G2 New Zealand

Today was the first day of the Digital Future Summit at Auckland’s Hyatt Kingsgate, and we began the day with a (virtual) elephant in the room, unmentioned but nonetheless in everyone’s mind: “unless we can do something about New Zealand’s parlous state of internet access (20-somethingth in broadband access amongst OECD nations), we don’t have a digital future.”

Even the ADSL2 initiatives previously announced by Telecom don’t go far enough — in five years we still won’t be offering the sorts of internet access speeds that our competitors in other countries enjoy today.

The first flickers of hope that this situation might be open to change came in the very first official speech, from an unexpected source: the Hon. David Cunliffe, Minister for Communications and Information Technology.

As ably summarised by Russell Brown on Public Address, the minister observed that ‘the government is “exploring alternative investment models” — indeed, soliciting suggestions on same — that could fund the development of open-access fibre in urban regions, and an alternative fibre link across the Tasman. (The problem with New Zealand’s international bandwidth, the minister pointed out, is not a constraint on capacity — it’s a lack of competition, and the consequent pricing.)’

Peter Griffin, over on his NZ Herald blog, continued the reporting, with the minister openly speculating on the possibilities of:

• Setting up of a private-sector utility company that would accept a lower rate of return on investment to build a fibre-to-the-node network beyond Telecom’s.
• Investing in rural broadband infrastructure through Kordia.
• Setting up a contestable fund to subsidise the building of a second fibre link to Australia.

The Minister also noted that the Government wants access speeds of 20Mbps (megabits per second) to be available in towns of over 10,000 people. That’s twice the speed Telecom is expecting to be able to offer.

What’s the big deal? In a word, money. In a few more words, international competitiveness and economic transformation.

The New Zealand Institute has identified “national economic benefits from broadband in the range of $2.7-4.4 billion per year with further upside potential possible”.

Could it be for real? Serial entrepreneur Rod Drury, a conspicuous crusader for broadband infrastructure alternatives, was also on the programme later in the day, advocating similar notions — as was Maurice Williamson, National’s Broadcasting spokesman (though not yet as his party’s official policy, we note for the record — policy announcements won’t be made until next year).

The assembled free marketeers at the Summit were extremely supportive of the notion of open access broadband provided and funded through an independent body, possibly a mix of public/private funding.

Read the rest of this blog post at http://www.greygroup.co.nz/default,34,blog.sm [we’ve moved our main blog there!]

In a not-quite-shocking set of survey findings, Nielsen Online (USA) reported this week that online shopping’s primary appeal is the convenience it offers.

Hope you were sitting down.

In further almost-news, the survey reported that “81 percent indicated that the ability to shop anytime during the day was why they chose to shop online during the holiday season. Saving time was the next most popular reason to shop online, with 77 percent of respondents, followed by the ability to comparison shop and find things easily, with 61 percent and 56 percent, respectively.”

Thankfully, there was some actual content to the survey:

Read the rest of this blog post at http://www.greygroup.co.nz/default,34,blog.sm [we’ve moved our main blog there!]

If there was ever a piece of legislation designed to illustrate the blessings and shortcomings of the honourable art of blogging, New Zealand’s Electoral Finance Bill is the perfect candidate.

On the left, The Standard, which describes itself thus: “The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0″

And, on the right: David Farrar, championing the causes of those who vote many of the shades of blue.

Impressively, both these leading blogs also carry listings of other blogs across the political spectrum, encouraging casual visitors to explore all sides of the debate.

Read the rest of this blog post at http://www.greygroup.co.nz/default,34,blog.sm [we’ve moved our main blog there!]

If you have Sky Digital or Freeview, you’re probably aware that (since October 9) Parliament TV has claimed a channel and is beaming live proceedings to the nation through the magic of television.

If you’re anything like us, however, you probably haven’t actually seen Parliament in action on your small screen (except during news bulletins).

Read the rest of this blog post at http://www.greygroup.co.nz/default,34,blog.sm [we’ve moved our main blog there!]

There’s a (probably) apocryphal saying in the sharemarket business suggesting that when ordinary people get into stocks and shares, it’s time for the professionals to get out. The market is overheated and a crash is imminent.

Is the reverse true in marketing? In other words, once the [marketing] professionals get involved in a medium, is it time for the ordinary people to get out?

As you’ve probably noticed, the buzzerati have discovered social networking and are now attempting to commercialise it into the ground. MySpace was an early casualty. Now Facebook has opted to cash in on its traffic – New York Times: Facebook to Turn Users Into Endorsers

Read the rest of this blog post at http://www.greygroup.co.nz/default,34,blog.sm [we've moved our main blog there!]

You’ll now find this blog at http://www.GREYgroup.co.nz. Thanks for reading here, now go and read there.

We just had a call from a colleague operating a small business, wanting to know a bit more about New Zealand’s new Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007, coming into effect early in September.

He’s been sending out regular email bulletins to a few hundred accountants for several years and was looking to add some more email addresses to the list. He had the sudden thought that maybe this new Act might complicate his plans and wanted some advice on the topic.

We had the unpleasant task of breaking the news to him that not only could he not add new email addresses without risking a $500,000 fine – his existing mailing list would be in breach of the new Act as well, since he has no permission from any of those accountants to send them emails either.

His impassioned comment “I’ve been sending out these emails for years. Doesn’t that mean I have their permission and can keep sending them the same sorts of stuff?”

Sadly, no. If you have an existing email mailing list but don’t have the Express Consent of the recipient (in the form of a direct indication from that person that it’s okay to send them messages, e.g. a “Subscribe” request) then you’ll need to obtain it, unless you have either Inferred Consent or Deemed Consent.

Inferred Consent
Inferred Consent is when the person you wish to contact has not directly instructed you to send them a message, but it is still clear that there is a reasonable expectation that messages will be sent. For example, the address-holder provided their email address when purchasing goods and services in the general expectation that there will be follow-up communication. Another example is swapping business cards.

This is the part of the Act which is most likely to be most quoted as a defence: “Your Honour, I’ve been sending these emails out for ages and no-one’s ever complained.”

Unfortunately, as the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) specifically states in its own guide to the Act, “if someone has been on your existing address list and has not ‘unsubscribed’, it does not mean that consent can be inferred.”

In other words, the onus is on you to obtain explicit consent. If you are not confident that the existing relationship is strong enough to infer consent, you should obtain express consent.

Inferred consent is limited in its application. For example if people join a tennis club you can infer consent to send them a tennis newsletter, but you could not infer consent to send them an investment newsletter.

Another interesting example cited by the DIA makes it clear that emailing to lapsed customers also breaches the law:

“Natalie manages a gym and sends out a fitness newsletter to 1,500 people. Gym members were asked to provide an email address when they signed up but many of the addresses on the list are not current members.

“Natalie has the inferred consent of her gym members but not from those people on the list who are not currently members. Natalie will be in breach of the law if she continues to send her newsletter without knowing if recipients have consented to receive it.”

Deemed Consent
The third category of consent, Deemed Consent, is when someone conspicuously publishes their work-related electronic address or mobile number (e.g. on a website, brochure or magazine). However if a publication includes a statement that the person does not want to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at that address, consent cannot be deemed.

Note, though, that the message sent must be relevant to the recipient’s business. For example:

“Joe notices a sign that publicises the email address of a car yard. He sends an electronic message to that address advertising the office furniture his company sells.

“This would be considered spam as Joe’s message is irrelevant to the car yard. However, if Joe’s company sells goods and services related to the car industry, this would be considered deemed consent.”

So, unfortunately for our colleague and the many others out there facing similar predicaments, you have less than three weeks to make email contact with your existing mailing list and ask for their express permission to continue sending them emails. After September 5, such actions are criminalized and you’ll automatically become that most heinous of outcasts, a spam-meister.

So what is spam? Not a delicious foodstuff sold by Hormel Foods but, as defined by the Act, “unsolicited commercial electronic messages.”

The first thing to note is that it’s not just email that’s captured by the Act. The definition of ‘Electronic messages’ as enshrined in this new legislation encompasses emails, instant messaging, SMS text messages, multimedia message services and other mobile phone messaging (not including voice or, sadly, fax).

In order to be considered spam the electronic message must also be commercial in nature – for instance marketing or promoting goods, services or land, or directing the recipient to a location where a commercial transaction can take place (such as a website).

A nasty little caveat for non-profits, NGOs, schools, clubs and the like: providing a hyperlink to a company web page in the signature of an otherwise non-commercial email may make it commercial, if the web page markets or promotes goods, services, land, a business or an investment opportunity. In other words, if you’ve managed to find a parent whose business has agreed to sponsor that PTA email newsletter, you may have just turned your school into a criminal communicator!

There are many commercial electronic messages that can be sent legitimately. They are only spam if they are sent without the consent of the recipient – as unsolicited messages.

Specifically, the Act states that the following common messages between organisations and clients/customers are not considered commercial electronic messages:

• Responses to a request for a quote or estimate
• Messages that facilitate, complete or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient previously agreed to
• Warranty information, product recalls and safety and security information about goods or services used or purchased by the recipient
• Factual information about a subscription, membership, account, loan or similar ongoing relationship
• Information directly related to employment or a related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved
• Messages delivering goods and services, including product or upgrades, that the recipient is entitled to receive under the terms of a previous transaction.

By the way: a single message may be spam. The message doesn’t need to be sent in bulk, or received in bulk. So don’t even think about sending those messages out one at a time – you’re still busted.

Even If You Have Consent
In addition to prohibiting spam, the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 lays out rules for sending out those commercial electronic messages that do have consent. The message must contain:

• Accurate information about the sender of the message, including how they can be contacted – in other words, Signature Files are suddenly compulsory!
• A functional way for the recipients to indicate that they do not wish to receive such messages in the future – that they wish to unsubscribe.

Taking Your Medicine
The Act specifies a number of options that are available to enforce the legislation, depending on the circumstances. The range of possible activities includes formal warnings, infringement notices and court actions.

A business that is found to be in breach of the Act may be subject to a court imposed penalty of up to $500,000. The business could also be made to pay the victims compensation up to the amount of loss suffered or damages up to the amount of profit that was made as a result of sending the spam.

At the end of the day, it’ll be up to the Courts to interpret the law and decide what is or isn’t Inferred Consent or Deemed Consent, and exactly how much to penalize those wicked conspirators who stray across the boundary.

More Information
If all this suddenly sounds both serious and urgent and you’re desperately seeking more information about spam and the new Act, wander over to www.antispam.govt.nz.

Note also that seminars relating to the Act will be held around the country, starting in Auckland on August 2o – head to the Marketing Association website for details.

This article originally appeared in our Marketing Digest in the 15 August 2007 issue. To subscribe to this free email newsletter, click here.

Sooner or later, your business will go Green.

You can either take the necessary steps now, be the first on your category/sector to develop a sustainable, recyclable, fair trade business model and get all the accolades and first mover advantages - or wait until you’re forced to change, by a mix of activism, consumer opinion, competitive pressure and government regulation. In either case, a Green makeover will take time, money and effort - but only early adopters get the credits.

We know what we’d recommend.

Too Soon?

Why now, you ask? Surely we should wait until this becomes a serious trend? 

It’s true that the public still has a little way to go before they go Green in earnest, in New Zealand at least. As we discovered when crunching the numbers for our new “Eye On New Zealand” study, 80% of Kiwis say they would be willing to “give up convenient products and services they now enjoy, if it meant helping to preserve the environment.”

But in reality only 15% are strongly committed enough to “be willing to pay 10% more for products that are more environmentally friendly.”

Encouraging people to change their behaviour is no trivial task. There’s a considerable gap - the “Value-Action” gap – between people’s values, often pro-environmental, and their everyday actions.

The “Value-Action” Gap

UK research conducted by the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable highlights the gap between what consumers feel about the urgency of the challenge of sustainability and what they feel able to do as individuals in the current context of their lives:
• we are creatures of habit, reluctant to make changes that challenge our routines;
• we are highly influenced by the social norms we see around us;
• we perceive sustainable options to be expensive and niche;
• we are preoccupied with short-term household budgets and, for low income consumers, with making ends meet on a weekly basis; and
• we often do not trust the government bodies and businesses that are exhorting or enticing us to change.

Consumers are willing to act, but they want to act together: “I Will If You Will”.

Sound familiar?

That’s why it’s nothing short of amazing, then, that Green Thinking has gone mainstream in the UK and the US, in a dramatic shift that’s being labeled “one of the fastest revolutions in public thinking and behaviour ever seen.”

That claim comes from the 2007 ImagePower Green Brands Survey (Landor Associates, London), which cites the following:
• A year ago, Green was a fringe issue in the UK. In May 2007 (even before the floods) 60% of Britons spontaneously identified global warming and climate change as the biggest issue facing the planet today.
• 40% of US consumers also see global warming as an issue and awareness and understanding are clearly growing; the American public is now engaging with Green issues in large numbers, displaying Green attitudes and behaviours that are as strong as anyone’s.

Expect a similar velocity within New Zealand, as Green goes mainstream fast over here as well – if not as a result of our own consciences, then certainly as a consequence of extensive public sector activity and promotion during 2008.

In this year’s opening speech to parliament NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark laid out her government’s plan for reduction in emissions, and increased use of renewable energy sources: “I believe we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life.”

In her speech Ms Clark said New Zealand could set an example for the world on climate change as it did in the 1980s with its nuclear-free policies.

As the PM observed, more than any other developed nation, New Zealand needs to go the extra mile to lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase sustainability. In our high value markets in Europe, we face increasing pressure on both trade and tourism from competitors who are all too ready to use against us the distance our goods must travel to market, and the distance tourists must travel to us. By lowering our carbon footprint, we start to fight back against that kind of protectionism.

The National Party, not to be out-greened, has adopted its own ‘Bluegreen’ approach. Whilst specific party policies won’t be released until Election Year the Party has pre-announced one commitment: to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. Watch this space as the politicians all play “How Green Is My Party?” next year.

Towards a Carbon Neutral Public Service

The NZ government intends to start the ball rolling by moving the public service towards carbon neutrality. This year the first group (the Ministries for the Environment, Health, & Economic Development, the Departments of Inland Revenue & Conservation and Treasury) are committing  to reach carbon neutrality by 2012.

The government also intends to use its purchasing power to help make Green initiatives desirable/essential for those who wish to do business with the state: a new procurement policy is being developed for public sector suppliers requiring sustainably produced goods and services to be used whenever possible.

Critics have queried the government’s commitment to sustainability as a way of life, pointing to previously short-lived green-thumbed efforts (Fart Tax, anyone?). But the times they are a’changin’. Any government that doesn’t climb on board the Green life-raft will be left clinging to the top of the Beehive as the melting icecaps turn the rest of Wellington into Atlantis [our sincere apologies to all those offended by the grossly overloaded metaphors that are pushing this paragraph below the Plimsoll line].

Carbon Neutrality as the Kiwi way of life does coincide perfectly with the 100% Pure expectations of our travel brochures; but it may not be enough to distinguish us as a nation from the rest of the tinted Green world.

The future for New Zealand, in our humble opinion, lies in being not just carbon neutral but proudly Carbon Negative. Not only does this resonate with our carefully-cultivated global persona, it also provides potential purchasers and tourists alike with compelling justification for choosing our products and services (“I bought them from New Zealand – they’re the world’s only Carbon Negative country, you know, so I’m saving the world, how about you?”)
 
Going Seriously Green

Harking back to the ImagePower Green Brands Survey, 29% of Britons now classify themselves as Strong Greens – they see the impact our current lifestyles are having on the planet and are taking real action to address it. 34% of the US respondents see themselves garbed in similar coloration.

Behaviours exhibited by this group:
• recycle regularly, buy recycled products and invest in energy-efficient home appliances;
• actively avoid waste (take bags to the supermarket, drive a fuel-efficient car, wash it form a bucket rather than a hose);
• look to business to take more steps to be greener;
• have strong views on how companies can make a difference, including reducing emissions, adopting sustainability and increasing recycling and conservation measures.

It takes real commitment to go this green, and we’re nowhere near there yet. Neither government nor business nor consumers have taken the Green pill so far. But if New Zealand as a country wants to seize Green as a strategic advantage (yes, let’s admit that self-interest is the only way we’re going to overcome the Value-Action Gap), then we’ve collectively got to take actions that are not merely bold and decisive but at times downright terrifying. 

Green Leadership Role For Business

In both the UK and the US over three-quarters of the total sample surveyed believe that society’s environmental performance is neutral or below par. Even more (80% UK, 83% US) believe it’s important or very important to buy from green companies.

Emerging Green agendas are rapidly going mainstream in automotive, energy/petroleum, banking and travel sectors. In less obvious product and service categories, it’s apparent that proactive Green initiatives are creating competitive advantage for those companies willing to walk the walk.

The environment is no longer someone else’s problem. Our customers have made it their responsibility which means they have also made it our responsibility.

As it happens (and as we hinted at the start of this article), going Green is not just about doing it because our customers made us do it. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, in its 2006 Members’ Survey, found that 67% of member companies reported enhanced brand value as a result of their sustainable business practices.

Another major benefit: attracting and retaining staff (reported by 58%), an important advantage as New Zealand continues to experience low unemployment and skills shortages.

The 2006 Survey also highlighted several other benefits of sustainable business practice, including reducing risks (42%), reducing costs (42%), identifying new business opportunities (50%) and enhancing stakeholder relationships (42%).

In other words, even if Green wasn’t good for the planet (and good for New Zealand’s competitive advantage), it’s good for business.

What Companies Are Doing About Green

In the US companies like Wal-Mart, Staples, Unilever, Home Depot, Dell and Safeway are turning Green. In the UK top Green brands include the Body Shop, Waitrose, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Dyson, Sainsbury’s and BP. These organizations are tackling Green issues across a variety of fronts. They’re constructing energy-efficient buildings. They’re ensuring that their wood and paper products come from sustainable forests. Some are reducing unnecessary product packaging and print marketing materials. Others are selling organic apparel. They’re helping to cut down on the number of bags that end up in a landfill, they’re reducing their CO2 output and are offsetting what they can’t reduce.

While many may have started getting involved as a defensive posture, they now see it as a market opportunity and they’re out there investing money in it. Self-Interest Rules!

Why Green Is Good

A statistic commonly bandied about in pro-environmental circles is that we’re consuming precious resources at a rate that would be fine if we occupied three planets. Let’s agree that we can all see the benefits of preserving our planet (refer Mordor in The Lord Of The Rings for a sneak peek of what happens if we don’t).

The Value-Action Gap is alive and well with companies too. We may believe that Green is worthy but we still need to be convinced of the commercial benefits. The Green Brands study kindly provides us with a number of sound business reasons to go green:

• All consumer types link green with quality in most categories; they expect green brands to make better products and are willing to pay a modest green premium – the key word is “modest”.
• Green reputation drives trial. A “green-perceived” brand is likely to prompt a significant proportion of category users towards consideration and green trial in future.
• Green reputation also appears to drive respect and appetite for a brand and its products.
• Green entrants act as change agents but retain their leadership position; as pioneer brands go mainstream, they attract new users, build reputations and put pressure on category competitors.
• Latecomers still have to pay the cost of entry, but lose out on the differential advantage (as we noted above). As more competitors go green, you’ll have to do so as well – but you won’t get any credit if you’re just seen as being a “me green too” in your category.
• A green reputation lasts – so long as it’s backed up by substantive action.

Developing A Green Strategy

You may think that Al Gore invented Green just after he whipped up the Internet, but in fact the notion of sustainable living has been around for a while – as has the idea of involving business in Green initiatives. In her 1998 book Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation (NTC-McGraw-Hill), Jacquelyn Ottman noted seven winning Green strategies:

1. Do Your Homework
Understand the full range of environmental, economic, political and social issues that affect your consumer and your products and services, now and over the long term.

2. Minimise Impact
Create new products and services that balance consumers’ desires for high quality, convenience and affordable pricing with minimal environmental impact over the entire life of your product.

3. Empower Consumers With Solutions
Help them understand the issues that affect your business as well as the benefits of your environmentally preferable technology, materials and designs.

4. Be Credible
Establish credibility for your marketing efforts.

5. Build Coalitions
Develop mutually beneficial relationships with corporate environmental stakeholders.

6. Go Public
Communicate your corporate commitment and project your values.

7. Don’t Quit
Continuously strive for “zero” environmental impact of your products and processes; learn from your mistakes.

Green Marketing Starts Here

According to the SmartReply Best Practices paper “It’s Good To Be Green”, here are six things you can do right now to jump-start your sustainability strategy:

1. Start by building an opt-in database.
To better target your communications, improve relevance and reduce waste, build and maintain an opt-in email database.

2. Align your priorities with your stakeholder groups.
To generate a successful business case for sustainability, determine the “sought benefit” priorities of your target first. For instance, if you want to create an environmentally friendly soap, the soap must first work well as a cleaning solution before you tout its environmental benefits.

3. Know your sources.
Utilize sustainable and renewable sources and know what they are. If your core product is produced in print, such as a magazine, or if you sell wood or paper products such as copy paper or plywood, it’s critical today that these materials come from sustainable and renewable forests, and that you can prove their source.

4. Shift from mass marketing to targeted, personalized digital media.
Fragmentation of media has made retail customers more difficult to reach today than ever before. Consumers are constantly on the go and becoming increasingly more challenging to locate through traditional channels — channels that are growing more wasteful and less effective daily.

5. Consider moving some of your material to print on demand.
Print on demand allows you to print personalized targeted materials for individual customers when you need them, in either print or electronic form. The result is a significant reduction in the number of printed documents you store and mail, cutting down on your company’s energy use and overall carbon footprint.

6. Reduce and offset your company’s carbon footprint.
Work with nonprofit organizations and consultants to reduce your company’s carbon footprint.

Time For Change

Anyone not on board with a green marketing plan risks losing customers to companies that already have a plan in place. Better environmental stewardship and social capital is becoming the benchmark entry point and more and more companies are building it into their bottom line. There is a fundamental shift in everyone’s consciousness … and companies are realizing that things have to change.

However it can’t just be lip-service – no GreenWash, thanks. The business landscape is turning Green fast, so only significant initiatives will make an impact. Go public with a concrete programme for change.

You’ll also need to look to a Green theme that echoes your existing positioning, to build on your share of the public mind; if your new ideas don’t connect with existing public perceptions, your efforts won’t be recognized (if New Zealand wasn’t already striving for 100% Purity, a clean Green image would be much harder to claim).

And engage your people in the cause. If your people aren’t working together to make Green thinking fly, it won’t even get off the ground.

A Little Caveat

As Jerry Stifelman, founder and creative director of The Change, noted in a recent blog on Treehugger.com, just because it saves the planet doesn’t make it popular.

“The majority of First World earthlings don’t wake up planning to save the planet. Instead, they’re hungry for breakfast, concerned about their family, curious about the newest episode of CSI, and wondering how they’re going to get through their day.

“As a global abstraction, sustainability is a difficult sell. This is not because people are selfish, but because their concerns are closer to home. People are quickly engaged when you explain sustainability in terms of their children’s future. That’s common ground. For better and for worse, evolution has made qualities such as empathy, nurturing and conformity more adaptive than leadership. So sales pitches that ask people to do what no one else is doing tend to fall on deaf ears.

“However, when sustainable actions are conveyed in the context of family or helping others, audiences are much more likely to respond. Consider the tremendous response to immediate human crises like the Asian Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.

“The key to marketing sustainability is making it relevant to values consumers already hold. Instead of trying to convince people they need to care about “sustainability” — it’s more productive to talk to them about honesty, responsibility, fairness and innovation - all the things sustainability, at its core, is about.”

Getting Started

All this talk is well and good, but what can we actually do as a business, just to get under way? We can’t start Green Marketing initiatives until we’re actually doing Green things ourselves.

Take the easy steps first, within your own organisation – recycle paper and other reusable materials, look for lower-impact packaging, find suppliers with lower carbon footprints. Then appoint key movers and shakers as Green Evangelists and commission them to prepare a Sustainable Development Report which will identify your company’s economic, environmental and social impacts, assess your corporate performance in these areas, focus on areas for improvement, and track down new opportunities that are consistent with the goals of sustainable development. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development provides a useful guide to Sustainable Development Reporting which you can access here.

Next, empower your Green Evangelists to explore (and commit the company to) long-term initiatives geared towards sustainable business practices, lowered energy consumption, waste reduction and recycling, reduced carbon emissions, responsible suppliers and fair trade.

The planet you save may be your own.

Green Resources (read on-screen, save a tree):
For a free copy of the SmartReply study “It’s Good To Be Green”, register here. And to read the entire contents of the “Green Marketing” book online, let your mouse do the walking here.

This article originally appeared in our Marketing Digest in the 8 August 2007 issue. To subscribe to this free email newsletter, click here.

Eco-tragedy: no green carpet for this year’s Primetime Emmy Awards. The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has just overruled the Fox network’s request to roll out a green carpet during its presentation of the 2007 Primetime Emmy Awards, according to TV Week. The carpet will be Green (i.e. eco-friendly) but it won’t be green (coloured).

Despite this setback, the rest of the Emmy presentation will be at least tinted green. Fox, the Television Academy and the Emmy telecast producers have set green goals, including the use of recyclable materials and recycling whenever possible; using hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles for transportation; replacing production golf carts with bicycles; reducing power requirements and utilizing alternative and eco-friendly energy sources – including solar power – for red carpet arrivals, production and Primetime Emmy events; using locally grown and/or organic foods for press and event guests; and incorporating green themes into the televised broadcast.

The Television Academy has already committed to using 100% recycled paper – almost entirely from 100% post-consumer waste – manufactured with wind power for the Creative Arts and Primetime Emmy Awards collateral items, such as invitations, tickets, posters, programs, press materials and office paper.

For the announcement of Emmy nominations last month, the Television Academy implemented many ecofriendly initiatives, including sourcing power from a biofuel generator; using 100% recycled paper for all press and production materials; replacing plastic and Styrofoam plates, napkins, cups and utensils with biodegradable products; and, when possible, using rented and reusable items for staging and production.

G2’s GreenWatch continues ….

It’s one of those stories we’re glad we didn’t write.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics today released the results of the latest Australian Social Trends survey, describing it thus in their press release:

Australians are more likely to be overweight, less likely to marry, and consuming more goods and services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) flagship publication, Australian Social Trends 2007, released today.

The publication provides a snapshot of life in Australia and how it is changing over time.

Australia’s families

Australia’s total fertility rate fell to a historic low (1.73 babies per woman) in 2001. Since then Australia’s total fertility rate has increased, reaching 1.81 babies per woman in 2005 – the highest level recorded since 1995. Women aged 30 years and over and living in more advantaged areas are driving this increase.

The probability of marrying has declined. If current rates were to continue, 31% of men and 26% of women would never marry. At the same time, the probability of marriages ending in divorce has increased. One-third (33%) of marriages which took place in 2000–02 could be expected to end in divorce, compared to 28% of marriages in 1985–87.

In 2004–06 one in five children (20%) were in one-parent families. These families are at a higher risk of disadvantage. In 2003–04 almost half (49%) of one-parent families with children under 15 had both low income and low wealth, compared with 11% of couple families with children of the same age.

Work and family in Australia

The increased proportion of women working since the 1990s has contributed to increases in Australia’s labour force participation rate, up from 74% in 1990 to 76% in 2005 for people aged 15–64 years. Australia’s labour force participation rates were above the OECD average (70%) and similar to the U.S. (75%) and the U.K. (76%) for 2005.

The Australian labour force participation rate for women of child-bearing age (15–44 years) rose from 59% to 71% between 1980 and 2005. One type of support to help mothers combine paid work and family is access to leave. In 2005, female employees using leave (either paid or unpaid) for the birth and care of their baby used an average of 34 weeks of leave in total. For those using paid leave, the average length of this leave was 12 weeks. Just over one-in-four female employees (27%) did not use any leave for the birth and care of their baby with most of this group permanently leaving their jobs.

The latest figures (2004–05) show that around 7.4 million Australian adults (54%) were overweight or obese. This was an increase of more than 2 million adults from 1995. The proportion of adults who were obese (up from 13% in 1995 to 18% in 2004–05) increased at a greater rate than the proportion of adults who were overweight (up from 33% in 1995 to 36% in 2004–05).

In 2004–05, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were over three times as likely as non-Indigenous people to have diabetes and more than ten times as likely to have kidney disease.

Australia’s household income and consumption

Goods and services generally became more affordable between 1985–86 and 2005–06. This is because per person increases in household disposable income (up 5.1% per year between 1985–86 and 2005–06) and household net worth (up 6.6% per year between June 1989 and June 2006) both increased faster than all groups consumer price inflation (3.7% per year between 1985–86 and 2005–06). While many goods and services have become more affordable – including motor vehicles, clothing and footwear and household appliances – others, such as education and hospital and medical services, have become less affordable because price rises for these services have outpaced increases in income and wealth.

As Australians’ household income has increased so has household spending. Since 1985–86, real (i.e. adjusted for inflation) household final consumption expenditure per person has increased on average by 2% each year (from $17,500 in 1985–86 to $26,100 in 2005–06). The largest increases have been on communication services and goods for recreation and culture. Spending on cigarettes and tobacco has fallen.

The amount of solid waste generated in Australia rose by 6% a year between 1996–97 and 2002–03 (excluding Tasmania and the Northern Territory). The amount of solid waste that was re-used or recycled rose almost ten-fold between 1996–97 and 2002–03.

We’re sure there must have been positive out-takes from the Australian Social Trends report, but whoever wrote the above release didn’t manage to find them! Follow this link to the full report and see if you can spot some happy news!