Check Please! Make Sure Left-Brainers Have a Seat at the Communications Table

Ron Loch
February 24th, 2011

B.C. by Johnny Hart was one of my favorite comic strips growing up and one “Show Me Rock” entry stuck with me through the years:  “Show me a man that sets his sights high … and I’ll show you a man that knocks the antlers off a deer.” 

I’m thinking about that strip because I fear speed-to-market pressures and poor internal communications may be causing well-meaning companies to rush to market with aspirational claims when accuracy is what customers and investors demand.  

Just visit the comment section under a new product release posted to greentechmedia.com and you’ll see marketing claims challenged by engineers who are happy to show their math.  Reading the responses to a recent release claiming extraordinary energy conversion efficiency made me flashback to the college chemistry class when I realized I was meant to be a communicator.  These readers are doing what the communications team should have done: checked the math.

Too often, R&D or operations are seen only as a partner at the beginning of the march to market; expected to conduct a “data dump” to get the communications team up to speed and then get out of the way so the right brainers can do their creative work. 

The problem is that companies can operate as one big telephone game.   “We’re evaluating the potential to reduce customers’ carbon footprint by as much as 50 percent” can eventually become “Cut your carbon footprint in half!”  The release goes out, the blog commenters do the math and your credibility is called into question.  

I’ve been fortunate to have served on some truly remarkable marketing management teams for clients and in each case these included a representative from R&D, usually a Technical Service & Development manager.  Yes, they could be creative kill-joys by clouding brilliant messaging with niggling facts, but together we all learned how to find common ground that was both compelling and credible.   

That’s a recipe for success I believe more companies need to pursue.  By breaking down silos and creating cross-functional teams communications gets stronger and less time is spent walking back messaging and repairing credibility. 

So here’s a shout out to the left brain analytical types; you may not be good at creative communications, but we can’t do it well without you.

(Contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

How Green is My Vocabulary

Ron Loch
October 18th, 2010

“Membership, I have an old member at the front desk who needs assistance.” I cringed.

I had let my membership to the health club expire last year and now I was back to re-up. Technically, the woman at the front desk was correct when she referred to me as an old member, but I would have much preferred the descriptor “previous.” That would have eliminated the ambiguity and my fear that someone would arrive to greet me with a wheelchair.

While this is a shallow example of why qualifiers are important, it does illustrate how word choice, even when technically correct, can be misleading. That’s what’s at the heart of the recently proposed revisions to the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides.

Green is the new old. It has been deemed a relative term as have “degradable, compostable, safe, friendly, recyclable and non-toxic.” All of these claims are clarified in the FTC’s proposal which is designed to help consumers make more educated purchase decisions. Most of the guidance is related to minimum qualifications for making a claim. For example, degradable, means complete decomposition occurs no more than one year after customer disposal. Gone is the subjective “within a reasonably short period of time.”

There’s no doubt clarification is needed. If “eco-friendly and non-toxic” become as subjective as the ubiquitous “new and improved” then the benefits of green technology and sustainable approaches are trivialized. Innovation would be, at best, incremental.

There’s also no doubt many communicators will find these new guidelines constraining. After all, we strive to be concise in our communications. However, the best marketers have always been those who roll up their sleeves, talk with product developers and understand the supply chain. Understanding the substance behind a product claim has always been a best practice for success. It’s no different with products that have an environmental benefit.

I fear some communicators will make one of two mistakes in response to these new guidelines:

  • Shy away from promoting legitimate environmental benefits for fear of running afoul of the FTC guidelines. This would deprive consumers of valuable information and devalue the importance of improving the environmental footprint of products.
  • Search for the one perfect descriptor word the FTC hasn’t addressed. This is an approach with a short shelf-life and little value unless it’s backed up with the proper qualifiers. There’s no substitute for understanding the full context of how the products you promote are made, used and disposed of.

What the FTC guidance boils down to is a greater need for context. After my experience at the health club, I’m a big proponent of context, AND I’m thankful the receptionist didn’t refer to me as expired.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

Don’t Mix Your Message

Ron Loch
August 23rd, 2010

When I ride my bike, I wear a helmet.  Not out of habit – I never wore one as a child – and certainly not to make a fashion statement.  Let’s be honest, unless you’re in the Tour de France, helmets make adults look dorky.  I do it because I want my kids to wear theirs and I think I need to model the desired behavior. 

Apparently, I’m in the minority.  Riding around the neighborhood with my son last night, we kept meeting these families where the kids are wearing helmets, but not the parents.  I wonder how long it will take for the kids to decide they’re old enough to risk traumatic brain injury like Mom and Dad.

Mixed messages like this are a killer of progress, and I’m afraid I see similar incongruity in the actions of companies pursuing sustainability. 

I was handed a great example during a discussion with two executives of a company that sells sustainably produced coated papers.  We were discussing challenges they face when trying to convert customers to green solutions. 

Most were typical – misperceptions that green paper is more expensive and that purchasing agents are resistant to change.  One, however, stood out. 

They had a prospect that was committing itself to becoming more sustainable and green paper seemed to be the perfect way for them to convey this message.  The only problem? The company’s designers didn’t like how the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification watermark looked, so they wouldn’t source the green paper!

No wonder the recent G&S Sense & Sustainability Study™ found consumers and Fortune 1000 executives skeptical about the commitment of corporate America to sustainability.  Unless every department and supplier is making decisions that reflect dedication to sustainability, “going green” appears to be an option, not a business imperative. 

Everyone needs to model the desired behavior.  Even if it means risking helmet hair or the intrusion of a sustainable certification symbol on your brochure design.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

Weakness Has Left the Building

Ron Loch
July 1st, 2010

At a recent swim meet I attended, one of the swimmers was wearing a t-shirt that said, “Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body.” 

I immediately rushed to use that bit of inspiration on my daughter who was getting ready for a race.  I promptly received the “Dad, you’re lame” look.  But I do find it to be an inspiring point of view; if not for my teenage daughter, perhaps for organizations striving to become more sustainable

Change, even when it makes an organization stronger, is often painful. 

This is reflected in a survey of CEOs by the United Nations Global Compact and Accenture.  Of the 720 executives surveyed, 93 percent said that sustainability is important to the strength of their organization, and 80 percent believe that fully integrating sustainability across their business will happen within 15 years. 

However, nearly half pointed to the complexity of implementation across functions and competing strategic priorities as significant barriers to an enterprise-wide approach to sustainability.  These are common barriers that often fatigue important initiatives and stress communicators charged with implementing organizational change. 

In fact, the same change management principles we employ when communicating about mergers and acquisitions, downsizing or restructuring apply to creating a corporate sustainability mindset. 

  • Gain sponsorship from senior executives:  The power of the C-suite is critical to establishing sustainability as a business priority.  If it is crucial to the success of the organization, that importance must be reinforced with nearly every interaction.
  • Deliver relevant messages:  It’s not enough to tell employees why sustainability is important to the company; they need to know why it’s important to them and their career.    
  • Rethink how you communicate success:  Competing priorities suggest that reward systems are out of whack.  If production numbers are traditionally promoted, but not energy cost reductions, then energy conservation will not appear to be a critical business priority.  Forget tradition and look at communications through a new lens.
  • Create feedback loops:  Talking at employees produces little change.  Create ways for employees to engage in the conversation about sustainability initiatives and you can gauge your success in making it a company-wide priority.
  • Grin and bear it:  Let’s face it; change communications can be a pain when you are fighting entrenched interests and legacy processes.  But, take heart.  You’re helping to build a stronger, more successful and sustainable enterprise. 

After all, that pain is just weakness leaving the organization.

 (Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

The Power of Story Telling

Ron Loch
June 24th, 2010

During my Industrial Ecology class the other night, the professor talked about the influence of stories in the evolution of social and environmental awareness. 

There were Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” which led to a call for meat inspection standards, John Muir’s “The Yosemite,” which inspired the creation of a national park system, and Dian Fossey’s “Gorillas in the Mist,” which rallied support for protecting endangered species. 

Each was a story that connected emotionally with people across social, geographic and economic boundaries to inspire understanding and action.

It made me reflect on a discussion I had last week at a G&S event on CSR leadership.  The particular exchange focused on the challenges of pursuing sustainability in organizations that are highly decentralized.

How do you get divisions that are at different stages in their journey toward sustainability to embrace and align with a corporate directive? 

The answer is to share more stories; stories that will motivate the line worker as well as the division president. 

Forget the PowerPoint slides filled with facts and figures.  Find an emotional connection that will get them excited.  

The outdoor clothier Patagonia provides an excellent example of this with its The Cleanest Line blog.  With stories of outdoor adventure, the blog helps crystallize the importance of both the products they sell and their commitment to sustainability without specifically mentioning either.    

Stories are powerful motivators.  In fact, I think the old saying that starts with “give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day” needs to be revised. 

Forget about teaching him to fish.

Tell him a good story about the big one that got away and he’ll want to fish for a lifetime.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

Let it Flow

Ron Loch
June 17th, 2010

The other evening Gibbs & Soell hosted a CSR leadership discussion with senior communicators and sustainability advocates.

It was pure conversation at its finest.

One question triggered a chain reaction of comments like water rings from a stone dropped in a lake. Speakers turned the tables on the audience, peppering them with their own questions.

And, best of all, PowerPoint slides were banned.

During the networking session that followed, discussions naturally turned to the oil spill in the Gulf.  The estimated flow of oil was reported to be 35- to 60-times greater than first thought.  We debated the impact this news would have on President Obama’s address to the nation later that evening. 

The importance of reliable feedback systems was the common thread between our program’s topic and the White House’s role in the crisis.

The government initially relied on BP’s estimates which proved to be too rosy, and then had to assemble its own team of experts to try to measure more accurately.  As the estimates of flowing oil grew, the credibility of the estimators and of the “Communicator in Chief” declined.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s reputation remains at the mercy of an oil spill playing 24/7 on live video feeds put in place by BP 5,000 feet below the water’s surface. 

When a company pursues a path toward sustainability, it is taking responsibility for the flow of information within and outside their organization.  Without complete and trustworthy feedback, a well intentioned claim of improved environmental stewardship can turn into a growing accusation of “greenwashing” as results prove otherwise. 

And once marred, credibility can be as tough to restore as plumes of oil that have escaped from a deep sea well.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

The Oilman Gushes about Renewable Energy

Ron Loch
May 26th, 2010

WINDPOWER 2010 is bringing some surprising perspectives to the podium in Dallas,  including those of former President George W. Bush who delivered a keynote address at the convention.

Given that he was mostly characterized as an oilman during his time in the White House, it was interesting to listen to President Bush speak passionately about renewable energy.

As governor of Texas he created incentives for the development of wind energy, and today Texas is the top state in wind power generation. 

When I walk around the exhibit hall there are a lot of companies that share his communications challenge. Many have built their brands in the fossil fuel industry and are now making significant capital investments in wind.  

It will take a concerted communications effort to make sure they get the credit they deserve and are seen as advocates of this important industry.  

That will not only help these companies, but also help the industry get the attention of policy makers.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

Industry with a Wind in its Sails

Ron Loch
May 25th, 2010

A hot wind is blowing in Dallas and it has nothing to do with the 90+ temperatures.  I’m at WINDPOWER 2010 and there’s no mistaking an industry on the move.  

This year’s conference has 200 more exhibitors than last year’s and attendance is expected to approach 20,000. Conversations on the floor are consistent with the Wind Industry Monitor poll – the industry in the U.S. needs a boost from a clear energy policy. There is particular support of a Renewable Electricity Standard

However, judging by the booths and traffic, companies are not taking a “wait-and-see” attitude.  They are obviously investing in sales and marketing judging by the size and complexity of the booths.  

Balancing the need for energy policy advocacy and immediate sales seems to be the most pressing communications issue they face.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

Greentech: Engine vs. Bandwagon Jumper

Ron Loch
May 19th, 2010

Michael Kanellos at Greentech Media wrote a great perspective earlier this month, “Why There is No Google of Green,” where he provides eight reasons why the greentech revolution is different than the Internet. 

While he’s spot-on about the reasons why there’s a difference, the fact he felt compelled to write the piece has me concerned.  

He writes that not a week goes by that someone doesn’t ask the question, “Where is the Google of green?”  Couple that with statements by corporate executives and venture capitalists that greentech will be “larger than the Internet” – and greentech has the hallmarks of a bandwagon.  

The greentech and renewable energy space is decades old, and it’s certainly seen its share of advancements and setbacks.  In fact, few people realize that in the early 1900s electric cars outnumbered gasoline automobiles.

What’s currently fueling the excitement among market watchers are recent developments, including the approval of the first U.S. large scale, offshore wind farm, the proposed Senate climate and energy bill, and a worldwide recognition that we must control carbon emissions.

That’s great because it attracts more investment. But, on the flip-side, you inevitably have an influx of service providers looking to exploit early stage enthusiasm to maximize short-term income.   

As new technologies approach commercialization, they often get a second look by the supply chain which can lead to a “too-good-to-be-true” narrative.

Companies in the greentech space need partners – whether lawyers, business consultants or communications agencies – that can navigate them through the challenges that inevitably follow launch to ensure they prosper and succeed.

After all, every bandwagon will have its share of jumpers, but they do nothing to move the float forward.  For that, you need an engine.  

That’s the thinking behind the recent announcement from Gibbs & Soell about our new greentech and sustainability practice. It’s an engine powered by a depth of client experience with clean technologies and sustainable practices.

Check us out, and contact me at rloch@gibbs-soell.com or (847) 519-9150 to learn more about our work.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations. He leads the firm’s Greentech & Sustainability Practice, collaborating with G&S colleagues specializing in advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, consumer lifestyle and building solutions, professional services, and technology and general science.)

A Blooming Good Launch Strategy

Ron Loch
February 28th, 2010

Last week, Bloom Energy Corporation officially introduced its much anticipated “Bloom Box” fuel cell technology.  We got a preview of the technology on Sunday when Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes ran a story about K.R. Sridhar, the CEO of Bloom Energy and his promising technology. 

In it, Stahl calls Sridhar an “idealist” because he believes that his technology will be in every home in America, to which he responds, “It’s about seeing the world as what it can be, not what it is.” 

That forest-for-the -trees thinking is not only refreshing, but also necessary for innovation to thrive.  However, from a communications standpoint, it often has a very short shelf-life.  It captures attention and inspires hope, but then it can quickly expire to be replaced by skepticism which may even turn to derision. 

Forget “what have you done for me lately,” we have become a “what are you doing for me now society.”  This makes launching new technology extremely difficult.  Launch too soon and you risk inviting an avalanche of skepticism about price, scalability and performance.  Launch too late and you risk losing financing or a competitive advantage.

Bloom seems to have taken a good approach.  Their official coming out party featured a list of impressive customers including eBay, Google, Bank of America, Fed-Ex.  Too often new technology companies, particularly in the greentech arena, launch at the concept or prototype stage to great fanfare only to find that their technology isn’t commercially scalable.  Maybe Bloom’s financial backer, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, learned an important lesson from the launch of Segway, which it also funded. 

Segway garnered nearly the same amount of media interest as Bloom at launch, but had no customers, was seen as an “expensive high-tech scooter” and was relying on communities to change their pedestrian laws to ensure market penetration.  Subsequently, Segway is looked at as an interesting niche technology that never lived up to the hype.  Bloom’s fuel cell is also expensive and high tech, but by keeping quiet until it proved its concept with major brand owners before launch, it hits the stage with a level of credibility that can blunt skepticism that typically accompanies major technology launches. 

The inspiration for the Bloom fuel cell technology was an oxygen-producing device Sridhar invented for NASA to help future astronauts breathe on Mars.  That proposed Mars mission involved a layover on the Moon.  It appears Bloom is taking a similar layover strategy by having first established a base with large businesses before venturing on to the consumer market. That too will be a long expensive and perilous journey, but at least they’ve had a successful launch.  I think it’s a model other greentech startups should consider.

(Guest contributor Ron Loch is a senior vice president at Gibbs & Soell Public Relations.)