2007 has been a luxuriously green year

Two words that are excessively misused these days are luxury and green. In 2007 green has been a really hot word, with everyone sticking the word on their products, services and companies, regardless of whether or not they had any basis for their claims, or even if it was in their interests to do so. Some companies have probably damaged their reputations in the process thanks to the growing consumer cynicism towards the word. Similarly, luxury has really lost its meaning recently, especially in the housing sector where every new block of flats has a sign outside advertising 'luxury apartments' for sale, despite the fact that they have nothing luxurious about them accept in the show flat thats fitted out with designer furniture that the target market could never afford.

Florian Gonzalez, a fellow member of the o2global sustainable design network, recently posted this statement that I couldn't agree more with:

"Luxury": Who is not sick of hearing the word luxury over and over again, from hamburgers to mass brands?
Everytime you read the word "luxury" (be it in a brand name, brand motto, advertising visual, or in-store like in a famous London dpt store), be sure that the brand tries to prove too much. Real luxury does not have to scream its name. In addition, luxury is by definition exclusive, personal, emotional, irrational and subjective. So who is allowed to state what is officially luxurious? Well, brands who want to fool customers use the word a lot... with a view to giving a "bling bling" touch to their empty marketing and average products/services. Mind the gap.

"Green": The same is already happening with the word "green".
It used to be perceived as a hippie concept, which has reached such a fame nowadays that it has become another buzz word, used by anyone for any purpose. Kitsch you said? Well, I would say that the word is going against the genuine and sincere interests of the actual eco-brands and eco-users... You find the word used for products that are 0% natural (even less organic), for charity campaigns (giving a % of the products sales to charity should not allow to call a product "green"), for fair trade products (treating fairly the local employees is a must but does not account for treating the environment fairly...) and on and on.

This blog is supported by the ethical brand experts, Scamper Brand Strategy

The Future of Brands in a Sustainable World

Following our presentation at the Sustainable Design conference at Boots Plc in Nottingham last week, here is a video version of our presentation on the future of brands in a sustainable world. It gives a brief introduction to brands, sustainability and the relationship between the two.



This blog is supported by the ethical brand experts, Scamper Brand Strategy

Earth just needs to cool down with an Ice Cream

Ice Cream brand Ben and Jerry's have set up a Climate Change College, which has sent two young people committed to tackling climate change to the arctic to understand the problems better. The two people selected, Lesley Butler and Neil Jennings (pictured), will also spend the next 12months as ambassadors to spread the word about climate change. Some have criticised Ben and Jerry's saying that this programme really isn't enough, but Ben and Jerry's themselves have been honest that it is just a drop in the ocean and that its intended as just one initiative to encourage individuals to play their part in tackling climate change.


The critics' real worry is probably more due to the fact that Ben and Jerry's the company to Unilever, which has eroded some trust in the brand and has led to some assuming that whatever they do now is not in the true spirit of Ben and Jerry's, but just a cold marketing exercise. Jerry Greenfield admits that there is some regret about the sell out, but the Climate Change College is a project organised by the Ben and Jerry's foundation of which he is President. He was also honest about the role of business, suggesting that making blanket criticisms of business is not helpful. He acknowledged the importance of business ethics and said that "If you want to have a business that is based on values, you can do that and still make money". Quite right.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Brands don't make corporations bad, they make them accountable

There's much talk these days about the massive power of national and multinational brands. At Scamper, we believe that brands are simply a tool that can be used for a variety of purposes, good or bad. When big brands abuse their power, its not because they are brands. Its the consequence of flawed economic systems that favour the interests of shareholders, coupled with highly irresponsible management.

An example of one such corporation is ExxonMobil. Its been hounded in recent years over its refusal to acknowledge or take action against climate change, but equally if not more shocking are their actions following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Now 18 years on, the local people whose economy was destroyed are still awaiting compensation, despite a number of court rulings in their favour.

How do they get away with it? Because they have immense financial power. But how is it that a small fishing town is still managing to keep the fight alive 18years on, against an organisation more wealthy than many nations? Because Exxon is a brand. No matter where we are from in the world, Exxon (or Esso) is a part of nearly all our lives. We can relate to the brand and have an interest in its behaviour. If the oil spill was caused by an anonymous corporation, chances are that public interest would have faded long ago.

Too much financial power is dangerous in the wrong hands and its worrying that some large corporations are able to get away with actions that are by any measure criminal, but we mustn't make the mistake of blaming 'brands' for these events. Brands are not the cause of such corporate atrocities, and if they have a role in these events it is to impose some degree of accountability on the organisations responsible. After all, its no coincidence that Exxon later removed the Exxon name from its shipping fleet.

To find out more about the ExxonValdez story, watch the video below, or visit http://www.sierraclub.org/tv/episode-exxon.asp



This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Best Green Companies are a sign of the (Sunday) Times

The Sunday Times has just launched a competition to find the best green companies in the UK. As they say, in a world where there are an increasing number of green certifications competing for attention, being featured in the Sunday Times could really help you stand out. True enough, and it is a positive sign of the times that a national paper like the Sunday Times is running a competition of this kind. It seems that environmental responsibility is genuinely becoming a serious issue for both business and consumers.

At first glance the competition sounds like a great idea. They've even enlisted a professional environmental consultancy to do the judging and have divided companies up into high, medium and low impact industries to make it fair and inclusive.
What's sad though is that when you read in more detail, you find that the entrance fees range from £500 to £1500+VAT and the competition is only open to companies with more than 50 employees, ruling many of the most exciting and innovative green businesses now entering the market. When you consider that the only prize is a logo to put on your marketing materials and your name listed in the paper, it means that basically you are buying a very expensive lottery ticket with the only real prize being to get your name in the Sunday Times. It all seems a bit bizarre when they claim in their publicity that companies can be nominated by anyone from the CEO to the cleaner, or even a customer or outsider who believes that the company deserves an award, but then you have to pay the entrance fee when you nominate, so its unlikely that many cleaners will be signing up for their employers.

Overall, its great that The Sunday Times is taking green business seriously, but its not really the open, independent competition that they would like to make out, and its unclear what it will really achieve other than create yet another green accreditation to confuse consumers. Hopefully though, some really excellent green companies will enter and get some major publicity to reward them for their responsible attitude to business.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Eco-nique Climate Positive

Here's an interesting example of the green marketing dilemna. Today I stumbled across a company called eco-nique that claim to be a climate positive company, selling climate positive products.

What are these products? Mobile phone and MP3 cases. No, they're not some nice organic cotton or bioplastic sleeves - just your usual PVC, leather and silicon cases, whose environmental impact clearly spreads further than their carbon emissions.

The company themselves don't mention any environmentally positive actions either (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy, recycling etc). They're just a normal company selling phone cases on the internet (see their main website www.i-nique.com) who have realised that by buying a few tonnes of carbon offsets from Climate Care, they can create a separate 'eco' brand to appeal to the growing green market.

Very shrewd, but doesn't this highlight the problem with carbon offsetting. People can pretend to be really good for the environment, when in fact they're doing nothing at all. They're just buying the right to pretend to be good.

This is not to say that carbon offsetting isn't a good thing. It does help to reduce global emissions, and through some schemes can increase woodland areas and provide funding for energy efficiency projects in developing countries that benefit the local people. However, it only works if we recognise that it's only an interim measure to help us minimise our damage while we move to more sustainable practices in the long term. If we treat offsetting itself as the solution then we're probably doing more harm than good, which makes the use of the term Climate Positive somewhat dubious.

Selling carbon offsets with little control over the way that they are communicated is also damaging to the offsetting industry too, as its becoming clear that cynicism towards the concept is growing. Promoting the benefits while discouraging the exploitative use of offsetting is going to be an interesting challenge for the industry.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Green Business Brands Video Presentation

The first in our series of video presentations is now available to view here, giving an overview of the issues to consider when developing brands for green businesses.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Live the Brand

I saw this today and thought that it really nicely summed up the importance of living up to your brand as explained in my previous post (actions speak louder than words).

I think it speaks for itself.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Actions speak louder than Words

I've noticed recently that there have been a lot of companies making claims about their businesses, products and services that they cannot substantiate, particularly when it comes to environmental credentials. Here's a bit of quick advice for anyone thinking of jumping on the bandwagon.

People like to hear interesting stories - sometimes good, and sometimes bad. So if you're doing something good that will interest your target market, then by all means tell them all about it. It will gain their attention, raise their perceptions about you, and give them something positive to tell to friends, family and colleagues. There is no better way to promote yourself.

However, you should never underestimate your customer. Many companies, particularly in their marketing strategies, think that it is sufficient to simply tell the customer good stories. Big mistake! Customers may well want to hear the stories that you are telling them, but thats because they want them to be true. Therefore, if they find out that you're claims are not entirely honest then you're in trouble.

If you're not what you say you are, you'll get found out. Your story may have been good, but the story about how you misled them and others is even better! That will be the story that spreads.

Overselling yourself may well help you increase short term sales, but it will destroy your brand and your business in the long run. It will raise suspicions, generate rumors, and turn customers away.

Its quite simple. If you want a successful, sustainable business, then make sure that you can live up to your promises. If you're doing something good, then tell the world about it, but if you're not as good as your customers would want you to be, then you're better off keeping your mouth shut.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Sustainable Tourism in the UK

Last weekend we visited Cornwall. On arrival, we were amazed that in mid-october the weather was just like summer (in fact better than most of this summer). We stayed at a campsite called Hendra Holiday Park just outside of Newquay. We we're delighted to find such a high quality campsite in England. It had excellent facilities of a similar standard to many continental campsites, which was a pleasant change from the usual farmers field. To make things even better, the site demonstrated an impressive commitment to environmental protection. They had recycling points throughout the park, a low energy 'carbon neutral' swimming centre and a free charging point for electric cars.


Creating a holiday experience of such a high standard compared to most UK campsites is probably the best environmental strategy of all as it encourages more people to holiday in the UK and to enjoy camping (very low impact tourism) without having to rough it too much.

The park seemed busy even at this time of year, and stands as a good example of how the UK tourism industry can build successful, sustainable brands and encourage us to holiday in Britain.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Diesel Global Warming Ready

Diesel have launched a new ad campaign called Global Warming Ready, depicting fashion models in a world where the major effects of global warming have begun to take place.


It's claimed that the aim is to raise awareness of global warming, but it seems like a highly superficial campaign. The images appear to glamourise rather than warn against global warming, and there appears to be little or no substance to the campaign. I couldn't find any information about the campaign on Diesel's website other than in the press section where they are trying to gain publicity, and despite their claims that they want to encourage people to fight global warming, there is no mention of what they are doing as a company.


This might well be a good talking point, but its more likely to generate cynicism towards their brand in the wider scheme of things. Their intentions might well be good, but to many this campaign will look as though its making fun of global warming. This campaign is either very brave or very foolish.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

This Water

While I'm talking about Innocent, I should mention that they have recently rebranded their Juicy Water products as This Water. The name doesn't exactly role of the tongue and isn't as compelling as Juicy Water. However, the strategy is sound as it separates the juice drinks from the smoothies. Innocent Smoothies can now focus on its smoothies, and This Water can focus on waters. Simple.


This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Losing their Innocence

Innocent Drinks has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for making false and misleading claims. Innocent have agreed to remove claims from the marketing of their Superfoods Smoothie that it neutralises toxins in the body. However, they disagree with the ASA's judgement that the smoothie is only equivalent to one portion of fruit, rather than the two portions claimed. Whatever the facts, the ASA's criticism is surely a blow to Innocent whose success as a brand is strongly attributed to the consumers trust in the fact that they are, as their name suggests Innocent.

News of this kind can spread quickly, erode the authenticity of the brand and turn consumers against it. Hopefully Innocent will learn from this mistake and ensure the accuracy of any claims in future.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Yahoo Green Icon Contest Winner

This week Yahoo announced the winner of its Green Icon Contest. The icon will be used throughout the Yahoo network to highlight environmental issues. The contest has been won by Leah Dickey who submitted the icon below and has chosen Green Street Project as the recipient for the $20,000 prize fund.


This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Sustainable Brands 07

This week is Sustainable Brands 07, the international conference on business sustainability. It's taking place in New Orleans from 26-28 September and many multinational brands will be in attendance. Visit http://www.sustainablelifemedia.com/events/sustainablebrands07 for more information.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Sad passing of ethical business leader

We all at Scamper are deeply saddened by the death of Anita Roddick on the 10th September 2007.

In her lifetime, Anita got involved in campaigning for environmental and social issues, and founded Children On The Edge, a charitable organisation that helped the children in Eastern European countries and Asia.

She is best known as a founder of the ethical and environmentally friendly beauty products brand The Body Shop, which played a leading role in bringing awareness of environmental and social issues to main stream consumers. The company was one of the first to prohibit the use of ingredients tested on animals and one of the first to promote Fair Trade with third world countries.

She has left a message for the Friends of the Earth's 'The Big Ask' march calling for a strong climate law.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Kensington Whole Foods Market

Yesterday we visited the Whole Foods Market in Kensington, and were delighted to find such an excellent example of a sustainable brand experience.

If you've never visited the Whole Foods Market then we'd recommend it. As soon as you enter the store you are faced with a beautifully presented array of local food, organic food, natural food, traditional food and health foods, as well as other ethical and eco-friendly products such as cosmetics. The whole shopping experience creates an impression that the goods are selected and supplied with great care and are all of the highest quality.


This isn't a typical health food shop or deli, but a full scale supermarket combining the best of modern supermarkets with the quality and experience that you might hope to find in traditional markets and local stores. Its certainly not the place where everyone can do their weekly shop, but it has tapped into a clearly thriving market for affluent city dwellers wanting something healthy and natural in their busy lives, and for whom such fine foods and ingredients complement their fashionable lifestyles.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Not exactly 100% sustainable

This week the 100% Design exhibition is on in London, and this year is themed around sustainability. It's an interesting show for anyone involved in interiors or the built environment, and there is clearly an emphasis on sustainability in some of the exhibits and seminars.

However, what's worrying is the amount of companies making unsubstantiated claims about their environmental credentials. We asked almost every exhibitor we visited whether their products were environmentally friendly or sustainable. All but one answered yes and gave us what was in most cases a fairly plausible sounding justification. Its concerning because for the majority of people who are not actively engaged in issues of sustainability, it would be extremely hard to distinguish between the genuine and more dubious claims. In the long run this could severely damage consumer trust in environmentally friendly product claims.

Its also making life harder for those companies offering genuine environmental benefits to stand out and attract the customers attention. Long gone are the days of simply stating that products are green or eco-friendly. Producers of environmentally friendly products are going to need to become much more sophisticated in the way they communicate their story to the customer if they are to achieve the competitive advantage that they deserve.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Join the Big Ask march!

Add your voice to thousands of others calling for strong law on climate change

The website (Big Ask) is made user friendly which is an added advantage. If a member signing up for big ask is camera shy, he can send out a letter to the MP and complete his pledge. The short videos are interesting, backed up by celebrities.

The brand 'The Big Ask' displays a clear intention of calling for help for brining a stronger law on climate change. The brand is well presented and creates the impact needed for the strong cause.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Farm Bill Food Battle

Free Range Studios have created an excellent video to support the campaign for a fairer US farm bill.



This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Vibram Five Fingers

Vibram have launched an exciting new shoe range called Five Fingers. It’s basically a pair of gloves for your feet, giving a sensation similar to walking barefoot but with the protection of a rubber sole. This apparently reduces the health problems associated with conventional shoes and reduces material use in manufacture.



Five Fingers certainly won't appeal to everyone with their somewhat bizarre appearance, but the brands focus on connecting people with nature and setting them free will be highly compelling to some people and has the makings of a very strong brand.

At present the visual communication focuses too much on promoting Vibram, rather than Five Fingers, and the Five Finger logo actually looks like it reads 'Live Lingerie' from a distance (really, it does), but overall its a powerful idea executed well.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

'Fight Global Warming' advert

The climate change campaign fightglobalwarming.com from Environmental Defense, The Ad Council and The Robertson Foundation have produced a series of adverts aimed to encourage action to tackle global warming.



This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Advertisers misleading with Green Claims

According to the Sunday Herald, the number of complaints about green advertising has almost tripled in 2007 compared to 2006. Big brands are jumping on the green bandwagon trying to profit from the surge in interest on environmental issues.

The complaints upheld in the last few months include one about a Lexus SUV advert claiming that it had "low emissions" and "zero guilt". Lexus, the luxury car division of Toyota, was told not to imply in future that a car caused little or no harm to the environment. A claim that Toyota's Prius model emitted "up to one tonne less CO2 per year" could not be proved in comparison to equivalent vehicles. Volkswagen was taken to task for describing its Golf GT TSI as having "low emissions". The ASA pointed out that car's emissions were not low when compared to all cars.

A claim by budget airline, easyJet, that its planes "emit 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile than traditional airlines" was dismissed as inaccurate.

Scottish and Southern Energy failed to substantiate a claim that it planted trees "to balance out the CO2 that your gas heating and household waste produces".

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has warned companies not to exaggerate environmental benefits and to avoid "pseudo-science" and "sweeping or absolute claims".

Its an inevitable but sad case that big companies are jumping on the bandwagon because it not only misleads the public, but it also erodes public trust about 'green' products and services. Its a good sign that the ASA is taking the issue seriously and clamping down on those making false or unsubstantiated claims.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Why should I buy eco?

A new brand of carbon neutral car insurance has been launched on the UK market. Ibuyeco joins the likes of CIS and Climatesure in providing car insurance policies with carbon offsets. It’s a positive sign that public interest is now sufficient to justify the creation of another brand and it will hopefully increase the demand in the category.

However, it is a shame that with their name and product offering, they are clearly still targeting their services at the environmentally conscious minority.

Look below the surface and ibuyeco is simply an online insurance broker, who find you a competitive quote from a third party provider and add on some carbon offsetting, provided by the Carbon Neutral Company.

The trouble is, that as ibuyeco is basically selling two separate things – insurance and carbon offsets, it’s not clear what their brand really offers. With no background information or product innovation, the brand has no real value in itself, other than the benefit of combining two transactions in one and allowing those who wish to claim, “I buy eco!” Personally, if I don’t buy into the organisation itself and there is no clear service benefit, I would rather shop around for the best insurance quote, and then offset the emissions from a provider of my choice as a separate transaction.

What the market really needs is for an insurance company to use carbon offsetting as an integral part of its package, included in the price, and with the benefits clearly communicated. The offering would have more integrity and appeal to a wider audience. If the difference in price between two trusted suppliers is small, and one includes carbon offsetting as standard and the other doesn’t, many customers would happily choose the carbon neutral option and feel good that they had done something positive for the environment. However, it’s unrealistic to expect many people to be interested in paying extra to offset their carbon emissions unless you can clearly show how it benefits to them.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Car rental not Abel to live up to its brand promise

We recently came across an excellent example of how businesses can erode their brand value chasing short-term profits.

Abel is Queensland’s low cost car rental company, promising great value and exceptional customer service. And they do a fairly good job at delivering their promise. On one condition - That you bring the car exactly as it was when you rented it.

When we returned our rental car recently in Brisbane, the staff found a tiny car park dent on the front wing that we had not even noticed. Well, it shouldn’t have been the end of the world because we had paid for the most comprehensive damage liability waiver, limiting our liability to $275 AUD.

But what we didn’t know was that Abel has a $330 dollar accident-processing fee written into their small print. That’s more than the liability itself!

On top of this, they charged $53 demurrage for the car being taken off the road for repair, and $277 for our liability, which is $2 more than agreed in the rental agreement.

Whether it was in their small print or not, the marketing was clearly framed to deceive the customer and when the charges were questioned, the illusion of customer service quickly evaporated. If we didn’t settle in full on the spot, they would continue charging us for the car rental until we paid. And it wasn’t just us, another customer got stung for the same thing while we were still in the store.

The core of any successful brand is telling an authentic story, and we would have happily have told others of our positive experience if Abel had lived up to their brand promise. Instead, we quickly told everyone we know in the area to avoid Abel like a plague.

We subsequently rented a couple of cars from Thrifty, who provided genuinely friendly and honest customer service, did not have any horrors in small print, and seemed to have a very reasonable attitude when assessing the cars on return. On one occasion, they didn’t even check the car telling is that as long as we haven’t crashed it, a few nicks and scratches don’t matter, and that they trust us when we say we’ve filled it with fuel. Now that’s service that we’ll recommend.

Thrifty have won themselves a long term customer by projecting a very positive brand image that cares for and trusts their customers, whereas Abel’s pursuit of short term profits has cost them more than the extra charges incurred.

The message is simple, if you want to build a valuable and sustainable brand, your service must live up to your promise. If it doesn’t, you’re digging your brand an early grave.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Virgin Blue going Virgin Green

The aviation industry is often criticised for its contribution to global warming. Increasingly low airfares encourage more air travel for both holidays and business. Concerned travelers are now taking action by offsetting their own carbon emissions through companies like Climate Care. But many are now asking whether the airlines themselves should take responsibility for their emissions rather than leaving it to the consumer to deal with.


Virgin Blue, Australia’s low cost internal airline, implied that this was going to happen in a recent campaign that renamed the airline as Virgin Green and stated that Virgin Blue is going Carbon Neutral. Closer inspection reveals that this is sadly not the case, but it is also clear that it is more than just a publicity stunt as the airline is pursuing a number of strong strategies to reduce its environmental impact.

• Virgin Blue is the first airline in Australia to offer customers the opportunity to neutralise their emissions. The money earned through this will be contributed towards projects dealing with forest activities, energy efficiency measures, waste diversion and renewable energy.

• The carbon emissions generated by the crew and the staff on business travel will be offset.

• The airline has joined 800 other companies in the Australian Greenhouse Challenge Plus Program to measure, monitor and report on overall emissions with the goal of reducing them every year.

• Virgin blue has decided to apply special “green” paint on 70 aircrafts, as part of a major new investment in environmentally friendly cleaning and maintenance technology.

• Virgin Blue also claim to have the most fuel efficient airline fleet in Australia.
  

Although not perfect, Virgin’s approach is clearly a step in the right direction and a milestone in the aviation industry. However, it is disappointing that the airlines are still not prepared to take responsibility for the carbon emissions of their aircraft by offsetting the emissions for all passengers. Considering that it only costs about AUS$1.50 to offset a passengers flight from Brisbane to Sydney, it could surely be included as part of the ticket price.

Virgin Blue have clearly recognised the growing level of public concern about environmental issues and the value that taking a lead on these issues can add to their brand, but they need to show firmer commitment to tackling carbon emissions before they can justify calling themselves Virgin Green.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Yoghurt on a Mission

A new brand of organic yoghurt has recently hit supermarket shelves in the UK. The McCracken family farm in Northern Ireland has developed a quirky and fun brand for their organic yoghurt called Stony (not to be confused with Stonyfield Farm, the US based organic yoghurt company).

Featuring a family of Stonies with the slogan 'Yoghurt on a Mission' the brand is a clever attempt to stand apart from more conventional brands like Rachel's Organic and Yeo Valley, appearing to borrow a certain amount of inspiration from popular ethical brands like Innocent Drinks.


Unfortunately, the concept of the stony characters doesn't communicate its message as clearly as it could and is in some cases a little bit freaky. However, its early days and with some careful development we hope Stony can become a successful brand and help to grow the market for organic food.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Renault Eco 2 good to be true?

Amid rising concerns about climate change, car manufacturers are starting to jump on the green bandwagon and promote their environmental credentials.

Notably Renault recently launched its Eco 2 brand, which is applied to its more efficient cars and means that they:

• Have CO2 emissions of less than 140g/km

• Are produced in an ISO14001 certified factory

• Are 95% recyclable

Its true that Renault have made some significant improvements in recent years, but schemes like Eco 2 are misleading and confusing. After all, how much is 140g/km CO2, and why does the claim of 95% recyclable include incineration as a form of recycling?

Its good that manufacturers like Renault are taking notice of public concerns about climate change, but there is a major risk that if manufacturers like Renault continue trying to portray fairly ordinary cars as environmentally friendly, they will in the long term simply fuel skepticism towards 'green' brands and towards their company's own green credentials.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

LeMans 24hour Cycle Challenge

Tom Greenwood, Scamper co-founder and Brand Strategist is taking part in the LeMans 24hour Cycle Challenge in September and will be cycling 170miles from Leatherhead, Surrey to LeMans, France to raise money for SeeAbility. To find out more and to donate to the sponsorship fund, visit:

http://www.justgiving.com/tomgreenwood

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Could logo controversy be good for the Games?

The saga over the new London 2012 Olympic brand continues with media attention over the controversy spreading worldwide and generating over 1 million visitors to the London 2012 website.

The popularity of the new design is universally low, with the ‘scrap the logo’ petition closed after receiving nearly 50,000 votes for fear that it might damage the reputation of the games, and a CNN poll showing that 89% of people do not like the new logo. This clearly conflicts with the spirit of the Olympic games and with the brand vision of 'Everyone's Games'. To make things even worse, a video clip featuring the new visual identity has been found to cause epileptic fits and has been banned from public viewing.

But could all the publicity be good for the games in the long run? Rita Clifton of Interbrand, stated that “whether people like it or not is not the point – likeability is not correlated with effectiveness in branding.”

For a public event like the Olympics though, the success of the brand is not as simple as generating revenue. Certainly the logo has attracted considerably more attention than a more popular logo would have, but is any publicity always good publicity? Time will tell, but the answer may well differ depending on whether you measure financial or cultural success.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

New London 2012 Olympic Brand

This week saw the announcement of the new London 2012 Olympic brand. The brand vision has taken on the true spirit of the Olympic games, which is to bring people together and inspire people to push boundaries and fulfill their potential. As London 2012 Olympic Chair Sebastian Coe stated, "London 2012 will be everyone’s games". This is a strong and appropriate vision for the games and the new emblem has embraced this spirit with the Olympic and Paralympic Games logos being the same for the first time in history. However, the design of the icon itself is likely to be less successful.

The Olympic committee have strived to create a brand that will attract young people to the games and so encourage their participation in the games and sport in general. This is a worthwhile ambition for the games, especially considering the rise in childhood obesity, but it seems that they have overlooked their own vision of inclusivity and created an image that the majority will struggle to connect with. So much so in fact that it has prompted an online petition for it to be scrapped, which has already received over 17,000 signatures. Responding to the huge number of complaints, the BBC has launched a competition to design an alternative logo.

Creating such a brash visual statement is a high-risk strategy not only because it may fail to communicate the spirit of the games to the majority of people, but because building a strong brand is critical in attracting private sector funding for the games and generating merchandise sales. The nature of the design also makes it likely to date very quickly. In fact, far from being forward thinking, it is viewed by many as looking like something from the 1980’s and with the games still five years away, it may look even more dated by the time the games actually arrive.

It is also interesting to note that during the bidding process, London 2012 was billed as the first 'green' Olympics. This may well be embodied in much of the infrastructure being built for the games, but there is no mention of this link between the health benefits of sport and a healthy environment in the new brand vision. This could sadly lead to the 2012 games failing to make the most of their opportunity to communicate the benefits of sustainability on a global stage and showcase London and the UK as leaders in this field.

It is intended that the new brand will be dynamic and will evolve "in the years between now and 2012", so perhaps there is still hope for the Olympic brand to recover and become something that connects with and inspires people across society, aswell as communicating a strong message about the benefits of sport.

Details of the London 2012 brand can be found on the official website:

http://main.london2012.com/en/

The ‘Change the 2012 Logo’ petition can be found at:

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/change-the-london-2012-logo.html

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy