Comments on: Applying the product evolution model to sustainable marketing

By: Green as a luxury? Premium pricing and conspicuous consumption | 3BL Media « 3BL Media's Commentary and News

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:51:54 +0000

[...] Recall that under the product evolution model, the nature of competition proceeds from functionality to reliability to convenience to price. It would appear that in the case of Portland home buyers, we’re in the last stage: green features add nothing to the first three aspects of competition, hence price matters most. [...]

By: Tweets that mention Applying the product evolution model to sustainable marketing — Sustainable Marketing Blog -- Topsy.com

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:13:13 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Korchnak, Matthew Ward. Matthew Ward said: Comments on why green is not a differentiator in response to another great @peterkorchnak post http://bit.ly/LhB08 [...]

By: Peter Korchnak

Peter Korchnak — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:52:35 +0000

@Matt: Yes, the connection between a product and its environmental impact is fairly abstract, and so difficult for an average consumer to create. Going concrete, as in your examples, certainly helps connecting gratification with a wider impact.

There may be yet another way to incorporate “green” in the product evolution model: redefine the categories. Functionality as the benefit to the consumer and to the community at large. Convenience along the entire life cycle. Price as the price of the good plus what is now considered externalities. A task for the long haul for sure.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:42:04 +0000

Great post. You’re right, green is not a differentiatior. But the insights into why are often fairly obvious: “I can’t see disparate impact.” As a result, appealing to self-actualization or more likely idealized self are difficult to connect. This is because there isn’t enough context.

Your hints at meaning are the key to that though. Sustainability has to mean more than impact. Consumers don’t always understand impact but they understand fair wages, education, poverty, etc. Those traits, in my opinion, allow a brand to more easily compete on functionality with category competitors. Hopefully, they’re enough to support the price premium the brand needs to address impact and social sustainability.

In Toms case, you’re not buying one pair of shoes, you’re buying two.

For Lands End, a homeless person gets a coat.

The more esoteric ones are Method et al. “I don’t really understand why cleaning products are nasty; I’ve just heard they are.”

Tough question, I know I don’t have the answer. Just my $0.02.