Why do they sometimes fail to produce expected results? Well, we could examine if what’s expected is realistic, strategically aligned with business goals, well funded, well staffed, planned right, integrated with other communications activities, is…there’s a bunch of different ways we Digital PR people can imagine. Check out this slideshow from the Brand Science Institute.

[Slideshow Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

[Video Link for Email/Other Subscribers - 35.5min]

Retail is the conduit between manufacturers and consumers, and presents a frontline opportunity for messaging, product selection, and an environment that focuses on being better. In a holistic sense for both the shopper and the retailer and their operations. There’s much psychology through going on behind the scenes, in not only trying to understand and meet shoppers needs, but also by delighting them. Stephanie Eller and Anthony Perez of FITCH, specialize in research and design initiatives for various retailers regarding these areas, and present here a variety of findings and case studies on sustainability, retail, shopper attitudes and behaviors, and brands that are providing custom atmospheres and experiences that stand out.

So many visuals! Really had me engaged

[Video Link for Email/Other Subscribers - 8.5min]

Plastiki’s Expedition Leader David De Rothschild takes some time to speak with my colleague Lindsey Whited about the impact that his voyage will make in the world of corporate responsibility and why companies should stay curious and challenge themselves regularly on the path to sustainability. The sailboat is made from bottles collected from Waste Management in San Francisco.

Great set of ideation cards from IDEO here. Nuff said - browse and enjoy!

[Presentation Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

[Slideshow Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

By Peter Jones of Design Dialogues. As quoted from the presentation’s description:

“While the processes and perspectives collectively referred to as “design thinking” have evolved progressively in the last 10 years, research methodology has not demonstrably changed in the same period. Design research has continued to add new methods to its roster of adopted tools, but do methods and tools collectively contribute to a new whole greater than the sum of the methods? We can observe a movement toward design contexts for organizational and social setting, which have been framed as Design 3.0 and now Design 4.0, by NextD.

One way to understand the difference in design applications is by reconsidering the way we understand and make sense of design opportunities in this perspective. What are the appropriate research methodologies that account for observations about the targets of Design 3.0? These might include the larger system within which a service is conceived, the organizational context, social systems with multiple stakeholders, large-scale information ecologies with multiple emergent participants.

We continue to study pieces of the problem, with user research, ethnography, participatory design research, smart sampling, trend analysis. But why have we not adopted methods from other disciplines that also contribute within the systems we intend to transform? Peter will present models and perspectives relating research methods and sensemaking approaches that bring the power of contextual understanding and collaborative problem solving to these organizational and social frames of design.”

[Video Link for Email/Other Subscribers - 60min]

I also met Marc last month at Sustainable Brands 09; must say that he’s quite a jolly fellow! From meeting him and further listening to his Interaction 09 conference speech shown here, I feel more fully aware of what ethnographic research can entail and the value it can bring to product design. Marc’s speech here is very relaxed, and the degree to which you feel like getting to see and experience the various case studies and examples is exemplary. Have a go at it!

In his own words:

In the midst of a global conversation about change, many designers are pondering their own impact in the world. How does our experience in software interfaces, web sites, and physical products prepare us to address the profound issues humanity is facing? These issues involve many complex systems, systems too big to fit into the scope of any single company or institution. Design methods are potent at large scale and scope, but what does it take to be effective as a practitioner, as a team, as a company? What is it like to actually achieve a meaningful, sustainable, positive difference in life?

In this talk I offer insights into that question, drawing lessons from a number of serious, heartfelt attempts to affect change. The work we have all done in recent decades has prepared us to take on much bigger challenges. The foundations of design remain powerfully effective. That said, there are ways in which “designing for change” requires additions to our inventory of methods, and transformations in the way we plan and conduct our work.

These new ways of working can also benefit the design projects most of us tackle every day – challenges less grand in scale than shifting to sustainable transportation or raising the quality of a nation’s schools. The grand projects force us to consider the social situation we work within, the social systems we affect, the ripple effects of our actions, the nested web of parts and wholes, and the personal journey of our team. Attention to these things can improve the effectiveness of any effort to accomplish meaningful change.

About Marc:
Marc is a co-founder of Fit Associates, LLC. Fit’s intention is to lead, nurture, connect and equip conscious organizations for the greatest impact for the common good. Fit has a deep bench in ethnographic research, design, psychology, technology, and organizational change.

He can be found tweeting at: @mrettig

About four years ago I read an interesting book called Super Searchers on Competitive Intelligence, which was a series of interviews with professional researchers on a variety of questions regarding CI, research methodologies, project management, and so on. Here are the collective tips I gleaned from the book, in addition to some of my own from practical experience.

1. Trenches time: 20% secondary research, 30% primary research, and 50% analysis.
2. Always ask if your work is actionable and not just “nice to know”.
3. If you see a trend supported by data, but still fragmented, trust your instincts and draw a conclusion.
4. Check sources on all info.
5. Sometimes you need to spend money to get great info.
6. Know your info source’s strengths, weaknesses, biases.
7. Project Management is key.
8. But realize there is no single, generic process. The deadlines, requirements, and recipient impact the depth, scope, nature of project, how it will be used and by whom.
9. Learn the industry including environmental influences, new competitors, opportunities, and threats.
10. Cite sources for quick reference later.
11. PDF data if you’re afraid it might not be available later.
12. Build relationships with everyone.

I’ve used many of these tips for articles, research, and proposals on marketing and product development. A couple particular tips I’ll expand on relate to inquiry and relationships.

There’s a lot of collective intelligence scattered amongst company employees and partners. This includes both line-workers, managers, and executives. Many folks are eager to express their opinions, but they’ve just never been asked. Therefore you have to be social with everyone, engage in a little bit of small talk, and ask questions. Perhaps the individual may not know the answer you’re looking for, but knows someone else who does.

Today’s social web makes for a huge variety of potential sources in building a picture of what you’re researching. But of course be aware of how biases, sentiments (positive/negative), and opinions may add a lot of unuseful data. FILTERS (technical & human) are very important! As mentioned before, source credibility is paramount.

Sketch! Seriously. Draw diagrams and maps of human relationships, processes, knowledge, and so on. It really helps. There’s only so much text alone can do for us. But drawing helps build conceptual interrelationships, and the labels we use carry deeper meaning to text we’ve already written, or thoughts in our head. Sketching also helps us visualize what we’ve accomplished, what still needs to be done, relative importance, and may open up areas we haven’t explored yet. It’s an interative process throughout a project, and may carry benefits forward for additional ones.

Additional Resources:
Competitive Intelligence - A Selective Resource Guide - Updated and Revised March 2009

Excellent presentation on branding and communications in the green space, by consumer insights firm Scenario DNA. Much of it relates to similar studies done by Umbria, specifically online. Official description is as follows: “Consumers are gaining knowledge. They are wisening up to the real meaning behind green. They understand tradeoffs vs. trivial. They’re at the brink of growing green deaf.”
Enjoyez!

[Presentation Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

More Than Half of Shoppers Consider Product Sustainability Attributes in Purchasing Decisions - Deloitte Study

I’m not the usual one to be deeply considering surveys on “green” products, but you might be interested in checking out the concise press release above. So the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Deloitte conducted a 6,400 shopper intercept survey that showed 54% percent of shoppers said that they actively consider environmental sustainability characteristics in their buying decisions, yet they actually bought green products on just 22 percent of their shopping trips.

Just what does this mean? Of course we can interpret it a bunch of ways. My take first is to question do people know what a “green product” is. Sorry, but this terminology is quite vague. When we’re using an adjective to describe products across various categories in supermarkets, we’re losing pertinent information. Let’s remember that roughly 18% of the American population considers themselves actively interested in environmental/sustainability issues. That would imply that eco-literacy in the rest of the population is subject to be quite hazy.

To be objective, “green” is supposed to mean environmentally & wildlife friendly. Yet, may some people consider fair trade as “green”? It’s a very fast growing product sector, but it wouldn’t surprise me if people lumped it in with “green”. Oh, and here’s a biggie: “local”. That could imply that we’re either supporting local economies & employment, OR we’re saving carbon emissions from long-distance transportation. Which value would come first? Even if we wanted to be all-inclusive and decided to use the adjective “sustainable”, I think we’d be in greater subjective “Uhm…what’s that” waters than “green”.

So here’s the takeaway quotes:

“Sustainable product characteristics are emerging as an important brand differentiator, but to capture the potential market value of green shoppers, retailers and manufacturers must do a better job of communicating the sustainable attributes behind the products to show the value of buying green to the shopper…Consistent, aligned messaging in stores, online and at other touch points will be essential to converting shoppers from simply being interested in green to buying green.”

Indeed. A combination of credible storytelling and in some cases depending on the attribute (i.e. packaging, ingredients, production methods), certification and additional info will give a good reason why the product is worth picking up.

If you want to seriously learn more about the right way to communicate your product/service offering, I suggest you come to Sustainable Brands 09, where there will be a variety of speakers talking about best practices and effective engagement strategies. No, I’m not talking about fluffy “eco-friendly” speak (which I absolutely abhor - more on this on a later date). I’m talking about customizing the brand communications to meet the unique needs and desires of the target audience in perhaps a subtle, yet relevant way. Or a penetrating way that speaks to the personal values of the user/mom/shopper/etc. which relate to a simple desire to do something for the better for our body, family, community, and maybe the planet.

Whichever approach it is, I can only recommend that somehow you act on this. Great sustainable products have been around for quite a while - bikes or clotheslines anyone? But in order for us collectively to increase their purchasing volume, we absolutely have to help the shopper out through better brand communications.

Survey Reveals Generation Gaps on Sustainability Attitudes - Packaging Digest

“The Sage Group conducted a web-based research study called, “My Views on Environmentally Friendly Packaging,” and delivered it to nearly 800 multiple-generation “friends” via an email or a Facebook link and took care to use commonly understood terms. For example, the survey didn’t refer to “sustainable packaging,” because 89 percent of consumers don’t know what it means. Queries ranged from, “What makes a company or brand environmentally friendly?” to “How does that friendliness affect purchasing decisions?””

See the article above for generational differences on a variety of topics. Here are the common findings among all groups:

• They believe they can have a significant impact on the environment.
• They seek data on the environmental impact of a product and its packaging on which to base purchasing decisions.
• They view “hard-packaging” and over-packaging as environmentally destructive.
• They’re unaware of the sustainability nuances of the various types of packaging materials (plastic is bad, glass is good, reused materials are good, etc.).
• To them, sustainable packaging is recyclable packaging. Period.
• They avoid buying from companies they perceive as having a bad reputation—ethically or environmentally.
• They recognize greenwashing when they see it. Authenticity and transparency are essential to them.