Brands Engage in Green Warfare

Now that studies show consumers—especially younger ones—considering the eco-consciousness of brands before buying, companies are touting their green cred like never before. According to a recent AdAge article, P&G and Unilever are stepping up their cause marketing efforts for mainstream consumer packaged goods. It’s “a race to show who’s best at saving the world.”

“Simply put, it’s getting impossible to attract or retain marketers without a solid reputation for ethical marketing. “We are seeing, particularly with the new generation of young business people and young marketers, that they are only attracted to companies that fit with their own value set,” said Kevin Havelock, president of Unilever U.S.

“And the value set of the new generation is one that says this company must take a positive and global view on the global environment. … The ethical positions we take on brands like Dove, the positions we take on not using models of size zero across any of our brands, the positions we take in terms of adding back to communities … these all underpin an attractive proposition for marketers.”

So how do these heavyweights stack up?

Unilever

Creds:

Campaigns:

Procter & Gamble

Creds:

• Global Live, Learn, Thrive philanthropic program

Campaigns:

• Always and Tampax support efforts to keep African girls in school by providing them with free sanitary-protection products
• Pantene’s Beautiful Lengths program collects locks of hair for cancer patients. It has gotten enough donations to make 3,000 wigs.
• Pur has a $20 million program that aims to purify 2 billion liters of water in Africa and save 10,000 lives by 2012.

What’s interesting is that these ads often subvert long-held marketing tenets: that negative ads are, well, a downer, and test poorly. However, while about 75% of ARS’ green ads usually has a negative tone, they do about average. Ones that offer tangible solutions can score exceptionally well. In general, eco appeals can sway about two-thirds of people, according to their testing.

All this leads to the issue of motive, which many are questioning. While P&G has been advertising their efforts to give free sanitary protection to African girls, some are saying their giveaways are just generating more waste. Unilever was also targeted for the seeming hypocritical disparity between their Dove and Axe ads—the former pushing female body acceptance, the latter pushing female bodies on pubescent males.

Indeed, it seems both Unilever and P&G are feeling the friction between selling their products and saving the world. As they resist pushes to reduce package size (boxes and containers can be valuable real estate), they are bickering over who started the concentrated detergent trend. In the end, it’s no wonder their motives are questioned. But if eco-minded consumers—and the earth—end up benefiting, does it really matter?