Do you remember Esperanto, the language concocted in the 19th century to become the one that would bridge all others? What about the babblefish, Douglas Adams’ sci-fi translator fish? Respectively a failure and a fiction, but - you have to admit - they were both great ideas. Each a simple way of bridging the language gaps that separate cultures, and continents. And market segments. All marketers worry about segmentation and communications, and for environmental marketers the worry is double. The first challenge is the one we addressed in the last issue of EcoMarketer: Finding the values-based language that reaches out beyond the “green” audience; the language (or languages) that will resonate with as many segments as possible – whether or not “environment” even enters the conversation. That’s the challenge of “language”. In this issue, I want to focus on the challenge of “dialect” – communicating effectively with the predisposed “green” buyer. Let’s start with some quick facts from the market research on green purchasers: - About 20% of buyers are notably predisposed to “greener” purchasing. (Don’t lose hope - the rest of are still reachable. See the last issue of EcoMarketer!)
- The individual companies and persons in that bright green 20% are not static. Rather, buyers move in and out based on their particular and shifting corporate and individual circumstances and priorities. New parents concerned for their children’s well being - for example - and companies facing new regulatory scrutiny.
- Ironically, this bright green minority – the very segment that most wants your environmental value proposition – is also the audience most inclined to distrust your claims.
And here’s the punch line: even in this seemingly monochromatic “green” audience, there are hundreds of different and mutually exclusive specific definitions of “green”. For every hundred green buyers, you’ll find a hundred different priorities and motivations, each requiring a different value proposition. A different dialect. Some are green out of an interest in their personal health, others for protection of the spotted owl. Some start from a religious devotion to stewardship, some from an economic sense of conserving environmental commodities. Each of these is a different environmental value, paradigm, and motivation. And each “green” consumer and company has its own environmental dialect. If I speak in the dialect of habitat protection to a green consumer who speaks the dialect of disease prevention, we’ll fail to communicate. I’ll fail to engage, and fail to sell. This is the “challenge of dialect”. So, absent Esperanto or a babblefish, what can you do? Plenty. First, remember that knowledge is power. Study the intersection between your environmental value proposition and the values your target markets hold most dear. Develop a segmentation model according to the specific environmental motivations of your audiences. Pay attention to these sub-populations in the universe of ‘green’ buyers. Decide if your strategy will be to approach each sub-segment independently, or if you must use one campaign to reach them all. You can make either work, but you must start with a deliberate and clear understanding of their environmental priorities and dialect. Second, as you build communications strategies, collateral and other outreach, carefully choose the general environmental benefits you’ll emphasize. The EcoMarkets 2007 research suggests three broad categories – dialects – of environmental priorities. “Human health” is most widely resonant, and is followed by “technical” concerns (such as “water pollution”). The environmental issues that resonate least widely with audiences are those related to “wilderness” and “habitat”. If you are targeting this last population, for which habitat-related issues are most important, by all means emphasize these benefits. If you are targeting the wider “green” community, you will be wiser to choose the more widely recognized issues related to human health. Finally, if your campaign will emphasize very specific environmental advantages (such as “low volatile organic compounds”, or “climate protection”), be vigilant in choosing the precise dialect that will resonate most widely and effectively. The research is clear about the big difference this can make. “Human health” is more effective than “reduced toxics”. Surprisingly, “energy conservation” is still far more resonant than either “reduced greenhouse gas emissions” or “climate change”. And, “recyclability” has more impact than either “recycled content” or “reduced packaging”. Obviously, the one thing I am not suggesting is that you manipulate your markets by making claims that aren’t supported by good, defensible, and transparent science. (Look to the next issue of EcoMarketer for an overview of the “Five Sins of Greenwashing”.) I am suggesting that communicating good science is a science in itself. In fact, decoding the specific environmental dialect of your ‘green’ customer, combined with unassailable credibility, is the central challenge of penetrating this important green segment. | 
