The Many Shades of the Eco-LOHAS-Sustainable-Green Consumer

If you've been tracking the green marketplace lately, there's a good chance your head is spinning. It's not just the endless polls and surveys, which continue their relentless march toward the trivializing of just about any environmental concern or issue. It's also the segmentation -- the divvying up of the marketplace into clever categories that sum up distinct subsets of the population that behave in the same way or have similar attributes or attitudes.

Market segmentations of green consumers aren't new -- the Roper Organization has been conducing a Green Gauge survey since 1990. But now there are as many as six different segmentation studies, depending on how you count. That includes only the studies available for sale by market research firms and doesn't include the segmentation studies done privately by companies like Wal-mart, Procter & Gamble, Clorox, and other consumer product makers. These and other companies have been assessing and tracking green-shopping attitudes and habits for their internal use.

So, how many ways can you slice the green-consumer pie?

For starters, there's Roper, which divvies up the marketplace thusly:

• True-Blue Greens -- the most environmentally active segment of society (11% of the U.S. population).
• Greenback Greens -- those most willing to pay the highest premium for green products (8%).
• Sprouts -- fence-sitters who have embraced environmentalism more slowly (33%).
• Grousers -- uninvolved or disinterested in environmental issues, who feel the issues are too big for them to solve (14%).
• Apathetics -- the least engaged group who believe that environmental indifference is mainstream (33%).

And then there's the Natural Marketing Institute, purveyor of all things LOHAS, the market space that includes organic foods, health and wellness, alternative medicine, green energy, green living, and other goods and services. NMI tracks more than 100 drivers to consumer behavior and divides the market into five categories:

• LOHAS -- very progressive on environment and society, looking for ways to do more; not too concerned about price (16%).
• Naturalites -- primarily concerned about personal health and wellness, and use many natural products; would like to do more to protect the environment (25%).
• Conventionals -- practical, like to see the results of what they do; interested in green products that make sense (e.g., save money) in the long run (23%).
• Drifters  -- not too concerned about environment, figuring we've got time to fix environmental problems; don't necessarily buy a lot of green products, though may like to "be seen" in Whole Foods to enhance their image (23%).
• Unconcerned -- have other priorities, not really sure what green products are available, and probably wouldn't be interested anyway; they buy products strictly on price, value, quality, and convenience (14%).

Next comes the Hartman Group, a Seattle-based market-research firm that's been tracking consumer attitudes, mostly related to food and organics, since the 1980s. Hartman recently released The Hartman Report on Sustainability: Understanding the Consumer Perspective, which looks at "how consumers feel about a world struggling to live in balance today for the benefit of future generations." It parses the consumer landscape this way:

• Radical Engagement -- "If people do not band together and employ radical means to overcome major problems, our future is bleak" (36%).
• Sustained Optimism -- "If we rely on rational intelligence and science, we can overcome major problems and secure a hopeful future" (27%).
• Divine Faith -- "If we leave things in God's hands, everything will turn out as it should" (20%).
• Cynical Pessimism -- "Save the planet? Who are we kidding? We can't even take care of ourselves" (9%).
• Pragmatic Acceptance -- "I don't worry about the major problems facing the world because they are beyond my control" (8%).

Finally, there's Landor Associates, perhaps the most prolific -- and most confusing -- purveyors of green market research. Over the past year, Landor, alone and with partners, has come up with no less than three green market segmentations. Last July, it revealed a study showing that 58% of the U.S. population considered themselves Not Green Interested (they don't care about environmentally friendly practices, including recycling, corporate social responsibility, or natural and/or organic ingredients); 25% were Green Interested (concerned about the environment, but not active in its defense); and the remaining 17% were Green Motivated (feel it's very important for a company to be green and base purchase decisions on whether or not a brand reflects "green behavior" in its packaging, ingredients, and corporate actions).

Then, a few weeks ago, Landor released the results of the 2007 ImagePower Green Brands Survey, conducted with Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates and Cohn & Wolfe. It divvied the green landscape into Active Greens, Muted Greens, Green Motivated, Green Hypocrites, and Green Ignorants. (I won't bother to explain each one because, I fear, you're getting bored with this.)

Even more confusing, the ImagePower survey conducted a similar survey of consumers in the U.K., using somewhat different nomenclature: Bright Greens, Green Motivateds, Fading Greens, Dull Greens -- and, if only for good measure, a group simply called -- you guessed it -- Greens.

What to make of all this name-calling? Is it really helping brand managers fine-tune their products, packaging, marketing messages, and all the other complexities of selling to consumers? Hard to say. (Anyone out there have a clue?)

What's safe to say is that there's a desperate need for consumer product companies to smarten up the marketplace. American consumers seem just short of clueless about how to shop green. Consider these dazzling conclusions of the 2006 Landor study:

Consumers may be interested in green, but can't identify it. Sixty-six percent of the American population cannot identify the steps a company can take to make itself more green.

and

In the Fast Food category, the perception of not being green does not prevent even the "Green Motivated" individuals from purchasing the products. Consumers will also buy in Automotive & Petroleum / Energy industries regardless of brands' "non-green" image.

and

While two out of three consumers cannot name a brand they consider to be green, there are differences between perception and reality on what companies are green.

Confused? So am I. With all we seem to know about consumers' environmental attitudes, you'd think we'd be doing a better job of engaging, educating, and inspiring them to make good, green choices in the marketplace. Any nominations for the company doing the best job on this?

Meanwhile, here's my own personal market segmentation, based on nothing but intuition, common sense, and twenty years of observing the green marketplace. I believe there are basically four kinds of consumers out there (you know who you are):

• Committed - knows what to do and does it
• Conflicted - knows what to do, but doesn't always bother
• Confused - doesn't know what to do, or how to make a difference
• Cynical - doesn't know and doesn't care

Me? At this point, I'm pretty much a little bit of each.

| | |   | |

---

CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC E-MAIL UPDATES WHENEVER A NEW ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED TO 'TWO STEPS FORWARD'

---

Comments

[Francesca Johnson]

Great review. Thank you. I agree that all this is trivializing the green marketplace, as if making green choices is no more important to our survival than choosing low-carb over low-cal. I think one of the problems with these studies lies in the need to group disparate products and practices under one big green umbrella. There have been many studies conducted over the years that look at grocery products or home purchases as a group, but I doubt if anyone has ever attempted to meld together ALL THINGS GREEN into one meaningless whole. It may be more expensive, and may take more time, and may grab less media attention for the research conglomerates, but maybe, just maybe, we need to look at green marketing in the context of the particular market in question. Just a thought.
My second concern is that segmentation analysis is based upon a 35 year old methodology that has many flaws. Most notably, there are usually several solutions that are possible after conducting a cluster analysis, and usually it's a case of eye-balling the results and putting cute names to the clusters you select. Therefore, Joel, I think your own segmentation model, your four cluster solution, sounds as good as any out there!

[michael jones]

Joel asked "any nominations for companies educating...", etc...yes, areU LLC. areU (tag line "being the change") has developed a brand named WasteBusters. Please see the video at wastebusters.net. Its nine minutes, so you will need a fair amount of band width. Comments and questions are welcomed.

[Mark C R UK]

Very funny Joel. Made me chuckle.

I suppose I'd be a Fern-Green.... I'm a chemist - some bad chemicals are simply even today unavoidable.... but we're trying.... and in the grand scheme things are improving...

I drive a 48MPG Fiat Punto (commuting here in the UK)...

So theres a mixture of shades.

Gave me something to think about - in that maybe in this case, attaching labels to people is actually worth it?!?

The huge debate over measuring green goes onward. I'm forever being quizzed by (synthetic) chemists - unfamiliar with or cynical about Green Chemistry over this and that being green or non-green. Often coming out with outrageous comments in between!

This "labeling" does help in a strange way.... linking into the "metrics" used, using scales for products?
See: Go Green

I suppose it should give some comfort that society in a larger sense is thinking more in this way?

[Mark C R UK]

P.S. this labelling is similar to how the banks look at potential customers - attaching labels to them based on the risks and potential earnings they can get out of them....

Incidentally, the banks in the UK have pretty much all announced record profits in the last year......

Shows that people involved in the fundamental economics are getting into this... with marketing maybe taking a new leap also?

We should watch for the fundamental message being lost in the process though and remain weary of over-market-ering.... if you catch my drift?

[Mark C R UK]

Joel,

I've just written a post Green Chemistry: The cynical perspective after reading an article in the RSC's Chemistry World magazine entitled "Keeping it Green". It seems a devaluation of the term "Green" may be occuring.... (Article in CW was dated 25th May).

Your current post had some direct relevance.

Again I suggest - the mechanisms for measuring green - Life-cycle assessment, and other forms of Environmental Impact Assessment... plus the "Green Chemistry Metrics" I have already briefly mentioned should help refocus people a little more.... if they were more generally known of?

Since we seem to have become lost in "Green or not" thinking, which isn't true to life.

Come see if you wish as to my side.

Best regards,

Mark
The Green Chemistry Technical Blog

[G.B. Veerman]

Joel,

Great post, great comments (esp.Francesca). I also agree with your categories and would take it a step further: what you've called out here is not a green issue, it's a marketing/communications issue. This sort of thing happens in nearly every category of the marketplace, from kitchen gadgets to mutual funds.

It's appropriate to research your targets, and I'm not going to call bullshit on the esteemed Landor, but sometimes in business we way over-intellectualize, as you've proven here. So I give you this gem from one of the most respected designers in America, Michael Bierut of NYC's legendary Pentagram:

"It’s a dirty secret that much of what we admire in the design world is a byproduct not of 'strategy' but of common sense, taste and luck. Some clients are too unnerved by ambiguity to accept this, and create gargantuan superstructures of bullshit to provide a sense of security. Not only do designers enthusiastically collude in this process, but many have found ways to bill for it."

Substitute the word "green marketing" for "design," and you begin to see that, among many of us interested in the business side of green, the emperor is way underdressed.

[Maybe Niavebut]

Yes, it is confusing, yes in is contradictory, but I disagree that it is "triviallising" or a waste of time. Businesses produce goods and services - people still want them. So if these kind of "consumer grouping" processes can help businesses to focus their approaches - one step at a time - to improving their offer, their production methods, whatever it is - by speaking first to the people who will purchase the said product/process due to improved "green credentials" - then I encourage that. I truely think most people (and remember we are all consumers, and businesses are staffed by people too) want to do the right thing, but just need help in knowing what to do first. Or who to market too first. And I think yes, businesses might over complicate - but I think very rarely do they intellectualize! ;-)

[marty mcdonald]

Joel,

The various segmentation studies serve two purposes.

First, to help the creators frame the green landscape for themselves. Second, to frame it for others.

If a firm is a research company, the second is most likely the motivator, and usually requires a hefty fee. Firms like ours' use segmentation studies to gain insights and understanding into both our current and future clients' customers.

We did our own segmentation study, and similarly created various names for each group. Probably not a whole lot different in the findings that the rest here. (We also did attitudes and behaviors, but it should be noted that even this approach is shortsighted, as ethnographic research is the best way to measure true behavior.) But to create our own was both illuminating and self-serving.

In a nutshell, the organizing theme for all of these is that most people--mainstream America--will buy products based on the concept of "enlightened self interest". What this means is that, for the majority, a product has to serve some benefit to the individual first(self-interest), and only then can the secondary theme of enlightenment, or altruism, take account. The environment is not perceived as a concept pertaining to self-interest at this time.

For a small percentage of the population--the core greens--"enlightenment" factors more significantly in purchase behavior, sometimes even surpassing the idea of self interest. But this group is small--between 12-20%.

For the rest, the mainstream, a brand has to first have a primary brand driver that serves self interest--convenience, cost, style, health, accessibility, quality, performance, etc.--before it can present the secondary "green" theme, which is one of "enlightenment".

So, in essence, "green" will never work as an organizing theme for the majority of Americans. If however, it is served up in the context of self-interest, it can stick. Think about organics--the reason it is hugely popular is not for a green reason, but one of health.

Hope this helps.

Marty McDonald
www.eggusa.net