Ethics / Legal

What Charities Need to Know about the National Do Not Call List Service

Together with my colleagues on the CMA Not-for-Profit Council, we've customized these FAQs for charities that clarify the rules governing the use of the National Do Not Call List Service (NDNCL) and other telemarketing regulations.

The key message is that as a registered charity, you do not need to use the National DNCL for your own telemarketing activities. However, you do need to maintain numbers on your own do not call list for a period of 3 years and 31 days from anyone requesting not to be called. Additionally, you still must comply with all other telemarketing regulations (see FAQs) and be aware of and comply with additional registration and regulations that each province may have.

While the regulatory framework may seem restrictive and maked it more challenging to raise money for important causes, the rules benefit both consumers and businesses. The telemarketing regulations are the best practices that a reputable agency or charity would want to follow any way. After all, these are your donors we are talking about. They deserve to be treated with these common sense courtesies.

By following the rules and best practices that help maintain a “clean” market place, our goal should be to improve telemarketing so that it is generally accepted as having a positive and helpful conversation with your donors.

P.J. VanAuken
Vice President of Client Services, Wyers Direct Communciations

Demise of Anti-Spam Bill is an Opportunity for Key Improvements

How is the Federal Anti-Spam legislation affected by the recent end of the Parliamentary session?

Bill C-27 is technically dead, but with unanimous consent of all MPs the same bill could be restored to its previous status as passed by the House of Commons and immediately sent off again for final review in the Senate. But that would be unfortunate because expiry of the existing bill gives the Government and Parliament a chance to pass improved legislation that cracks down on real spammers without unnecessarily harming legitimate businesses. In particular, a new and improved Bill would:
a) clarifiy how the consent reguirements of an anti-spam law will affect ethical marketers and ensure that these are generally in line with our Privacy Law (PIPEDA) requirements for non-sensitive personal information, and
b) exclude those parts of the last bill that would have allowed the Government to dismantle the
National Do Not Call List at some unspecified future date without returning to Parliament with new legislation and a proper review of the program.

As a member of Industry Canada's Anti-Spam Task Force in 2004, the Canadian Marketing Association has been a strong proponent of the need for a new law to help combat spam and enhance consumer confidence in the online marketplace. But CMA also registered concerns about the consent-related aspects of Bill C-27. A key problem with C-27 is that it refers to express and implied consent without fully addressing how these are defined - much of that task was to be addressed later in the detailed regulations.

The fact is that Canadian marketers are strongly oriented toward permission-based marketing when it comes to using personal information; that is required by PIPEDA and CMA's longstanding Code of Ethics. But the standard of consent to collect, use and transfer non-sensitive personal contact info for marketing as enshrined in PIPEDA (see section 4.3, Schedule 1) is definitely opt-out. Implied consent is sufficient to some degree where one is talking about marketing to existing customers. That's not to say that obtaining opt-in consent isn't a "best practice" appropriate in certain direct marketing situations - for example, for mobile e-marketing campaigns.

But a "best practice" is a far cry from a legislated requirement for opt-in consent for virtually all electronic marketing communications to consumers. The economic costs to businesses of such a legislative requirement will be considerable. All the experience in business and other fields indicates that a move to an opt-in requirement would significantly reduce the number of consumers that legitimate businesses can reach through e-communications. Why would we want to do that? Under PIPEDA, Canadians who really don't wish to receive direct marketing communications can already opt-out beforehand, or could do so later given that C-27 required that every electronic marketing communications would have to contain an easy opt-out (already a requirement in the CMA code for many years now).

As the "digital revolution" continues to unfold, and businesses and other organizations look for new ways to achieve efficiencies by moving activities online, why would we want to see unreasonable restrictions on legitimate marketers’ use of the electronic medium? A full opt-in regime certainly won't stop the major spammers and their botnets from filling our inboxes - illegal spammers don't obtain any form of consent to collect or use personal contact information in the first place!

Much has been said about Canada needing a law to do its part to combat Spam, and CMA certainly agrees because it will allow us to cooperate with other countries and to go after major spammers operating in this country. And a tough anti-spam law that reflects current PIPEDA standards for consent (opt-out) would definitely allow enforcement agencies to crack down on spammers without harming legitimate businesses. It's worth noting here that the advocates of full opt-in constantly overlook the fact that "opt-in countries" like Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the UK all remain on the Spamhaus top-ten list of spam-originating jurisdictions. The fact is that no anti-spam law can have a major impact unless there is vigorous enforcement. While a clear requirement for consent to use personal contact information is an essential ingredient, whether it’s opt-in versus opt-out has no real bearing on the efficacy of an anti-spam law; however, opt-in would definitely have the undesirable effect of making life tougher and in many instances raising costs for legitimate businesses.

The "death" of Bill C-27 provides a great opportunity for the Government and Parliament to craft a better balanced anti-spam law for Canada.

By Wally Hill, VP, Public Affairs & Communications, CMA

Electronic Commerce Protection Act Moves to the Senate

The ECPA (Bill C-27), Canada's overdue "Anti Spam Bill", has now been passed by the House of Commons and will now be debated and studied in the Senate. For marketers and eCommerce businesses, it is good to see legislation taking direct aim at spyware, phishing scams, spamming and other damaging practices that undermine consumer confidence in the digital marketplace.

Key features of the Bill are that consent will be required to send a commercial electronic communication to someone or install a computer program on someone's computer. The law will also require that electronic messages properly identify the sender, related contact info and provide the kind of easy unsubscribe that responsible marketers now offer in any case. Most important perhaps are the provisions allowing the CRTC, Competition Bureau and Privacy Commissioner to enforce their respective responsibilities under the Act -along with hefty potential penalties of up to $1 million for individuals and $10 million for corporations.

Overall the ECPA will be a big step forward to achieving better consumer protection online. Yet it also recognizes that organizations should have implied consent to communicate with their existing customers until advised otherwise, and it leaves legitimate B2B communications largely unconstrained.

The Federal Government and Parliamentarians have stated that their aim is to crack down on the really "bad actors" and the worst online abuses, but without causing harm to legitimate and responsible businesses. The degree of success on that score will depend on the extent to which the ECPA requirements are consistent with the rules that responsible businesses have been following since Canada's privacy law (PIPEDA) came fully into force in 2004. PIPEDA and CMA's Code of Ethics already require that responsible businesses must have consent to use email addresses, must properly identify their organization and provide an easy unsubscribe. That reality is in stark contrast to major spammers who illegally harvest email contact information, send emails without any consent whatsoever, and generally provide no legitimate unsubscribe opportunity. It's this second category that represents the vast bulk of what gets picked up by spam filters, or worse, ends up as unwanted material in our inboxes. At the end of the day a credible anti-spam framework comes down to effective enforcement.

Countries like France, Germany, Spain and the U.K. have all adopted tough anti-spam regimes featuring explicit consent requirements that actually make things much tougher for legitimate businesses - yet these places remain amongst the top ten sources of spam (www.spamhaus.org). It comes down to a commitment to enforcement. As the ECPA moves forward in the Senate, CMA will continue to deliver the message that this important new law and related regulations can provide the basis for an effective crackdown on spammers while not unnecessarily harming responsible businesses that use email for legitimate marketing purposes.

Go Green or Go Frizzy… Why Make a Girl Choose?

It ain’t pretty to shop in the beauty aisle these days. That is, if you’re a green consumer intent on making environmentally responsible choices. Overpackaged beauty products, such as my bottle of frizz control serum, can literally make your hair stand on end, when you evaluate all the waste going into a relatively small amount of product.

Take, for example, my bathroom staple, Pantene Pro V Hair Serum in 50 ml glass bottle, with a plastic, unrecyclable pump top, non recyclable lid, wrapped in a non recyclable PVC insert, and inserted in a cardboard box. Compare that with the reduced package for the alternative Life Brand hair mist, which contains more than twice as much product, in a lightweight recyclable container (and is cheaper to boot!)

Why oh, why Pantene, must you make me choose between my hair and my planet?
You know I’ll choose my hair every time! Who wants to live on a planet of untamed ‘fro’s?

Now some would argue that the higher prestige Pantene needs the enhanced packaging to convey its quality and justify its price tag. But suppliers of luxury goods are proving that by being creative, it is possible to strike the balance between sustainability and high perceived value.

Take Mary Kay’s Affection Fragrance sets, which use a lightweight, more sustainable cardboard box. Produced by MWV, the gift set box features a paperboard package that provides the same look as a rigid set box but costs less to produce and maximizes efficiencies in the transportation process.

See…you can get the pretty without the pollution! I’m not saying beauty products have to wear Birkenstocks. But with a little creativity and research into new packaging options, the beauty industry can capitalize on consumer willingness to go green, and still appeal to sophisticated, fashion conscious tastes.

With all that environmental goodness and none of the nasty granola aftertaste; next year’s Earth Day may yet be a good hair day after all.

Authored by Adina Zaiontz, Trade Marketing Manager, Yahoo! Canada

When is ‘Green’ really ‘Green’?

In a recent discussion about being more efficient with mailing, one of the benefit claims’ was that it is ‘green’. But is it?

As a career-long supplier in the direct marketing world, I would love to be able to put a giant green stamp of environmental approval on each of my client invoices every time I made them more efficient. As a value-add partner, I was able to reduce their impact on the planet, ensuring the diversion of waste from landfills, protecting wildlife habitat, saving the trees, water and air as well as buying time on a dying planet for their children and their children’s children. A little dramatic.

Actually, what I did was save them money. Their savings come in the form of less waste, less raw material and less paper, all good things but is it ‘green’?

Search ‘Greenwashing’ and you can see the huge amount of information and interest on the web about this. With such an active interest, we sure do not want to come down on the wrong side of this.

According to Wikipedia, ‘Greenwashing’ was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in an essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing green placards in each room, promoting reuse of guest-towels, ostensibly to "save the environment". Westerveld noted that, in most cases, little or no effort toward waste recycling was being implemented by these institutions, due in part to the lack of cost-cutting affected by such practice. Westerveld opined that the actual objective of this "green campaign" on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, increased profit. Westerveld hence monikered this and other outwardly environmentally conscientious acts with a greater, underlying purpose of profit increase as greenwashing.’

As marketers, we need to be careful in ‘greenwashing’ our message to the public. There are numerous organizations now that monitor these claims and expose those that are taking liberties, whether in actual products or overt claims. These monitors are popping up all over the public domain, in blogs, message boards and can have the same negative impact that organizations are trying to produce positively through social media.

So how do you turn this into a positive and truly ‘green’ opportunity? How about taking a portion of savings from the efficiencies that have been driven and investing in ‘greening’ the organization, buy green power, donate to environmental causes or invest in R&D to truly green the organization.

I can already hear the collective chorus ‘Times are tough, we need to save every dollar’. What were you doing when times were good?

Kevin Klein is a member of the Direct Marketing Council for the CMA and Director, Product and Data Performance at ICOM Information & Communications L.P.

***The opinions presented in this post are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the management of ICOM, Epsilon or ADS.

The Truth about Plan A

Earlier this week, in a post about eco-friendly businesses, Marks and Spencer, which has a large scale eco-friendly initiative, “Plan A”, was said to be abandoning the plan. We’ve since heard from the UK headquarters of Marks and Spencer and learned that this is absolutely not true; that it had been incorrectly reported as such (and then retracted the very next day).

So in setting the record straight, and we must, let’s take a look at Plan A - it’s far reaching and impressive; clearly a model for corporate social responsibility.

Straight from the source:

Plan A is our five-year, 100-point 'eco' plan to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our business and our world. It will see us working with our customers and our suppliers to combat climate change, reduce waste, safeguard natural resources, trade ethically and build a healthier nation. We're doing this because it's what you want us to do. It's also the right thing to do. We're calling it Plan A because we believe it's now the only way to do business.
There is no Plan B.

A recent M & S report card on the Plan’s progress states that 20 of the plan’s 100 commitments have been completed thus far with 75 underway - they are almost mid-way through the 5 year Plan.

There are way too many initiatives to mention, but here’s a sample from each of the target areas of their program:

Climate change (aims to make operations in the UK and Republic of Ireland carbon neutral) – They launched an energy service that sells gas and electricity to their customers in partnership with an energy firm; incentivising customers to use less energy by offering a £15 M&S voucher to anyone reducing their annual energy use by 10%.

Reducing Waste – All profits raised from a 5p charge for single use food carrier bags is donated to an environmental charity that supports greener living spaces projects to improve neighbourhoods across the U.K. Over £500,000 has been raised so far.

Safeguarding natural resources (ensuring their key raw materials come from the most sustainable sources available) – They have used over 25 million recycled waste plastic bottles to make polyester; used in their homeware and bedding and garments – and re-usable shopping bags.

Trading ethically – They became the first retailer to provide dairy farmers with funding to help them meet requirements of new legislation designed to reduce the impact of dairy farming by-products on the environment – as part of their Milk Pledge, M & S pays one of the highest prices of any major food retailer to their dairy farmers.

Building a healthier nation – They have completed the removal of artificial colours and flavourings from their entire food and drinks range.

Economy Trumps Environment

Marks & Spencer, one of the UK's largest retailers, is set to move away from their environmental initiative, Plan A - Because there is no Plan B. Plan A is a five year plan that M&S has developed to hold themselves and their customers responsible for climate change, waste reduction, building a healthier planet, and ethical trading. They initiated this program in response to the public's demand for businesses to be held accountable for their actions. Over the past year, M&S has spent a considerable amount of pounds developing Plan A. Over the last few months however, while leading economists predict that the UK will be hardest hit by the economic downturn, the retailing giant is focusing more on price reduction than their Plan A initiative. The economy has trumped the environment for now, and it's hard to say whether that's a good or bad thing at the moment.

Here in Canada, Heather Reisman, CEO, Indigo Music & Books Inc., has recently launched Pistachio, a green-conscious shop she hopes to expand nation-wide over the coming months. Reisman has herself admitted this might be a tough endeavour given today's economy. My recent visit to the nut-hued shop proves otherwise. It was busy and bustling with no shortage of money exchanging hands. Not only is the shop Bullfrog-powered, but everything you buy is environmentally friendly. The products, mostly cards, wrapping paper, and other paper-based items are flirty, friendly, and unique. You want to buy them, and I'm not sure it has anything to do with the environment, that aspect is but a massive by-product.

It seems that Pistachio has found a niche market - customers unaffected by these turbulent times. People willing and more importantly able to part with money for a cause. And that statement right there does not sit well with me. Our children's children, whether they be rich or poor will feel the effects of how we've managed and marketed the environment over the next few years. At the moment, it seems to be a trend that only certain people can follow, let's hope this is not the case for much longer.

We're in the midst of a green revolution, right? Actually, no.

Despite the green-branding of products from grocery bags to toilet paper, most consumers are unwilling to pay extra or make sacrifices to be more environmentally friendly.

Today's green marketing realities fly in the face of conventional marketing wisdom. The fact is people don't buy products. They buy solutions to problems. But since most consumers don't see the environment as a problem, green marketers must take an extra step, helping them not just to understand the problem, but to actually care about it. Here why.

A recent study by Arcus found that 45% of Canadian consumers feel "highly concerned" about environmental issues, but only 26% feel highly knowledgeable about environmental issues. And only 24% feel they can make a difference when it comes to the environment. Those passionate about the environment tend to have higher incomes and are more likely to live in larger cities. Marketers like to think that consumers have an excellent grasp of issues related to the environment and hence focus on more sophisticated green campaigns. But most people understand it as an abstract issue.

The Arcus study also found that only 17 percent of Canadians are passionate about environmental issues—while 24 percent have virtually no interest. For most companies, green products represent only a "niche" opportunity. Yet, they are investing heavily in "green" marketing campaigns- a puzzling development.

Please email me if you would like to receive a synopsis of the Arcus Green Marketing study.

A lot of the publicity surrounding green makes it sound like a mainstream concern. It's not. In fact, green behaviours are things people tend to do when it can save them time and money, like turning out the lights when they leave the room or buying quick absorbing paper towels. People tend to buy products with Energy Star ratings, for instance, because it saves them money. If you come out with a hybrid car, maybe you should talk about saving money on gas instead. If you offer environmentally friendly building materials, talk about long term energy savings. Concern for the environment needs to intersect with concern for shoppers wallets.

The traditional marketing model is for you to change attitudes in order to change behaviour. But you might be able to change behaviour with the current trend without changing attitudes, as opposed to the tree-hugger route, where you're preaching an environmental message. A big insight is that if you want people to act greener, it's better to talk to them about saving money and health concerns, not about saving the environment. It's not just about green products; it could be about green manufacturing.

The industries most likely to be affected are home builders, autos and consumer packaged goods. More affected are those products with high purchase frequencies and where green intersects with wellness. Actions by financial services companies are largely of low interest. Most grocery retailers are not making a big push. The ratio of packaging made of plastic to that made of paper on shelves is rising even though retail advertising encourages use of multi-use shopping bags. In markets where plastic and paper compete as packaging materials, plastic is expected to increase its market share to 53 percent by 2010. The fashion industry is at the bottom of the list, unless you tag lifestyle concerns.

Even if the percentage of Canadians who are passionate about the environment is fairly low, the subset is a pretty desirable group of consumers. And that's got to be likely to grow. As for the 17 percent, they really, really care. They think that paying more is the right price. And 17 percent is a good strong part of the consumer market. I believe the 17 percent will continue to grow and will draw people. The core group is unlikely to double over next decade, not without some fundamental change that makes the environment felt at a personal level. It competes with other issues— healthcare, infrastructure and crime. The environment has just not crossed that threshold yet.

So what should companies and their marketing people do? Try to generate more enthusiasm for green products? Or just cater to consumer tastes as they are? Consumer marketers would rather follow consumer attitudes than lead them. They're very loath to try and teach people something new. But with the environment, that's what they're going have to do. Environmental advocacy groups are more likely to be considered to be objective sources by consumers, not company information. This is an opportunity in the marketplace. Consumers need to be provided more objective sources for information on green technologies and products. Maybe a search resource for healthy products and services would help.

Can Direct Mail be Environmentally Friendly

I am probably going to regret opening this can of worms but lately my thoughts have turned to the impact on the environment of direct marketing. I am not crazy enough to tell you that marketing (especially direct mail) is a positive environmental force - a few industries today can claim to be that. But I do think that my colleagues and I are reducing the impact, albeit in a small way.

By focusing on customer data, companies can dramatically change the environmental impact of their direct mail initiatives. Specifically,

1. By building a complete view of the customer (linking disparate databases), companies can reduce duplicate mailings and control the flow of communication to their customers.

2. Using analysis techniques such as predictive modelling and segmentation, communications can be targeted maximizing the impact of every piece of mail. This can ensure that only those most likely to respond will receive a piece of direct mail.

3. By cleaning up databases, and fixing addresses, undeliverable mail can be reduced.

4. By enabling opt-outs (and using the CMA opt-out list)- and specification of contact preferences - companies ensure that those who do not want to receive mail do not get it.

5. By merge-purging external lists against one another and internal files, targeting of the same prospect multiple times can be avoided.

My response for years when asked "Oh, so you are responsible for all this direct mail I get" has been "No, I am responsible for all the direct mail you DON'T get". I have a feeling I might be asked that more and more in the coming years!

For more on this read the Aberdeen Group's report:
Green Marketing: Leveraging Customer Data to Reduce Direct Mail Waste by Aberdeen Group.

I am also encouraged by the new focus being shown on this issue by our key industry groups – perhaps too little too late but all action is better than nothing:

- NAMMU (National Association of Major Mail Users) has an annual award that recognizes innovation in making the mailing industry as environmentally friendly as possible. The winner in 2007 was Domtar for their EarthChoice Paper.
- DMAT (Direct Marketing Association of Toronto) has recently announced the creation of a taskforce to study the issue of environmental responsibility.
- The Forest Stewardship Council of Canada (FSC) launched their FSCXpert (FSCX) Program late last year – this is an educational program and designation for graphic designers, and communications and marketing professionals committed to responsible forest management.
- And, of course, the CMA has a variety of case studies and green tips available to marketers who want to reduce their environmental footprint.

Domain Name Disputes: Honey or Vinegar?

One of the more unusual aspects of my job as General Manager of a large private portfolio of domain names is that I see all the "poison pen" letters from lawyers representing clients who believe (usually incorrectly, I should add) they are legally entitled to a domain name that we own. Since we own over 150,000 domain names, we get quite a few of these letters every week!

I make sure that we respond to each and every one of these inquiries, and now that I've seen and dealt with over a hundred of these letters I wanted to make a suggestion to the marketing community at large:

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Admittedly, I didn't come up with this age-old concept, but I'd like to remind people that you will have better luck resolving a dispute - any dispute - by playing nice than by being hostile.

For instance, the next time you think that someone owns a domain name that you think you are legally entitled to, don't make your first move a "nasty lawyer's letter."

Instead, just reach out to the current owner with a courteous phone call or email (which you can get from checking the public WHOIS records) and let them know you have some questions or concerns. You might discover that the current owner is a lot nicer than you think, is not a hardened criminal, and is more than willing to negotiate in good faith. You might even learn that the original basis for your complaint is flawed and that - surprise, surprise - you aren't legally entitled to the domain name after all.

Not only will you save yourself the time, hassle, and significant expense of going the legal route (fighting a domain name dispute can cost many thousands of dollars), but you will begin the dialogue on a positive and constructive basis, not an adversarial one.

I go out of my way to help the small minority of folks who approach me nicely and are willing to listen to and consider our side of the story. Between us, we can usually resolve the situation within a few days. Unfortunately, I can count these "honey" folks on the fingers of one hand.

I'm not so sympathetic towards the "vinegar" folks - those who courier me three-inch thick stacks of legal documents that make all sorts of false accusations, ridiculous demands, and set unrealistic timelines for a response. (One company did this to me, quite deliberately, on Christmas Eve last year.) Sadly, these "poison pen" letters make up the vast majority of inquiries I receive. Sure, we respond to them as well, but I'm not going to cut them any slack or do them any favours. Why should I?

In the end, this boils down to one simple suggestion: be nice. ;+)

Privacy Concerns in Social Networking

Social interaction in the online space is becoming more and more frequent. Most people are unaware however that every Facebook, MySpace, msn, iChat, email message leaves an information footprint and this trail can be picked up by third parties. In this new wild west of virtuosity, some companies have brazenly admitted to offering services or products to people within the social networking arena with little or no regard for privacy or the expectation of privacy.

This hopefully is where the government can and will intercede. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) outlines what information organizations can and cannot gather about consumers. Unfortunately, this legislation does not directly impact consumer privacy in the social networking arena. The impact of this is that the privacy rights of consumers might be at risk - consent and awareness of how information is being used varies depending on the channel being used.

Responsible marketers are already aware of these sensitivities and have put measures in place. The many “cowboys” in this new frontier however will take advantage of the information available and use it to their advantage. These marketers are preying on the most vulnerable users of technology – the youth, who are most likely to engage in social networking without considering the possible implications on their privacy.

Social networking and social media are hot button items at the moment and there are many layers to discover. CMA’s Marketing Technology and Database Intelligence Council is hosting a breakfast Roundtable that will explore how social media may be strategically applied to business and integrated with an organization’s marketing plan.

The Shameful Art of Greenwashing

You stroll through your local supermarket to pick up a few items. Out of the corner of your eye you catch a rack with attractive and reasonably priced $0.99 reusable shopping bags, usually featuring the company logo, and Green imagery such as grass or a leaf. You look into your basket, smile and pick up a couple of reusable bags, feeling better about yourself for doing something positive to help our environment.

Well, that’s great, but are the environmental claims being made by the company actually being put into practice? Are they advocating disuse of plastic bags by not offering them or making consumers pay? An entire town in Manitoba did just that, and banished plastic bags from being sold or distributed, enforcing hefty fines for ignoring the ban.

Plastic bags, clearly aren’t the only source of landfill waste, and are not the only item that marketers and companies can eliminate in order to become more eco-friendly.
Today, more than ever going Green means big money for corporations, and winning over consumer opinion, but consumers must be wary about those organizations who claim to be Green vs. those who truly are.

Organizations who falsely claim to be environmentally conscious, when in fact they are misleading consumers about the environmental practices they employ are referred to as “Greenwashers”.

TerraChoice Environmental Marketing issued a report in November 2007 entitled “The 6 Sins of Greenwashing” a study of environmental claims in the North American consumer market.

The six sins are:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade Off
This is when a company emphasizes one environmental factor, while hiding a trade-off between other issues.

2. Sin of No Proof
When an environmental claim is made, yet no evidence or certification of this claim is made available.

3. Sin of Vagueness
When a claim fails to explain itself rendering itself too vague or meaningless. Popular vague terms include; non-toxic, “all natural”, and environmentally friendly.

4. Sin of Irrelevance
Making a claim that all other products in this category could also make, or simply making a statement that is irrelevant but intended to sound eco-friendly.

5. Sin of Fibbing
Falsely claimed environmental certifications, either third-party or completely non-existent. Usually easy to detect with a little bit of research.

6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils
When a company aims to make a consumer feel environmentally conscientious about a product that has questionable environmental benefits.

As marketers and consumers, it is our responsibility to ensure that the companies we represent don’t make false claims about being eco-friendly, and don’t try to capitalize on the “Green Movement” with a sole mandate to increase profits.

We need to be conscientious about the stores we shop at and the brands we endorse. Check out their environmental claims. Are they true? Are they in fact being proactive about protecting our environment?

This is our earth. We need to protect it… Not just “say” that we are.

What’s a good marketing plan without a domain name?

Marketers design campaigns around domain names, so the chosen name has to be available.
Even parents are registering their kids’ names as domain names.
Where can you check if a potential name is available?

The public database of domain name owners is the Whois database, which tells us who owns a particular domain, or at least a company that represents the domain name owner.

Trouble is that public access to the domain name owner database creates all kinds of problems.

In addition to searching to see if anyone else already has the domain, there are other, less constructive uses: Spammers send their e-mails to addresses they find on the whois directories. There may be direct marketers using the information to place cold calls or email solicitations (not that there is anything wrong with that). There is also an element of opportunism from the whois database: apparently there are ways to determine if anyone has searched the database for a particular name, and opportunists will park on the domain name in the hopes of selling it to the prospective owner.

In case you don’t know, unused domains names can be registered with InterNIC (and therefore reserved or “parked”), but the websites themselves are inactive.

The question is, should the ownership information be public?

Whether to continue to allow public access to the owner information was recently debated over at ICANN . No decision was made. The committee, the Generic Names Supporting Organization Council, decided to study the matter further. What kinds of studies are needed will be decided on February 15, 2008.

By the time the studies are complete, chances are the internet will solve the problem itself.

Out of the bag thinking on climate change

What is the impact of recyclable shopping bags when environmentally friendly packaging isn’t part of the agenda in retail?

It seems marketing is being used to change consumer opinion instead of a new pipeline of environmentally friendly products.

In markets where plastic and paper compete as packaging materials, plastic is expected to increase its market share to 53 percent by 2010. The fastest gains for plastic are occurring in soy and other nondairy beverages and pet food applications, followed by frozen food, fruit beverages, detergents and single-serving milk bottles. According to a recent Arcus climate change survey of 2000 Canadians consumers and 1200 business leaders, consumers want honest claims that have a tangible and measurable impact on the environment. Consumers are catching up.

Business is not keeping pace with growing concern among consumers about climate change. Canada has one of the biggest shifts in consumer concern about global warming out of the G8 and OECD countries, an increase of 18% to an all time high of 31% in April 2007. The global average is 16%. Consumers are shifting toward more environmentally friendly alternatives, but market forces alone are unlikely enough to meet the challenge of climate change.

There are many instances where an “environmentally friendly” brand with a low revenue contribution in a brand portfolio becomes a “flagship” brand with a substantially larger share of the advertising budget. The phenomenon of “image transfer” across the entire portfolio is well known. According to the Arcus study, less than 5% of executives admit that their organizations monitor their overall carbon footprint and just 4% have a carbon reduction plan in place. Although these numbers look set to rise rapidly, nearly one-half of firms have no intention of implementing carbon-reduction plans within the next three years.

Why have a majority of marketers been slow to recognize the shift in consumer attitudes? Businesses are playing catch up. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, 150 of Canada's top chief executive officers, released a declaration this week calling climate change “the most pressing and daunting issue” today, and acknowledging the need for “aggressive” action including “absolute” emission cuts. It's the clearest signal ever sent by a broad coalition of Canadian businesses that they embrace the fight against climate change and accept the need for emission cut targets.

Some industries have recognized this opportunity and translated it into profitable businesses. A global retailer recently mandated new packaging guidelines last year. The policy led to a cascade of policy changes among thousands of vendors. For example, the focus in retail has been on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions with fuel efficiency of truck fleets, reduction of solid waste from stores and increasing organic foods offerings by selling them at prices more affordable to the masses.

QR (Quick Response) Codes have been touted by many industry insiders as the next big thing North American marketers should be paying attention to. The 2D bar codes store data on QR-enabled mobile camera phones that can be translated and viewed directly on the phone, or transferred and decoded on home computers. They can also be deployed to help marketers cut down on paper use. They're already big in Japan, even popping up on flour bags to transmit recipes for busy moms.

Other industries have different perspectives on the problem. Resource intensive industries are concerned about power generation capacity. Consumer product and retail companies are concerned about regulatory impact of packaging and recycling. Transportation firms are concerned about carbon emissions legislation.

One thing is clear, business needs to address the issue head-on with a coordinated plan of voluntary and regulatory mechanisms to meet the expectations of consumers and the environment.

When Does Innovation Become Irritation?

On a recent flight to the United States, I came across a quintessential example of what I believe is wrong with the traditional advertising industry.

Sitting in my seat on a US Airways flight bound for Savannah, I decide to unlock the table tray in order to have a place to rest my papers on.

This is what I was greeted with:

That's right, the surface of the table tray was completely covered by a vinyl clingy ad for an electronic manufacturer's noise canceling headphones.

Now, I've worked with enough media planners to appreciate the strategic thinking that probably went into this in terms of demographic targeting. And from an advertiser's perspective I can totally appreciate the evil genius of the whole 'captive audience' mentality behind this media placement.

It's 2007, however, and should marketers really be trying to find 'virgin' surfaces to plaster yet another one of their ads upon? Is this really innovation? Is this something the industry should be proud of?

And check out the ad copy itself:

The ultimate irony, in my mind, is the ad copy's claim that the headphones "dramatically reduce unwanted sounds." It's too bad that in promoting this feature the advertiser may have dramatically increased the level of visual pollution.