Continuing our thread of conversations on climate fight messaging, I would like to spend some time discussing possible targeting strategies. While it is true that global warming is a problem that concerns us all, in the interest of efficiency, it makes senses to go after those groups of people who are most likely to be persuaded positively. If we were to use a traditional ‘shades of green‘ segmentation model, the obvious choice would be to go after people who are on the fence, not the minority of green enthusiasts – people like you and me -, not the uninterested, but the people who see global warming as an issue, and who need to be pushed into action. While being the correct target, it leaves us with not enough to go by in terms of executing a campaign.
A more interesting strategy, in my opinion, uses a combination of psychographic and demographic descriptors to identify high potential targets. I got the idea of considering demographic segments, from Mary Hunt. Mary has chosen to focus her efforts on women, the ones in the household who are responsible for 80% of the buying. Makes sense doesn’t it, when like Mary, you are trying to educate the public about sustainable standards for high ticket, high environmental impact items such as flooring and furniture? Of equal importance is the need to communicate with people on an emotional level. The global warming message has made it into people’s heads, but has failed to grab them by the heart. Appeals to morality and civic environmental duty can only go so far. People have to feel moved into action.
Environmentalists have to stop talking to themselves, and need to go out to segments of the population outside of the green landscape, groups of people who because of their natural interests or life situations, are most likely to emotionally connect emotionally with the climate fight. Based on months of exploration and conversations with readers, these are the clusters that seem to make the most sense:
- Mothers are programmed to take care of their young ones. Any threat to their children’s health and survival triggers powerful responses. ‘You mean my children may not be able to enjoy clean air, and the good life we have taken for granted so far?’
- Believers’s morality is tied into their faith. If they perceive global warming as the result of man’s sinful handling of God’s creation, it becomes their responsibility to redeem themselves through restorative actions. ‘God has given us this Earth; it is for us to protect.’
- Business leaders care about the bottom line, a lot. Once they realize the path to sustainability is also good for their bottom line, they can become some of the fiercest warriors of the climate fight. ‘Green is good.’
- Nature enthusiasts have a deep connection with nature. Birders cringe when they read about land-bird species at the risk of becoming extinct, as a result of global warming. ‘Do you know how beautiful birds are? We can’t let this happen.’
- The overweight crowd are putting their lives on the line every day with their unhealthy lifestyles. They are getting the message to: eat less, and less processed foods and less meat, drive less, watch less TV, walk or bike more. ‘If not for the planet, maybe for themselves?’
So many ways to slice the pie . . . Which of these people would you be most willing to bet on?
I hate to say it, but of the five groups you mention, I think the business leaders are the most likely to change, followed at some distance by the mothers.
Mothers, as mothers, are inclined to look after today. If your child is cold, you will cut down the last tree on Earth to heat them today, and deal with tomorrow… well, tomorrow. If your child is sick, you’re not taking the train to the doctor. And so on. A mother who is financially somewhat comfortable will think of global issues, though. If today is secure she can look after tomorrow. (Another reason to ensure the prosperity and education of women, as I was going on about before.
Believers unfortunately have the tendency to leave things up to “God’s will.” The Jewish teaching is, “pray as though everything depends on God, act as though everything depends on you.” Imams and priests would not disagree with this, on the whole, but the devout in general tend to focus more on the prayer and less on the action.
Business leaders have at least some chance of looking towards future profits, and adapting to likely changes in government legislation. For example, “let’s use less carbon before some politician decides to tax it”, or “let’s recycle this stuff, it’s cheaper than new stuff.”
Nature enthusiasts sometimes fall into the trap of… I’m not sure how to express it. There’s a point of view that nature is sort of a museum piece we can set aside and protect and not touch and just look at. Thus state forests are supported, and (for example) cattle travelling through them to graze is banned, but SUVs trundling through them is allowed. If you view nature in that alienated way, you’ll have a hard time connecting your personal actions with its state. “But we fenced it off…”
The overweight crowd have already shown that they lack effort and focus. After all, it’s pretty simple – eat less, exercise more. If they won’t do it to stop themselves wheezing all day and having diaorrhea (common in high fat diets), they certainly won’t do it for something as abstract and distant as climate change.
Segmentation on Sunday
Great post, Marguerite. This is an important topic. That said, my mind can’t always summon itself to think about segmentation on Sunday, (unless it wants to, for its own reasons, which I can’t always predict), so I’ve got to give this a bit more thought and post this coming week. I started to write something but it became too long and garbled and technical so I decided to stop and think again. I think the comment so far (by K) is very interesting, thought-provoking, and helpful in some ways.
On another note, in case you didn’t notice this past week, ExxonMobil is apparently trying to “make nice” with women, in the NY Times, flashing its support for some good (I assume) causes associated with women. Although I’m sure those causes are great, the whole thing seems to me like a campaign to show how “nice” ExxonMobil is even as it fights against the climate fight.
I’d be interested to know how women, on average, see all that. ExxonMobil supports (to a degree) some women’s causes while it continues to heat the planet. Seems disingenuous to me? And schizophrenic too?
That’s it for now. Cheers.
Jeff, that’s not the strangest advertising I’ve seen. I was looking at a Kunstler speech on YouTube, speaking to this gather of a thousand people, supposedly each of whom gave speeches or at least spoke up at some point, and it was sponsored by… BMW. BMW showed an advertisement of their car zooming along through the wilderness, alone on the road, there were lots of images of flowing water, then at the end they told you it was a hydrogen-powered car. Which was funny, because in his speech Kunstler said that was all bullshit and would never be made to work
Are you talking about the TED Conference?
Excellent post, we do need to reach out to spread the message. Right from the beginning of my blogging experience, I was determined not to preach to the converted and I think that there are crafters and poets who through reading Crafty Green poet are perhaps thinking more greenly. I am also aware that i have learnt a fair number of green tips from people who aren’t out there waving a green flag but who are quietly living low impact lives and blogging about it.
Nature lovers come in may types, more and more nature conservation charities are seeing that nature conservation needs to be tied in with genuinely sustainlable living options for the local communities. Yes the fencing off whole areas still does go on and I’m a bit worried about the rash of rich people buying up pristine areas of wilderness to protect it, but there are also a lot of signs of hope in that area.
Yes, the TED conference. This YouTube one.
Funny you’re talking about the TED conference, one of my close friends just returned and said it was an incredible experience. I’m hoping to catch some of the videos.
Anyway, I read this post last night and have been ruminating about it ever since.
To answer your question about which of these groups would be most likely to change, I say the mothers and the believers. The Moms control the purse-strings in our consumer society, and just look at how the “Evangelical” vote swung the nation Republican. Of course “Evangelicals” are truly also of liberal faiths, but the conservatives co-opted the religious vote. Anyway, point is, if you get religious leaders making this a rallying point, you will see movement..both on the right and the left.
The consumers from the religious and Mother groups (which overlap, btw) would inspire the business leaders to enact change which will have real impact since they control how products are produced.
I think the naturalists should already be in the enviro-camp or they’re not going to convert now, and I don’t see the approach to the overweight camp at all.
Although I’m sure there are plenty of overweight, female, church going business leaders who are religious!
Segmentation, Media and “Message”
Hi. I hope everyone had a nice weekend.
It seems to me that, when it comes to global warming, there are a range of key “misunderstandings”, barriers, paradigms, and motivators that, in some cases, help delineate segments but that, in other cases, cut across segments, depending on how those segments are defined.
So, to me, the choice of the best segmentation involves a sort of intellectual/emotional/analytic “iteration”.
For example, imagine listing all of the “misunderstandings”, barriers, key paradigms, and motivators that exist in a complete, mixed, unsegmented population. Imagine listing them across the top row of a big table, i.e., as column headings. Then, imagine listing the segments (according to any given segmentation scheme) as the row headings, down the left side of the page. We’d put an “X” or some sort of priority ranking in each square of the table that represented a “misunderstanding”, barrier, paradigm, or motivator that applies or is important to the segment in question, i.e., the segment defined by that row. Then, take a look at the completed table. If many of the key “misunderstandings”, barriers, key paradigms, and motivators apply uniquely to certain segments then that segmentation scheme probably has some power. On the other hand, if many of the “misunderstandings”, barriers, key paradigms, and motivators cut across segments, or at least most of them, then there might be a better segmentation scheme out there, or perhaps some (not all) of the main messages can apply to multiple segments.
So, for me, it’s hard to tell without “playing” with some of the data and trying out a few different segmentation schemes. I have mixed feelings about trying to guess at it, or trusting existing segmentation schemes, for two reasons: First, I haven’t done (or seen) the research, so I can’t really critique segmentation approaches that might be supported by major firms. Perhaps those segmentation approaches are correct and well thought-out? On the other hand, I also know that conventional approaches, applied to unconventional problems, can sometimes lead one astray. Put another way, I find it hard to support standard segmentations, applied to this issue, without considering them in-depth.
All that said, I think the comments made earlier (about the segments) are important ones and worth thinking about.
Also, the ultimate combined approach to segmentation and actual message strategy might well be this: The key target segment might well consist of fifty specific people with actual names, e.g., the heads of the leading utilities, the three leading oil companies, the leading auto companies, the leading coal companies, some media leaders, some key scientists, and a few political change-agents. The best “media” for the job might consist of a three-day retreat for those folks, where the retreat doesn’t end until everyone gets the message.
That said, I’d be happy to help think about various segmentations, and various messages, if you like, but it’s hard to do so via the blog.
Now, for at least one or two specific, concrete comments, although it’s true that mothers are quite busy, I do continue to think that mothers and females in general can, and should, play an immense leadership role. In fact, although there are exceptions in both directions, I think there’s a good chance that we probably wouldn’t even have the problem today if more women had been in charge during the last century. Also, some women might do well to tell their husbands (if they are in key positions), “if you and your company don’t take care of the planet and the earth’s climate, I’m not going to help you create a future generation, because it’s just not fair to leave them with a mess.” That type of stance would catalyze some action pretty quickly. No joke. Speaking of “the Heart connection”!
Cheers.
read this morning that the Southern Baptist Conference is being rejuvenated by young stewards of the Earth. If half the religious population becomes active in ecological conscience, it will propel significant shifts in consumer behavior. few mention the environment, but all center on the economics of it.
it will take a lot of images for mothers to save the world for their children; they are too busy saving their small world within. look at what has been done by parents in one country already. there are holes in the advertising blinders now. perhaps mothers will unite for the immediate future of their people, instead of a vague and uncertain worry.
i see the marketing sector as the most influential factor here, the rest of the addicted consumers will follow. in a year or two, the popularity of green products will reach a turning point; as soon as it is economically viable.
Thanks all. I do believe it helps to get into specifics, and to be strategic when considering top down initiatives. Jeff, to your point, it is important to combine both quantitative and qualitative data. Regarding the ’shades of green’ approach, it is useful to quantify the size of market opportunities for green products, but less so for climate change messaging, as it does not help with identifying who these people are in terms of how to reach them.
Thinking about a climate fight campaign, I would be ready to bet my money on pretty much the same three groups most of you agreed on: business, religion, moms/women. All three are showing signs of moving in the ‘right’ direction already, and it may be a matter of giving them a push.
It may also make sense to have a campaign aimed at general population with overlays for each of three groups.
I saw the article regarding the Southern Baptist folks also. And, although I’m not an expert on the matter, I think I’ve seen in several places that the Pope, and the Catholic Church, are taking a stronger stance regarding stewardship (of the planet). And of course, the three remaining presidential candidates all say that they see global warming as real and serious. And the large majority of scientists.
That’s an amazing group. One might ask, if that collection of people and groups agree that the problem is real and should be addressed, who is continuing to cause confusion, or carry confusion, or delay matters? We know some of the answers, but I think (as I’ve mentioned) the media are a key part of the problem.
This is a great thread. Great topics, Marguerite. Keep up the great work.
Cheers.
Watch This, For Better and Worse
I don’t know if people saw this on Letterman or have heard about this “incident”, but the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman appeared very recently on Letterman to discuss global warming.
His appearance is here (on video),
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/1/111846/5751?source=topicrss
Friedman made some great points about the importance of global warming and the vital need to address it. I’ve enjoyed Friedman’s writing on the subject, including his great piece “It’s Too Late for Later”, in The New York Times on December 16 last year.
That said, in this appearance on Letterman, he (Friedman) explains the main dynamics of global warming in garbled fashion and, indeed, inaccurately.
This type of thing is a factor in the problem. There are, of course, different degrees of understanding, and understanding is not the same as motivation, and motivation usually has to be quite high to generate and sustain action. Action and motivation work a bit differently for different folks, of course. In any case, I think my main point is this: When one of the Times’ most celebrated figures, someone who is a great champion of the climate fight, shows that he doesn’t understand (even conceptually) the problem, that reduces the credibility of the message. Especially on a subject such as global warming, where dozens (perhaps hundreds or thousands?) of people are actually being paid (or otherwise motivated) to undermine the credibility of the message.
Anyhow, for a variety of reasons, I think the audience here might be interested in watching the clip. For better and worse.
Cheers.
Interesting summary of thoughts. I’m of the “”follow the money argument. Women now have the ear of corporate marketing departments because they control/influence most of consumer products. If you’re looking fora tipping point for change, this is where it starts with the buyers of goods and sellers with manufacturing processes.
Jeff, I will make sure to watch the Friedman video. Thanks for articulating the (important) difference between understanding and motivation. In that difference lies the large majority of ‘agree global warming is a problem but not willing to do anything about it’. Still, understanding is the first step.
Mary, you are ahead of us! Keep up the good work.
What about sites like Zen Habits?
I think a frugal lifestyle is compatible with findings from positive psychology and teachings of Buddhism, like mindfulness. While I think people in this segment would have much less to improve upon relative to others, I think they’re very open to new ideas. Also, some of them are very influential, due to their focus on effectiveness.
“Reaching ultimate bliss while saving the planet.” – could it get any better?