Question your most rooted assumption: green consumers do not exist!

What?! No kidding. I have already been writing about this here and there but a new, and interesting study, conducted in the US and published this week points out again to pretty important myths of green consumption and green behavior: a good reminder that the “green consumer” does not exist per se, and that communications and/or marketing messages often end up in deaf ears and do not effectively generate the expected ROI (whether in terms of more sales or more eco-friendly behaviors).

The study, called Green Living Pulse, shattered six myths that I share with you below:

1. Myth: Green consumers’ top concern is the environment

When asked to identify their top concern, the economy, by far, is No. 1 (with 59 percent calling it their top concern) and the environment falls far behind (8 percent).

2. Myth: Green consumers’ main motivation when reducing their energy use is to save the planet

When asked the most important reason to reduce energy consumption, 73 percent chose “to reduce my bills/control costs” and only 26 percent chose “to lessen my impact on the environment.”

3. Myth: Green consumers are all-knowledgeable about environmental issues

For example, the survey asked, “From what you have read or heard about CO2 (carbon dioxide), please place a check beside any of the following statements you think are true.” Almost half (49 percent) chose the incorrect answer, “It depletes the ozone layer.”

4. Myth: Green consumers fall into a simple demographic profile

While the study detected some demographic tendencies, it found that green consumers aren’t easily defined by their age, income or ethnicity.

5. Myth: Children play a big part in influencing their parents to be green

Only 20 percent of respondents with children said their kids encouraged them to be greener – promoting recycling and turning off lights, for example.

6. Myth: If people just knew the facts they’d make greener choices

The study showed that knowledge does not always lead to behavior. Individuals who answered all of the science questions correctly did report participating in a significantly higher average number of green activities — such as driving a fuel-efficient car or lowering their thermostat. However, the 25-34 age group consistently answered the questions correctly, yet, on average, their green activity levels were lower than those of older respondents.

No wonder all the environmental awareness raising campaigns conducted for decades seems to have questioning long lasting impacts down the road … so what does all of that mean?

• For too long such stereotypes have remained unquestioned, the “save the planet” messaging has for long been dead, and that also explains a lot why green marketing can often be seen as “bad marketing” because based on false assumptions as explained by Adam Werbach here.

• Acting like a teacher or an old daddy is counter-productive as most of us, and consumers first, have a low capacity for specific information. Most of our everyday decisions are often based on gut feelings, emotions or wish to attain a certain social status or appearance rather than business cases and scientific truth

• Speak in human terms, refer to what matters to your audiences and resonate with their emotions, needs or concerns, don’t enter into some form of conceptual talk

• Don’t forget the average consumer might see more than 3,000 “sell” messages a day, so innovation and creativity are critical for your messages if you want them to cut through the noise

• Also remember that you, as a CSR/Sustainability communications or marketing specialist, are able to appreciate the complexity, dilemmas and detail of CSR, – so please don’t assume this is also the case for your audiences. They will not be as knowledgeable and passionate about the subject as you are . Be simple, right and offer a greater purpose to your audience.

In the end, it is not that green consumers do not exist, but they exist differently that too many may think. This does also apply to citizens as governments are sorely trying to adopt some new environmental policies such as the Carbon Tax in France or the Waxman-Markey bill in the US. As Marc Gunther’s interview of  Ed Maibach from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University reminds us:

“The economy and energy have more salience and presence than the environment or global warming or the phrase climate change—which is very abstract,” Ed says. “It doesn’t mean much to people and it has no emotional resonance.”

Language matters. So Ed suggests that those who care about the climate change get away from descriptors like “greenhouse gas emissions” or “GHGs” or “CO2” and instead go with “heat-trapping pollutants,” a phrase that White House science adviser John Holdren has used.