q1 2021. This was more than double the inflows in Q1 2020 and five times the investment in Q1 2019

Is this really low carbon investing? Rationally, carbon-footprint should include all the expenditures from the inception, extraction, creation, distribution, marketing, and disposal of the a product. Capturing all those impacts may be as difficult as capturing carbon in the real world.

Absent generally recognized metrics, low carbon footprint will be as easy to claim as it will be difficult to achieve. Even an iconic low carbon product such as Tesla may not be all that low depending on the impacts of the lithium mining to produce its batteries and the source of electricity to charge them. Still, Tesla clearly owns the position as a low-carbon brand. Its branding is greatly enhanced by the marketing prowess of its mercurial chairman, Elon Musk.

Like many of Musk’s pronouncements, Tesla gained significant notice, when it announced it would not accept bitcoin in payment after all because of the high carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining.

Tesla is to some extend a projection of its mercurial chairman Elon Musk. It garnered some attention and enhanced its technology with it position, when it recently made a 1.5 billion “investment” in Bitcoin and announced that it would accept bitcoin as payment for its cars. Musk then rapidly reversed course, declaring that the climate impact of cryptocurrencies was too great and thus Tesla would not accept Bitcoin as payment after all.

* “What number did you have in mind.”

Choking the Goose*

You may have noticed that the 2020 US presidential contest has been plodding along for more than a year (for some it’s been three years) and has another year to go. At last guestimate there were 16 Democrats, three Republicans, and some as yet obscure number of third party and none of the above candidates. Many potential voters have been so far been able to ignore the pre-electoral noise and save their attention for later in 2020. These political abstainers may even surpass the 45% of eligible voters, who, according to CNN, didn’t vote in 2016.

From its extensive database of media spending, Politico estimates that 2020 will be the most expensive election in US history. $2.8 billion for the presidency alone. (Yet another case where paying more doesn’t mean getting more.)

To acquire close to $3 billion, the candidates and their parties are spending more time and effort than ever on an escalating treadmill of fundraising. They have a marketing problem. They are trapped in an ever tightening spiral of fund raising. Few are doing it well and at least five have already dropped out, citing financial challenges. This is a classic marketing problem.

For small donations, fundraising is a mix of direct selling: store fronts to street corners and doorbell ringers mass media: print and broadcast targeted media: email, direct mail, social platforms, interactive media, and SEO.

In any of these, the marketers face a challenges of optimizing yield. How much should they spend to reach out how frequently should they accost prospective donors?

Too Many Knocks on the Door

Consider the following experiment: donate a nominal amount to ten mid-tier candidates. In practice this meant Democrats. Had this been 2016, I’d have chosen Republicans. This was not an experiment about parties or the respective merits of particular candidates. I excluded leading candidates of any party, because they had established brands, substantial resources, and large experienced fundraising organizations. This is not to say that they do not also have fundraising challenges.

Within seconds of the donation, I received an acknowledgement message contained a request for an additional donation. As one completed the online contribution, the collection website (all of the Democratic candidates used the same site, asked for an additional donation in the form of a “tip.” The romancing continues with an almost daily email solicitation. Sometimes the message’s subject is a direct request and sometimes it’s deferred until the second or third paragraph. Regardless it’s incessant.

In their zeal for funds, these candidates, apparently failed to test for the optimal interval between requests. Looking at the lackluster boilerplate email copy, They also often fail to brand their candidacy or confirm why they, among a crowd of at times up to 22 contestants, are the best use of voters largesse.

A few somewhat more enlightened supplicants, give the recipient the option of indicating that they would prefer to be contacted less frequently, such as only weekly.

Fundraising, like virtually any marketing, requires experimentation. The availability of cheap or free data analysis tools, means that those campaigns which don’t continually test are guilty of fundraising malpractice.

Whether the goose, i.e., donor, is laying gold, silver, bronze, or chocolate eggs, by carpet bombing the inbox, many candidates are chocking, if not killing the goose. Their campaigns will cease prematurely as they run out of funds.

  • With apologies to Aesop

Your Free Event Is Too Expensive

Product presentations are like a long horned steer. A point here, a point there with a lot of bull in between. (Attributed to Alfred E. Neuman)

Time is the least thing we have of – Ernest Hemingway

If you’re like me, your inbox is seldom empty of invitations to events. “Opportunities” to learn about industry trends, hear from “leaders,” network, and, by the way, see, try, or experience the hosts products. Throw in some tchotchkes and a free meal – what have you got to lose?

Plenty, it would seem – either as a host or attendee – especially if you value your time.

Against my better judgement, I allow hope to prevail over experience and go to some of these events. You can occasionally learn a few things and meet some interesting folks. There is that little voice in your head intoning “you never know/unless you go.” Even without an explicit charge, the cost of these benefits can include:

  • Travel time
  • Parking and tolls
  • Extra waiting time – Starting “a few minutes” late waiting for stragglers. I. e., let’s hope a few more attendees show up, so the forum won’t look so lonely.
  • The gratuitous irritation of overly long, dumbed-down sales pitches pretending to be knowledge and insight
  • Adding injury to insult, the events are often prolonged by adding
    coffee breaks. Opening coffee is fine; but why should the event require another caffeine boost? In any event, the coffee is seldom drinkable
  • Lunch – cold pizza, stale sandwiches, grim buffets – yet another reminder that there is no such thing as a free lunch
  • Drawings for “Prizes” such as the tsatskes they couldn’t give away at your last trade show
  • An “inspiring” lecture from an “industry guru” a.k.a. an executive at the host firm with time to kill before his next flight
  • The assumption that as long as you’re there, they can add just one more demo or product pitch

As a result, both you and the host spend too much time for too little benefit. From the the piles of undisturbed collateral and untouched pastry and sandwiches, one might gather that the opportunity cost in time was too high and people bailed. As an added bonus, you may also alienate prospects, who are actually interested in and would benefit from your offering.

This is not that difficult to improve if not solve.

  • Keep it short
  • Increase the ratio of signal to noise or content to fluff
  • Leave the audience wanting to comeback for more rather than raring to get out the door
  • When tempted to add more slides to your presentation deck (while you’re at it) – don’t
  • Archive and publish the events online promptly

Your attendees may be so grateful four your respecting their time, that some become customers.

The Agile Pilgrim

Agile continues to be a buzzword. This durable adjective shows up in my inbox applied to strategy, marketing, finance, entrepreneurship, and cooking, in addition to its more established focus on software and systems development.

This would seem to have nothing to do with the Camino de Santiago, a venerable pilgrimage walk, but read on. The Camino refers loosely to a family of treks ending in the city of Santiago de Compostela in northwest Spain. Historically, it was a pilgrimage. For some it still is. Others do it for sightseeing, exercise, adventure, curiosity, and as other motives as there are walkers.

A Camino can range from 100 km (the minimum required to get a Compostela – an official certificate of completion) to 800 km (from Saint Jean Pied de Port in France). For those with more time and tougher feet, even longer Caminos are possible.

The route takes one on trails, paths, and roads through forests, meadows, cities, and towns. Some of the way is hilly, some flat. The path can be rough or easy under foot. You may encounter rain, wind, heat, cold, and fog. The scenery and townscapes can be beautiful, monotonous, ugly or intriguing. There is no Yellow Brick Road, but stylized blue and yellow route markers abound.  You don’t know who or what is around the bend. It may be a fountain with refreshing water, nonpotable water, no water at all, or in at least one case, wine. Delightful days can be punctuated by long slogs.

Eating and sleeping are part of the adventure, especially on days where you’re not sure where you’ll end or get to the village you planned, but find no available rooms. They can be at cafes and restaurants, pilgrim hostels, or hotels. These are incredibly varied. Some are outstanding, some poor, a few you just don’t want to stay at. Most are inexpensive to moderately priced, some simply accept donations. Rarely, I have found myself in some village after dark with no place open or available.

In these and many other dimensions, the trip itself is amorphous and ambiguous. Some parts of the trail invite one to linger, others to keep on without pausing. Walking hundreds of kilometers, the mind as well as the body wanders. Among these wanderings is the notion that pilgrimage and product development are more similar than you might think.

A project such as a trek or a new product can seem, ex ante, simple or at least straight forward. Functional specifications for a defined market or starting point and final destination. In the case of a trek, get to the starting point, walk until you arrive to the defined finish point, declare the goal attained, and you’re finished. Yet the number of tasks, decisions, and risks multiply quickly.

Hmmmmmm, starts to sound like we’re still in the office.

These include:

  • How far to go and when
  • Team members or solo
  • What to carry
  • What to wear
  • Budget of money and time
  • What range of conditions to prepare for
  • Where to stay
  • What to do about injuries
  • Budget – implicit or formal and explicit
  • Most importantly, what do you derive from weeks of putting one foot behind the other
  • Go as part of a group/team or solo
  • Whether to go at all
  • My feet hurt, it’s been cold raining for three days, what am I doing here?

As in many version 0 products, simplicity is a good, though not the only, choice. A meme along the Camino is a depiction of a medieval pilgrim. He wears a cloak and sandals, carries a walking staff, drinking gourd, and small money pouch. Without backpack, change of close, or extras of anything, our prototypical pilgrim traveled light and relied on the hospitality of monasteries or churches for food and shelter.

For the contemporary trekker, options range from planning down to the kilometer and hour to just showing up improvising a response to whatever you encounter. If the goal is to check this trip (or product feature) off your list, the first option may be the most efficient. If the goal is to maximize the experience and serendipity of trip, plan less.

An agile approach is more volatile. You will end up staying at both unexpectedly funky yet satisfying places, meet a wider cast of characters, have a broader variety of meals and encounter more not in the guidebook. In effect, you respond to the feedback and demands of the environment.

There are down sides. The resources for your project may be yanked just as on your trek, It could get dark, cold, and rainy with neither food nor shelter in sight. In the case of the Camino, the risks have been worth it.

Agility is recommended to optimize the experience, if the risk of failure is acceptable (to whomever stakeholders have the most votes.)

There is certainly a place for unagile in both product development and adventure. One doesn’t do agile development on, for example, a power plant.

Unagile travel is vividly chronicled by the recent film, Free Solo
The “pilgrim,” in this case climber Alex Honnold, chooses to climb the more than a thousand meter vertical rock face of Yosemite’s El Capitan without the support of ropes or other safety equipment. Physically, Alex is supremely agile, yet he accomplishes his climb, by meticulously planning and rehearsing, until he has virtually memorized every step of the mountain.

Whatever you do, enjoy the walk. As they say in Spain, and perhaps should at product meetings – ¡buen camino!

It’s seldom mainstream news, when a retailer changes its return policy. When venerable LL Bean did just that, it was. National media as well as the trade press noticed.

Bean, the direct marketer of camping and sporting apparel and its signature rubber-bottomed boot, had long defined a position of treating customers very well. This included a very liberal return/exchange policy of anytime for any reason with or without receipt. Founder Leon Leonwood (aka LL) Bean (1872 – 1967) was reputed to have said “no one ever won an argument with a customer.”

Back in the day, service at Bean’s flagship store in Freeport, Maine or from one of its mellow phone reps for catalog shoppers, was deservedly legendary. Case in point: I once ordered a set of bike panniers from Bean on sale. They were fine, but eventually one of the brackets, which attached them to rear rack, fell off. Some months later while vacationing in Maine, I stopped at the store to ask whether I could buy a replacement bracket.

The salesman looked at one of the panniers and left to do a few minutes of research. He returned, apologized that that product was discontinued, and without my asking (or expecting), offered me the full cash price and an apology.

That was then. A recent visit to a Bean store, is a different experience. The number of sales associates seems reduced and those remaining are seen neither as eager or knowledgeable as in days past. Gone is the free shipping on all items. Returns will be allowed only within one year of purchase, and only if the customer has a receipt.

Bean is privately held and does not release detailed financial statements. Estimates from Privco show less than 1% annual growth over the last five years despite increasing the number of domestic retail locations by a third (from 31 to 42). For Bean, sales growth has no longer been a walk in the woods.

Bean came to believe, not implausibly, that a number of customers were exploiting their return policy. For example, by returning merchandise bought from third party discounters for full price from Bean. In the face of no growth, they assume the tired strategy of squeezing expenses including returns.  But at the expense of diluting their primary value proposition of exceptional customer engagement and service.

“Fraudulent” returns – return of merchandise not bought from the retailer or used for more than a trial period – can be a real problem.

The Wall Street Journal reports that some sellers, such as Best Buy, tightly monitor returns. They refuse to grant returns to customers, whom their system flags as being “excessive returners.” This can happen even if the return conforms to Best Buy’s stated return policy – with receipt, within 15 days of purchase, and unopened. Of course, Best Buy unlike Bean, was never known for customer service or customer loyalty.

What else could Bean do?

Rather than jeopardize its brand image and position and surprise customers by declining their returns, it could institute better sales tracking. Thus, if Jane Q. Customer chooses to return a pair of boots, its purchase would be available at any of their sales terminals. This is already common practice. Bean could brag about the new full year to return policy with no receipt required.

The news has event has by now been largely forgotten, but the underlying problem remains. Beans still needs to grow sales. This might start with revamping their rather tired and tiring ecommerce site. But that’s material for another post.