PSFK calls out Delta
I walk a fine line here at the Do Better Blog. I try to post only info of the purest of heart. We all know there's a ton of "greenwashing" going on with brands right now to be part of the cool, green, kids' table. Boo on that. I'm not suggesting a witch hunt, but I am suggesting we continue to feature and laud honestly good companies compared to companies who've tacked on a green initiative because their competitors just adopted a highway. So far from the point. Anyway, I love reading PSFK (and get a lot of my truly environmental info from this source - so put 'em on your RSS reader) and tonight saw an interesting post calling out Delta's "green" efforts.
First of all, I'm really happy. Why? Because PSFK did something that I am so darn excited to see in the mainstream: a feet-to-the-fire accountability check of companies' "green" efforts. Since forming Interwoven Threads, I've tried to do as much as I can to create a sustainable company. Am I 100 percent good yet? No. But I'm working toward it. And I like the dialogue and the pressure from consumers. I invite it. It's how this green thing will get some gas (and by gas, I mean...).
PSFK questions Delta's "green" in-flight amenity kit (photo credit psfk). You know, they were pretty harsh on Delta, but I'd have started out with even a harsher criticism: When you're an airline, burning god knows how much fuel, a corn-based toothbrush isn't going to offset your carbon footprint. Don't jerk me around with an in-flight kit. I'm going to criticize your marketing dept. Promote the trees you're planting to offset your footprint. Promote your partnership with the Breast Cancer Research Fund. Give me a sapling instead of a toothbrush to, if your website is correct, symbolize the tree you are planting on my your employees' behalf. That's good stuff and it's stuff I, as a consumer, get and can get behind.
What would make me happy (and I imagine Piers, too) would be an honest account of how to do better. Something like this, printed on the in-flight bag: "We're an airline. We burn lots of fuel. But you have to get to L.A. from New York and you need to do it fast. So, we exist to aid travel. To offset the environmental implications of our industry, we're doing X. You'll see that reflected in our in-flight service and our gate experience, where we're working toward a social consciousness we believe is critical to balance our impact on the environment we all seek to preserve."
One great thing that came from the giant Web 2.o movement was transparency. It started as an edict for web behavior and has trickled into all aspects of modern business communications. Nowhere is it more beneficial to a company and appreciated by a consumer than being transparent with your environmental and social efforts. None of us are perfect. Delta, your consumers know what you're putting into the air when they buckle their belts. So face it. Be who you are. Seems like you've got a lot of good offsets going for you, none of which have anything to do with a "green" toothbrush. How do you communicate those better? How do you change the bigger picture, not just the cute kit with some nice copywriting.
It's a good day, folks. We're challenging brands. We're debating authenticity. And that is what grows efforts.
First of all, I'm really happy. Why? Because PSFK did something that I am so darn excited to see in the mainstream: a feet-to-the-fire accountability check of companies' "green" efforts. Since forming Interwoven Threads, I've tried to do as much as I can to create a sustainable company. Am I 100 percent good yet? No. But I'm working toward it. And I like the dialogue and the pressure from consumers. I invite it. It's how this green thing will get some gas (and by gas, I mean...).
PSFK questions Delta's "green" in-flight amenity kit (photo credit psfk). You know, they were pretty harsh on Delta, but I'd have started out with even a harsher criticism: When you're an airline, burning god knows how much fuel, a corn-based toothbrush isn't going to offset your carbon footprint. Don't jerk me around with an in-flight kit. I'm going to criticize your marketing dept. Promote the trees you're planting to offset your footprint. Promote your partnership with the Breast Cancer Research Fund. Give me a sapling instead of a toothbrush to, if your website is correct, symbolize the tree you are planting on my your employees' behalf. That's good stuff and it's stuff I, as a consumer, get and can get behind.
What would make me happy (and I imagine Piers, too) would be an honest account of how to do better. Something like this, printed on the in-flight bag: "We're an airline. We burn lots of fuel. But you have to get to L.A. from New York and you need to do it fast. So, we exist to aid travel. To offset the environmental implications of our industry, we're doing X. You'll see that reflected in our in-flight service and our gate experience, where we're working toward a social consciousness we believe is critical to balance our impact on the environment we all seek to preserve."
One great thing that came from the giant Web 2.o movement was transparency. It started as an edict for web behavior and has trickled into all aspects of modern business communications. Nowhere is it more beneficial to a company and appreciated by a consumer than being transparent with your environmental and social efforts. None of us are perfect. Delta, your consumers know what you're putting into the air when they buckle their belts. So face it. Be who you are. Seems like you've got a lot of good offsets going for you, none of which have anything to do with a "green" toothbrush. How do you communicate those better? How do you change the bigger picture, not just the cute kit with some nice copywriting.
It's a good day, folks. We're challenging brands. We're debating authenticity. And that is what grows efforts.
Labels: branding, carbon footprint, causes, environmentalism, marketing, social responsibility
Someone named D Harrison posted a comment at PSFK that bears repeating. Why is it the airlines responsibility to offset their carbon footprint when they are merely facilitating the passenger's wish to travel from one place to another? No ticket = no carbon footprint. How about the consumer's responsibility for offsetting their carbon footprint? Corporations do not exist for their own sake, they fulfill the needs and wants of individuals. The fact they take smaller measures (like making inflight amenities more environmentally friendly) is a net positive and should be encouraged, not criticized.
Until the green movement (let's use that term for simplicity sake) succeeds at changing individual behavior in a meaningful way, "green" corporate behavior will not enact substantive societal change.
Great blog Mr. Woolard.
Hmmm....
Thanks for the report.
In comment to Bob's comment:
* As a consumer I am against carbon offsetting. It's the morning after pill of the green movement.
* As a consumer I want greener products. I want my carrier to try its best to meet modern needs. PSF's job is to make things better and sometimes that's calling out lame green attempts so that brands concentrate on making green part of its soul, not as an add on.