Month: September 2023

Communicators are Confusing Our Audiences with Climate Buzzwords

Posted on by Suzette Riley

With more than 2,000 companies setting carbon targets and nearly every large corporation issuing a sustainability report, C+C decided to dig into people’s understanding of, and feelings about commonly used terms related to climate change. We just completed a national study looking at what terms are understood, how our communication makes people feel, and who they think should take action.

Our survey, like every national survey, shows a majority of Americans believe we should be doing more to combat climate change.

But we wanted to dig deeper.

As we’re helping government agencies and businesses talk about climate commitments and their impact, and trying to explain why they matter, do people even understand what we’re saying? Are we inspiring action or anxiety? How can we leverage increased interest in climate action into support of specific actions and spur forward movement that makes a difference?

Here are some of our key findings.

Who Can Have the Greatest Impact?

A large majority (84%) of our 200+ respondents say it’s important to take action to address climate change. When we asked them whose actions can make a positive impact on climate change, most respondents said the actions taken by companies were most likely to make a positive impact, with actions by governments following closely behind. Local community actions ranked next, and they ranked individual actions least likely to make an impact. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in March, “Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.”

There’s a rapidly evolving base of knowledge on effectively communicating with audiences about the urgency of climate change. The field is evolving quickly because we’ve never faced a challenge this daunting. Climate change is a long-term problem that will affect every aspect of modern life, yet it can be ignored day-to-day by most of us with privilege until the skies turn red from wildfires or we’re pummeled by three weeks of rain from atmospheric rivers.

Testing the Vocabulary

Sustainable
Thankfully, communicators are moving away from using the term “sustainable” because it’s become a meaningless buzzword, and our respondents validated that pivot. They felt generally positive about the word, but their definitions were wide-ranging, from being made of recycled materials to using solar power to buying carbon credits. Some respondents reinforced the belief that companies can have the greatest impact, saying, “Because if enough businesses adopt [sustainability], then maybe things can change a bit.”

ACTIONABLE INSIGHT: Communicators need to use more specific, concrete terms to describe their goals and actions.

Resiliency
Respondents found the term climate resiliency confusing. It’s a term increasingly being used by communicators to describe changes that help communities weather climate volatility. Some respondents guessed the meaning, but they were mostly unfamiliar with the idea. Though sentiment was mainly positive, this term also generated significant feelings of confusion, anxiety and worry. 

ACTIONABLE INSIGHT: If we use resiliency in our communications, we’ll need to clearly define what we mean, and explain how resiliency benefits the audience.

Carbon Neutral
Corporate goals and product claims frequently use the term carbon neutral, which our respondents found confusing. Their desire for climate action gave them positive, optimistic feelings, but the term generated the same sense of confusion as the term sustainable — carbon neutral has become a squishy buzzword. “I feel like at least they’re doing something good even if I don’t totally understand it.”

ACTIONABLE INSIGHT: If communicators use the term, we need to explain how we’re achieving carbon neutrality and why it matters. 

Communicating for the future
Our study reinforced the guidance from top climate communications experts such as Melissa Aronczyk, Lauren Feldman, Rebecca Solnit, and Katherine Hayhoe:

The latest report from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said we have all the tools we need to solve this problem, and every action we take will have an impact. Tremendous progress is happening!

If You Rebate, Will They Come? Incentives Alone Won’t Decarbonize America

Posted on by Cindy Gage

It seems everywhere I turn these days, I encounter news, conferences, discussions and opinions on the transition to clean energy and decarbonization of our energy supply. Across the country, energy offices are consumed with developing the infrastructure to distribute billions of dollars in federal incentives and tax credits to facilitate the transition to clean energy. Utility and energy efficiency programs are strategizing about how to leverage their program frameworks to help achieve aggressive goals for electrification.

It’s perhaps the most exciting time I’ve seen over the course of my career in energy marketing, and without a doubt, the most challenging, despite the abundance of incentives aimed at overcoming cost barriers. Why? It’s widely known that cost is the primary barrier to action, and the tax credits and incentives provided through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are designed to help us overcome that hurdle. What’s more, the energy industry has a wealth of expertise in market transformation strategies that leverage rebates and incentives to drive new product adoption. These factors can certainly work in our favor, but marketing the shift toward clean electric is much more complicated than driving sales with incentives, no matter how substantial.

The transition to clean electric will require homeowners to spend much more effort, consideration and money than any other in recent memory. It will require state energy offices, utilities and energy efficiency programs to craft messaging and media strategies to move customers past those barriers while also answering questions about electrification, quelling anxiety and building trust with their audiences. In short, we need to meet customers where they are and guide them through the transition. In order to do that, we need to understand their current levels of awareness and understanding, attitudes, perceptions, motivators, and barriers to action.

Recent research C+C conducted on behalf of ENERGY STAR® revealed that consumers are largely unfamiliar with the terms decarbonization and electrification. Those terms don’t resonate with them and are seen as overly technical/industry-speak. That said, once they do learn about it, they are widely receptive to the concept, optimistic about the transition to a clean energy future, and enthusiastic about the ability to mitigate climate change. What’s also encouraging is that the strongest motivators for learning more, and the most desirable benefits of electrification, relate to its personal impact — not just in terms of changes they may need to make to their homes but also how their personal actions can play a part in climate protection today and for future generations.

Despite these positive indicators, it’s important to recognize that consumers also have a lot of questions and concerns about the transition — some at the macro level, like the cost of the transition, the reliability of a clean electric grid and the potential for job loss. And the entity from whom they learn more matters. Overwhelmingly, consumers supported the idea of ENERGY STAR serving as their guide toward electrification, given the brand’s credibility with regard to energy efficiency and its mission of environmental protection. Providing clear answers and guidance, supported by a reliable, trusted voice will be key to successful consumer engagement and activation.

At the end of the day, like any initiative aimed at social change, it will be critical to meet consumers where they are with messaging that resonates at a personal level, practical guidance that answers questions and helps move them along the path to purchase with a trusted, credible voice. The rebates and incentives are key — but there’s a lot more to driving action than offering dollars off.

It won’t be easy. But it can be done. History has shown that this industry can rally together to make change happen. I can’t wait to see how it unfolds!

Social Marketing’s Branding Dilemma

Posted on by Julie Colehour

In 1971 Social Marketing was introduced as a concept by Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman in an article in the Journal of Marketing. If you are wondering how Social Marketing could have existed 33 years before Facebook, this blog post is for you and highlights the crux of the challenge. 

Social Marketing is the discipline of changing behaviors for the good of people and communities. It is built on a basis of behavioral science that shows that people do not change their behaviors simply because they become aware of an issue or because it is the “right thing to do.” Instead, people change their behaviors when the specific barriers to practicing the behavior are overcome by personally relevant benefits and motivators. Social Marketing has helped tackle problems around the world, including everything from condom use, vaccines, distracted driving, recycling, and energy efficiency, to pet adoptions and voter turnout. Fast forward to 2023 and there are seven global professional associations, more than 60 books, two academic journals and nine global conferences focused on social marketing. When it comes to helping people change behaviors for the good of society, Social Marketing is the most effective option.

You might be thinking, that doesn’t sound like a branding problem. The issue began right after the turn of the century when Social Media was born. Within just a few years, the term Social Media dominated the landscape and pushed Social Marketing out of the realms of pretty much any search engine. 79% of Social Marketing practitioners identify Social Marketing/Social Media confusion as a moderate to severe issue, according to a recent survey conducted by the International Association of Social Marketing (iSMA). Every Social Marketing conference I have attended always includes at least one or two people who thought they were coming to learn about Social Media (but hopefully leave inspired to use Social Marketing best practices in planning their next campaign). This dynamic has forced many in the industry to ask if Social Marketing needs a new name or brand.

I’ve thought about this a lot and served on an iSMA committee last year to look at this question. The conclusion, not so fast. While it might seem like a good idea on the surface, it would not be an easy task. Social Marketing has become integrated into many academic institutions, public sector agencies and communications professionals and now has 50 years of research, case studies and equity in the marketplace. On top of that, there is no singular brand owner of “Social Marketing.” Making a change would require that somehow everyone could magically agree and become aligned with a new name. And then, we would all have to start from scratch to build adoption of the new term while the essence of Social Marketing would not change — it would still use the Social Marketing planning process founded on audience research to develop strategies that inspire behavior change for sustainable, healthy, and equitable communities. 

So, let’s retire the debate about changing the name and instead continue the steady drumbeat of getting more organizations to adopt Social Marketing best practices in planning and implementing their behavior change campaigns. Staying on the path is the most efficient way to do more good in our communities.