Hotel Felix bills itself as Chicago’s first green hotel. Inside, hidden from view, hotel staff separates the contents of guests’ trash bins—recyclable material is picked out from the items that go to landfills. The decade-old hotel boasts Silver LEED certification, Earth-friendly cleaning supplies and carpeting made of 45% recycled material in guest rooms. Each facet is meant to signal the hotel’s environmental friendliness. But area general manager Todd Van Winkle says that the hotel doesn’t use much green messaging in its marketing, nor does it push guests to participate in its green mission.

Hotel Felix is in a challenging spot—both geographically and financially—and must focus on what makes the most money. The hotel has 228 guest rooms and targets an occupancy rate between 82% and 86%, all while trying to attract tourists in the posh River North neighborhood where you can’t walk a block without stubbing your toe on a hotel. Choose Chicago reports that in Chicago’s business district—of which River North is a part—there were . That same year, after Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Hotel Felix, Crain’s Chicago Business reported that the hotel defaulted on a $47 million loan, .

Competition is fierce and Hotel Felix has fought to stay alive, but Van Winkle doesn’t believe that eco-friendliness can win enough new business to be the focus of the hotel’s marketing, nor would forcing guests into being greener be good for business. Hotel executives care about reducing their carbon footprint, but it doesn’t matter as much financially as maintaining cost and upkeep. Hotel Felix aims to reduce its carbon footprint by 1% each year, saving $5,000–$10,000 and gaining 2–3% of its business per year from green consumers, but price and quality attract the most new guests. The hotel gives guests the option to refuse housekeeping and linen laundry services—5–10% of guests participate each night, Van Winkle says—to save energy and water. But like any hotel where people stay when visiting a city, Hotel Felix is first and foremost a place for them to lay down their bags and sleep.

“That’s why we use the linen reuse [service], because we can’t stop you from taking a shower,” he says. “We can’t tell you, ‘Hey, it’s a five-minute cutoff.’ 
 We try to influence the consumer as much as we can, but it essentially boils down to [whether the] consumer is doing their part.”

The same is true of all businesses, Van Winkle believes. If consumers want brands to become greener, consumers must lead the charge—brands can only do so much. If 10% of Hotel Felix’s guests are green-minded enough to forgo housekeeping service, he says that’s a positive mark on the world. But what else can the hotel do, especially amid such fierce competition? Van Winkle doesn’t believe that knocking on doors to tell guests to stop showering or using so much energy is a moneymaker, so the hotel cuts energy consumption where it can and hopes that guests will at least turn their lights and TV off when they leave for the day.

Can brands do more to push consumers toward acting greener? Or like Hotel Felix, do they simply hope consumers follow their lead?

The term “sustainability,” as we use it today, comes from the . “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” the report says.

In the 30 years since the Brundtland Report, two major factors have driven the change among businesses, according to Alexa Poortier, founder of sustainable tourism advocacy group itmustbeNOW. The first factor has been consumer brands, such as Unilever and Patagonia, driving the change from the C-suite—the executives wanted green changes and made them happen. Hotels, such as the Taj Group and Soneva, have moved toward carbon neutrality and green certifications, just as Hotel Felix attained the Silver LEED designation. Even so, Poortier says that few hotels have committed to becoming rigorously sustainable, and those that claim to be lack transparency. Airlines merely talk the talk, Poortier says—flights produced , according to the Air Transport Action Group, but Poortier says that few airlines have committed to sustainability.

“Sustainability is a powerful marketing opportunity and tool, but it must be rigorous with transparency and this makes a lot of companies nervous,” Poortier says. “It must focus on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The second factor has been consumer desire for sustainable brands. Most companies only change when consumers demand it, Poortier says, and that desire for change is increasing with younger generations. For example, Nielsen reports that sales of sustainable products hit $107.3 billion in 2014, but they’re , with a 2015 report from Nielsen reporting that millennials will .

But green marketing has a dirty little secret, says Jacquelyn Ottman: Consumers of all generations use green products the same way they do any other product—often, they’re wasteful. Consumers have grown comfortable with what’s familiar and their pattern of consumption is hard to change.

Ottman, author of The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools, and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding, realized this secret after working as a green marketer for 30 years. She saw that people would give their money to greener brands but still use the products wastefully, which eventually led to her quitting her work as a green marketer. Now, Ottman serves as chair of the , which advocates for zero waste in New York City.

Ottman, author of The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools, and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding, realized this secret after working as a green marketer for 30 years. She saw that people would give their money to greener brands but still use the products wastefully, which eventually led to her quitting her work as a green marketer. Now, Ottman serves as chair of the , which advocates for zero waste in New York City.

“If Poland Spring contacted me today 
 I would not work with them,” Ottman says. “I would turn down the project. I don’t want to sound holier-than-thou, but I would rather spend my time and expertise advocating for consumer culture change than switching out a regular, single-use bottle for one that’s 100% recycled. Why would I want to spend my time giving people an excuse to continue to drink bottled water?”

Like water bottles, most green products can still be used wastefully—. An airline can change its boarding processes and on-flight utensils to be more sustainable, , but each passenger on a coast-to-coast flight still creates just under a metric ton of carbon dioxide. A writer for The New York Times recently calculated that his family’s trip from New York to Miami created enough carbon dioxide to . Even Patagonia, a green-friendly clothing company with environmentally conscious consumers, has trouble changing how its shoppers behave. After Patagonia launched its clothing repair program, , according to Fast Company. Patagonia’s faithful looked at Patagonia’s advertisement for the program—a full-page ad that said “Don’t Buy This Jacket”—and bought the jacket anyway.

That’s one of the problems of green marketing, Ottman says: There are opportunities for brands to change how shoppers consume, but they don’t come passively.

“We need to change the default from buying new to acquiring used or sharing, swapping, donating, borrowing, lending, renting, buying and selling to each other as an alternative to buying new,” she says.

Although the younger generation demands more sustainable products, Ottman’s advocacy for reusing, trading and borrowing feels retro. Buying new is a relatively recent trend that built steam between the and plastic production, which . Consumers who had their milk delivered soon found containers of milk they could buy, throw away and buy again on their next trip to the store—eventually, the refillable delivery bottles were all but gone, a quirky relic or premium service rather than the norm. With plastics and other disposable containers making production less expensive, brands offered consumers products in a convenient way and consumers became used to that convenience.

Far away from the dairy aisle, landfills piled up with plastic bottles and wrappers. , according to The National Academy of Sciences, which has coincided with . While these facts are often debated politically, there’s little debate among scientists and researchers that the Earth’s climate is changing and much of it is due to how modern humans live. , which all entail how we consume, travel and throw away our trash.

The need now, as it was in 1987 when the Brundtland Report was released, is merging the need for sustainability with the desire to make money. The report called this need “a new era of economic growth—growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable,” echoing the concern of Van Winkle and countless other brands attempting to go green while staying profitable.

Many brands have tried to reduce their impact on the environment by making changes to products and suggestions to customers, akin to Hotel Felix. Patagonia asked people not to buy its jacket and Colgate asked consumers to “.” In travel, , which send money to carbon reduction projects to make up for the carbon they produce by traveling. For example, allows travelers to streamline the process of creating and offsetting their carbon in one fell swoop. In hotels, Poortier says that the larger groups—Hyatt, Marriott, InterContinental Hotels and AccorHotels—create their own sustainability programs, but most don’t or can’t prove that they match the rigor of a group like the , an independent nonprofit which offers accreditation for sustainable tourism.

With these actions, the brand changes and suggests greener practices to consumers, but the consumer is still left to act on their own. Green consumers will likely act green, but no one knows exactly how many people comprise this group, meaning the results are often incalculable. If the product and its packaging are produced in an eco-friendly manner, but consumers still send them to landfills, is the product actually green?

To get consumers to change their actions, brands must present products and services differently, reframing a new, green action as essential. Not only must the greenest action be truly green—, an attempt to capitalize on the demand for sustainable products, has led to —the new action must seem easy, obvious and beneficial to the consumer.

A number of consumer goods companies are now experimenting with whether they can change consumer action through a project called Loop. Operated by recycling company , Loop sends consumers of products through a UPS delivery in a tote bag. Once Loop customers are finished using the products, they put them back into the tote bag and schedule a pickup. The empty containers are retrieved, cleaned, refilled and replaced at the consumer’s door. For now, Loop is only available in , but it already has 300 branding partners, including Coca-Cola, Mondelēz and Clorox. Andrea Rudert, associate director of corporate responsibility for Clorox Co., says that one reason the company got involved in Loop was to better understand consumer demand for “circular economy solutions.”

“We anticipate we’ll learn more in the future when we take a step back and examine the trends from Loop consumer activity,” Rudert says. “By developing actionable insights on consumer sustainable shopping behaviors, we can influence the products that we sell and how we sell them. Ultimate success is if Loop becomes a mainstream hit, scales nationally and becomes economically sustainable for all participants.”

Loop seems like a return to the days of the milkman, a step back in time to take a step forward toward sustainable consumerism. In an interview with GreenBiz Group, TerraCycle’s CEO and co-founder Tom Szaky echoed Ottman, saying that brands can’t recycle their way out of the garbage crisis—they need a foundational shift to change the way brands work and how consumers consume. Szaky sums up TerraCycle’s vision with a question: “How do we solve for disposability at the root cause, while matching the benefits?”

Consumers have long said that they desire green products and sustainable actions, but their behavior often doesn’t match their desires.

In a 2007 survey from McKinsey, 87% of consumers said that they were concerned about the environment and would shop with that concern in mind, but only 33% said that they had bought green products or were ready to do so. As a 2004 article in MIT Sloan Management review put it, “When consumers are forced to make trade-offs between product attributes or helping the environment, the environment almost never wins.” This seemingly hasn’t changed over the past 15 years, as an article in the July-August 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review found that the “intention-action gap” is still intact—65% of consumers say that they want to buy from brands that advocate for sustainability, while 26% of consumers actually buy from those brands.

The intention-action gap plays out in many different ways in travel and shopping. This year, a group of researchers published an article in the Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science titled “Recycling on vacation: Does pro-environmental behavior change when consumers travel?,” which studied how vacationers in North Carolina recycled. The article found that even environmentally friendly vacationers were significantly more likely to recycle at home than they were while on vacation. Of the group of vacationers who didn’t recycle, 67% said that they didn’t know how or where to recycle, while 15% forgot and 14% said that it was too messy or too much of a hassle. Their values were those of a green consumer, but their actions were confused, dismissive or forgetful.

Jason Oliver, an author of the vacation study and associate professor of marketing at Roger Williams University’s Gabelli School of Business, says that this intention-action gap has always existed in the green movement, whether customers are on vacation or at the store. There’s a small group of consumers who are fiercely green and will spend money on green products or abide by green practices no matter what—Oliver says that this is about 7% of consumers; other measures of hardline-green consumers vary—but there’s a larger group of consumers who avoid green products. The puzzle green brands must figure out, he believes, is how to win over the largest group: the people in the middle.

ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍűt 60% of all consumers fall in this middle ground, Oliver estimates, and they’re on a spectrum. The spectrum ranges from those enticed but not won over by promises of green products to those who likely won’t care about a green promise but also won’t be dissuaded by it. Generally, Oliver says that this middle group is more likely to be won over by ease, price and quality—these are the areas where he believes that brands must place the buying decision.

If a green product and its equivalent non-green version have the same cost and quality, Oliver says that the average consumer will usually choose the greener product. But most green products still aren’t equal in price and quality. Patagonia, for example, has high-quality clothing, but its prices are also high. Oliver does believe that price, quality and greenness are starting to level out in the market. Because of that leveling, brands can reach consumers in the middle with a green product, even if the consumer’s environmental values aren’t well-defined.

So far, Oliver believes that most consumers are sticking with what they know because green marketers are targeting known customers for easy sells. By solely advertising a product’s sustainable values, green marketers are preaching the benefits of their products solely to the top green customers—the people who are already won over—and ignoring the larger group in the middle that needs to hear more about the product’s benefits.

Too often, brands trying to appeal to the middle group tend to focus on easy wins, a cynical move that’s more likely to win a moment of good PR than loyal customers. Consider companies that have banned or reduced the use of plastic straws, including American Airlines, Starbucks and Hyatt: Of the 9 million tons of plastic waste created each year, research shows that straws account for about 2,000 tons, a tiny percentage of the problem. Getting rid of straws is an easy win, but are Starbucks’ recyclable plastic lids any less likely to end up in a landfill? What’s the true benefit of these moves, other than a moment of good PR?

Brands also try to use alarmist tactics to win business from the middle group—Oliver mentions the oft-used traditional green ad model of showing a polar bear on a shrinking block of ice to illustrate what happens if you don’t buy this product—but he believes that the average consumer will turn away from alarmist or fear-based marketing and brands will most certainly lose consumers less apt to care about green issues.

Instead of such thoughtlessly narrow segmentation, easy wins and fear- or shame-based marketing, Oliver says that brands should sell the product’s primary benefits to the middle group. In the case of Loop, the company touts its benefit of easily replacing products—green is a benefit, but it’s not the only benefit. That may be why so many brands quickly joined Loop. Those brands can offer consumers a way to buy their products without having to leave home—just stick a tote bag outside and the product will be refilled. Reducing waste can be the primary or secondary benefit, depending on the consumer, which is likely to win over a larger segment.

Or take an LED lightbulb, known for lasting as much as . Oliver says that the marketing collateral could address how consumers can get rid of their step ladder and save money on the electric bill. If the product is a roll of sustainable paper towels, Oliver says that the brand can discuss the towel’s improved quality or quantity—that is, after all, why the average consumer buys paper towels. And if it’s recycling on vacation, properties can find a way to make recycling easier, more rewarding and perhaps even Instagrammable. Brand marketers must ask themselves how to get people engaged with the product or process, Oliver says—is there a way to make the green action the one that appears to be the best value, quality or most socially acceptable? Simply changing the materials likely won’t engage consumers, nor will it change their actions.

Todd Weaver, a professor of business at Point University in Georgia, says that the big message for brands is that whether a product is green is not the most crucial factor to every consumer. When brands ask consumers to shop or consume differently, they must offer them good trade value. If price and quality are equal in green and non-green products, Weaver says that gives the green product a big advantage.

Weaver, who co-authored a 2018 article in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing titled “The Intersection of Sustainable Consumption and Anticonsumption: Repurposing to Extend Product Life Span,” says that repair and reuse of old items must be part of the answer. Companies such as Patagonia—which allows consumers to repair and trade in clothing—and Eileen Fisher’s Waste No More are finding a niche in repairing, trading and reusing old clothing. Weaver’s paper found that consumers enjoy the process of trading, repairing or repurposing products not for environmental reasons, but for pleasure. Still, this gratification won’t be enough to win most customers over, Weaver says. Just as there are few one-issue voters, most consumers consider multiple factors when shopping. If the product is bad, or if its benefits are unclear, people will likely buy what they’re familiar with and use it in a customary way.

Green marketers must make their products’ value proposition clear, all the better if there are multiple selling points. Oliver gave the example of Tesla and how it markets its vehicles. Tesla’s stated mission is “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” but you’ll likely hear more about the car’s literal acceleration. For example, most YouTube videos about Tesla being a green car have about 30,000 views or fewer, but search for reaction shots to its Insane Mode feature—which allows the car to accelerate from zero to 60 miles per hour in 2.5 seconds—and .

Even if the product’s benefits aren’t cool enough to accrue millions of hits on social media, benefits should be easily explained. Think big picture, Oliver says: Why should the consumer buy one product over another? The answer can’t simply be “because it’s good for the environment.” A vacation property that wants guests to recycle should be able to provide visitors with instructions and benefits—if the benefits aren’t there, the company should consider creating them. For example, in a future experiment, Oliver is considering offering vacation property guests 10% off their next stay if they can remain under a limit of energy and water consumption. “If you act responsibly, we’re going to incentivize that behavior,” he says.

Perhaps most importantly, a brand that highlights the other values or incentives of its green products helps the consumer live with more integrity. A customer that feels good buying a brand’s product is likely a loyal customer. A 2018 survey by Futerra finds that . But the same survey finds that 43% of consumers believe that brands make it harder for them to have an effect and 29% say that they don’t know what role brands play.

Being green is ultimately a perception issue for both brands and consumers, Oliver says. Without knowing it, consumers likely ask themselves a question when they see a green product: “Is this something I can actually use, or is it just something I’ll waste money on so I can feel good about myself?

“That’s why I like the other approach to say, ‘OK, how can we get people on board through convenience or performance or cost savings?’” Oliver says. “There’s a way to get people on board. You just have to figure it out.”

If brands can influence a change in consumer behavior, they’ll have to take the lead. In a 2017 research paper from the Journal of Marketing Research titled “Turning Off the Lights: Consumers’ Environmental Efforts Depend on Visible Efforts of Firms,” researchers found that brands can lead consumers to act greener by example, namely by “visible (costly) evidence of the firm also expending effort on environmental efforts.”

“[W]e show that programs should always couple their requests to consumers with proof that the firm is also exerting effort,” the researchers say. “We also show that reactance is a part of the underlying process of consumer response to firm programs, driving both consumer perceptions and consumer behavior.”

If a consumer feels that a brand is instructing them to be greener without any evidence that the brand itself is green, researchers write that “a host of negative perceptions can be activated and compliance can decrease.”

So, Hotel Felix’s Van Winkle was at least partially correct: A green company can have quality, compete on price and ask but not demand for its consumers to participate. That will at least partially convince consumers to be greener. Hotel Felix clearly invests in being greener—it uses expensive and ; its staff spends hours picking through garbage for recyclable items; and its guest rooms are free of microwaves, refrigerators and coffeemakers, by mandate of LEED certification. Even its recycled artwork is a sign that the hotel spends on sustainability, and perhaps a reminder that you can also help by refusing your housekeeping for the day.

But beyond leading by example, there’s a new generation of green brands thinking of creative ways to change consumer actions as they change their own. Once businesses start going green, Ottman says that they investigate the ways they can create innovative models to save consumer time and money while providing them better service. Done correctly, green innovations can mean more loyal customers, more money saved and a better brand reputation.

“In my mind, green marketing has evolved,” Ottman says. “It’s not slapping ‘green’ on the label, however much it’s in line with the FTC Green Guides. It’s actually promoting positive change in consumption culture.”

The post Can Brands Make Their Consumers Go Green? appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Congratulations on celebrating your (Aug. 9)! What’s been your favorite part of the festivities?

The best part about celebrating this big birthday year has been seeing how many people care about preventing wildfires. It’s great to see so many people stepping up to remind their friends that, “.” I’m over the moon (just don’t say I’m over the hill). Oh, and the cake! Who doesn’t love a good, candle-free birthday cake?

As the , how has your communication style evolved to promote fire safety?

When you’ve , people might think you’re a bit old school. But, believe me, you can teach an old bear new tricks! I used to think a tweet was just an excited message from my pal, . Now, I have more than 400,000 social media friends on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram who help me spread my wildfire prevention message every day. Remember, I’m just a bear standing in front of humans asking them to help him prevent wildfires. #OnlyYou 
 can follow me @SmokeyBear on and (@Smokey_Bear on ).

What’s the most difficult part of your job?

Texting with bear paws. Someday they’ll invent a bear paw-sized keyboard. A bear can dream, right? Also, there’s no Wi-Fi in the forest, but that doesn’t really matter. I always have a better connection to what truly matters there: reminding people about their responsibility to be safe around fire and the unique ways that unplanned fires start each day.

You’re a bear of few—albeit iconic—words. What else do you like to talk about?

I could talk about wildfire prevention all day. And I do! No surprise then that I’ve been saying, “Only you can prevent wildfires,” for so long. Next to Santa’s, “Ho, Ho, Ho,” I think I hold the record for talking about the same topic for the longest time—imagine what a great dinner guest I’d be.

Are you friends with any other celebrity bears?

He may not be 100% ursine, but is a good friend and lover of the outdoors. We’re such good buds that he even stepped in to help tell millions of Americans about why wildfire prevention is so important. If there’s ever a direct way to my heart and holiday card list, that’s surely it.

How many hats and shovels have you gone through in your lifetime?

In my lifetime, I have gone through far too many shovels to count—they make putting out campfires a cinch! And as for my hat, well, we all know it’s my favorite accessory, so it’s safe to say I’ve always had a few spares. I’ve even loaned out a few. It’s okay, , you can keep it.

The post And Now a Word From … Smokey Bear appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Each star coach in every sport will tell you the game is often won or lost in transition. To me, it stems from the fact that these transitions all place the executing teams in a highly vulnerable state, in which both the risks and rewards are heightened.

The No. 1 reason organizational growth stalls is failure to innovate. Change and change management are inherent in innovation. Change leaders typically focus on the current and future states, but they may overlook the most important element: the changeover period.

Today’s winning formula is no longer “built to last,” it’s “built to adapt.” Organizations in a state of constant adaptation must be mindful of the executional leaks that can occur when an intentional risk mitigation strategy and strong communication plan are lacking. Once an organization accepts the premise of why transition management is critical, it should do an audit of its key transitions.

The number of transitions occurring every day in your organization and ecosystem will measure into the hundreds or even thousands. As a leader, you must identify the high-yield and high-consequence transitions. Don’t assume that because a decision was made, the necessary steps will occur. This is one of the red flags identified by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton in their book, The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action.

Millions of dollars can be made or lost during transitions. New product introductions, withdrawals, shelf resets and packaging changes all place your business in a vulnerable state. Brand name changes, product or service redesign and new distribution channels are very public transitions that impact both short-term performance and long-term reputation.

Then there are the internal hand-offs, such as those between marketing, sales, operations, supply chain, manufacturing, distribution and finance. Every movement from A to B to C, all the way to Z, requires diligent documentation and communication to ensure connected intelligence. When transitions are humming along, it can be the difference between “know-what” and “know-how.”

For a journal article titled “,” social scientist Daniel Chambliss studied the anatomy of excellence among swimmers, with findings that could translate to anyone from plumbers to social workers to marketers. Chambliss found that excellence at all levels of swimming—from middle school to the Olympics—is not a function of natural talent or working harder. Instead, Chambliss determined three distinguishing characteristics of the best swimmers in the world: technique, discipline and attitude.

The same paper also referenced Peter Drucker’s 1985 assertion, that “to be effective does not require special gifts, special aptitude or special training. Effectiveness as an executive 
 demands doing certain—and fairly simple—things. It consists of a small number of practices.” How many athletes have reported making a few mundane changes in their technique that accounted for breaking out of a slump and winning it all?

Consider the three characteristics identified by Chambliss as they relate to marketing: qualitative or technique improvements made to processes and frameworks; the application of good disciplines such as cross-functionality, communication protocols, time management, project management and measurement; and having the attitude that attention to detail is in pursuit of an epic narrative in which individuals can see themselves playing a starring role. These can all add up to create a values-driven culture that understands the mundanity of excellence.

I encourage you to recall those three watchwords—technique, discipline and attitude—whenever you’re faced with a challenge. All it takes is the self-awareness of the mundanity of excellence and the overt decision to buy in to transition management. Remember that mundanity should never be confused with negativity. A culture should be established in which inquiry and curiosity about transition are valued and not perceived as a drag on the organization’s momentum. It’s about moving at the speed of trust, with an attention to detail that might save you.

The post Winning the Transition Game appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Three new buildings sit nestled against a hillside, centered around a small lagoon and surrounded by plants. One building, the , is considered one of the greenest on Earth, awarded four of the highest green building certifications and producing its own renewable energy on-site. The second, the , is a former public works building, which now prioritizes the health and well-being of its staff and features photovoltaic solar panels on its roof. The third building, the , is a children’s learning facility constructed from non-toxic materials that hints at the green possibilities for modular structures.

They make an impressive trio, as eye-pleasing as they are eco-friendly. They appear not on the California coast, but tucked into the Pittsburgh landscape, emblematic of an ongoing rebranding of a city once described by American author James Parton as “hell with the lid taken off.”

Today the former steel capital of America has become a leader in sustainability. It’s not a surprise to Pittsburghers, though, who kayak its rivers and work in its LEED-certified buildings.

But for those outside of the city, this new image hasn’t always been as obvious. Pittsburgh has been a success story among Rust Belt cities that struggled after the industrial decline of the 1980s, as it now touts its prowess in technology, education and medicine. Yet how can a city rebrand itself as a green metropolis when one of its most beloved icons, the Pittsburgh Steelers, harkens directly to its gritty past? The answer isn’t to launch a massive campaign, but to tell a story that resonates with locals and impresses outsiders.

“There is a sort of common sense of place, which is wonderful,” says Bill Flanagan, a broadcast journalist and chief corporate relations officer at the . “There’s enough collaboration 
 that we seem to be staying on message and marketing. A big part of that is just delivering a message that resonates.”

Urban branding is an opportunity to convey the city’s image to the world, giving it a competitive advantage regionally and internationally. A found that “without a brand, cities will be less able to shape the powerful image that leads to sustainable urban development.”

Pittsburgh isn’t trying to change its history, but it is trying to help the audience see its sustainable future. The three buildings previously mentioned are part of , an institution that opened in 1893 and has helped bond the city’s past and future. The new, ultra-green facilities sit behind the original building, were designed and built primarily by Pittsburghers and other Pennsylvanians and are worthy of the world’s attention.

Perhaps the most internationally recognized example of Pittsburgh’s new story came in 2017, after President Donald Trump, in reference to pulling out of the Paris Agreement climate pact, said, “.” : “As the mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy and future.”

Yet Pittsburgh’s rebrand—its storytelling strategy—has been more focused on inclusion than retorts. City stakeholders are working to reach beyond the young people lured in by tech jobs and captured by its livability, to include longtime residents who feel pushed out or to outlying suburbanites who rely on jobs in the fossil fuels industry. But Pittsburgh is no stranger to competing forces: While it was once a leader in steel production, the region was also home to conservationist Rachel Carson, author of the landmark environmental science book Silent Spring. There’s room for both stories in its history books.

The city’s enthusiasm to rebrand by telling an inclusive, green story was evident when 10 leaders, representing public and private stakeholders, quickly agreed to participate in an interview with Marketing News. Assembled at Phipps Conservatory, with the trio of internationally recognized green buildings as a backdrop, the group discussed the progress Pittsburgh has made in its sustainability efforts. What was perhaps more telling was that they spent less time hyping what they’ve accomplished and more time mulling over how to meet new challenges.

Attracting Visitors

Ten years ago, Pittsburgh played host to world leaders at the 2009 G-20 Summit—but the location choice baffled some. “They literally laughed at the White House press room,” recalls Flanagan. The White House cited Pittsburgh’s ability to rebound economically from a struggling Rust Belt city and, as Flanagan puts it, the region saw an opportunity to milk its moment in the spotlight.

“We’re going to have thousands of reporters in town—do we just try to spin it and tell this wonderful story about Pittsburgh?” Flanagan says. “We made a conscious decision very early on in the process: We are going to just be completely honest. We’re going to talk about the things we do well and [that] we’re proud of, and we’re going to talk about all the work we have left to do.”

The bet was that being honest would give the city more credibility. Flanagan says they tracked about 7,000 stories written about Pittsburgh after the G-20, most of which were positive and articulated the city’s transformation.

The city tries to be authentic by showing rather than telling. CMO Tom Loftus points to 2005 as one of the first times the rest of the world, or at least the nation, started to take note of Pittsburgh as a green locale. That summer, the city hosted the CITGO Bassmaster Classic, placing its rivers in front of television audiences.

“It really launched Pittsburgh as a green and friendly city and got that image out of people’s minds of the smoky industrial city that it used to be,” Loftus says. “ESPN was showing people fishing on the rivers in Pittsburgh and pulling up big bass. That’s something that you can’t put in a brochure or put in a video and try to promote.”

The city continues to ride a media wave of acknowledgements. In addition to the international focus from the 2009 G-20 Summit and President Trump’s comments, The Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Pittsburgh as the in the U.S. in 2018, behind Honolulu, per its criteria of healthcare, culture and environment, education, infrastructure and stability. in 2017 and 2018.

But Pittsburgh has also had to battle less savory rankings, such as receiving all F’s on the .

“We have so many shoulders to stand on and so much to celebrate; at the same time, we’re not there yet,” says Scott Bricker, executive director of BikePGH. “We still have some pretty bad air quality and some things that are wrong. I think the story is more about [how] we’re trying and we’re making the right investments and we’re leaning into this effort to change the story, to make the region more green or the city more green and sustainable. 
 It’s not, ‘Come here and experience the most green city on Earth.’ We can’t do that because it wouldn’t resonate with people.”

Although there’s room for improvement, the city appeals to sustainability-seeking visitors with its existing buildings and activities. For instance, the became the largest LEED Gold Certified convention center in the world when completed in 2003. It’s now the highest-rated LEED Platinum Certified convention center in the U.S. Or take the , a series of events and activities for the approximately 2,000 interns from 35 states and 25 countries based in the city during the summer. It’s part of an effort led by the Allegheny Conference to convince the interns to stay and make Pittsburgh their home, and many of the activities are designed to showcase the quality of the region, including its outdoor spaces.

“People are taking note of Pittsburgh,” Loftus says. “From a marketing standpoint, we adopted the branding ‘Pittsburgh. Mighty. Beautiful.’ to keep on letting people know that you’ll be surprised by our beauty as soon as you come through the Fort Pitt Tunnels or come across Mount Washington. You’re not going to believe how beautiful it is. And it’s not just us, it’s people that are visiting that are telling us that.”

Bill Campbell, vice president of marketing and communications at Chatham University, says that for a city of Pittsburgh’s size—its metropolitan population of 2.3 million makes it 27th-largest in the U.S.—it has an outsized number of cultural, educational and environmental qualities and amenities at its disposal. His own university is a pioneer in the green educational space with the . Campbell says a visitor coming through the city and immediately encountering facilities like the convention center and Phipps Conservatory is presented with a very green picture of Pittsburgh. “These things illustrate what matters to the city,” he says.

Another piece of marketing collateral that hyped the city to outsiders came from the city’s pitch to become home to Amazon’s second headquarters. The video looked at Pittsburgh’s past and present, and the narrator acknowledged, “You’ve probably heard something about Pittsburgh,” before the scenes of steel mills gave way to images of green spaces and self-driving cars. It was a nod to the better-known titans of the city—steel, the three rivers, Fred Rogers—and a nudge to consider what else it has to offer.

A Leader in Sustainability

As Pittsburgh has worked to rebrand as a sustainable region, it’s sought to position itself as a leader in the field. This includes individuals like Richard Piacentini, president and CEO of Phipps Conservatory, who has led the award-winning green efforts at the center—although he was sure to note that the commendations aren’t the point: “If we think it’s right, we’re going to do it even if it doesn’t get us points.”

Piacentini can rattle off the efficient qualities of the various facilities at Phipps: how natural light is bounced in the offices to reduce the need for artificial lighting; what a challenge it is to locate carpet free of so-called Red List building materials; how all water is captured, treated and reused on-site.

One of Pittsburgh’s more successful rebrands has been as a leader in education, which has also helped the city up its sustainability game. Piacentini says local universities—namely the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University—were included in designing the Center for Sustainable Landscapes. “[A] lot of times, people build green buildings and nobody knows if they work,” Piacentini says. “We offered that building to both universities to say, ‘We’ll let you put sensors all throughout the building and you can use it as a lab for your students.’ They’ve both written, I think, six research papers based on that building.”

University involvement can provide unbiased messaging to the public, removing any presumed spin that could leak to news from the government or other organizations. of city mayors, policy and funding experts suggested that the seal of approval from respected third-party, non-governmental organizations such as universities can boost the credibility of a project, particularly when trust in government and politicians is low.

“The more people you have at the table—organizations, government, foundations—that’s actually what creates the believability and credibility,” Campbell says. “As an external or internal marketer, you want to point to that because it says this is a group effort.”

Mayor Peduto has also worked to be a leader in city-led sustainability efforts. In 2018, he announced the creation of , a strategic plan to address city challenges through initiatives for clean air and water, livable housing and economic opportunity. The plan was developed in conjunction with the , whose member cities make up a global network intended to offer help and educational resources to others. The city also released its in 2018, which includes a goal of 80% greenhouse gas reductions from 2003 levels by 2050. The Natural Resources Defense Council called it a “bold, comprehensive strategy for change.”

The city has been particularly drawn to positioning itself as a leader among cities with a similar size and shared past: mid-sized, post-industrial towns.

“We’ve been intentional about who we play with,” says Grant Ervin, the city’s chief resilience officer. “Just yesterday, we signed an agreement with the city of Aarhus, Denmark. 
 We create this relationship with people who are challenged with the same things that we are, which is a post-industrial economy.” Ervin rattles off a list of Pittsburgh’s collaborative cities: Glasgow, Scotland; Dortmund, Germany; and Gelsenkirchen, Germany. This network of cities with backgrounds similar to Pittsburgh are working on issues related to climate change, equity, energy and mobility. “We’re more comfortable with St. Louis, Tulsa [Oklahoma] and Cincinnati because they’re dealing with the same size, scale and challenges that we have, so the lessons that we can learn are transferable and scalable,” he says.

Bringing Residents into the Story

In , a web resource on place branding, researcher Dalila Brosto said cities are successful in their branding when their residents find it believable. Brosto, a knowledge and innovation adviser at the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, researched city branding to promote sustainable development, finding that the best outcomes depend on cooperation between the residents and governments.

“We need to make sure that the conversation includes everybody, that there is a pathway for everybody to see themselves as part of the story,” says Joylette Portlock, executive director of .

Part of the story of Pittsburgh’s modern renaissance is that plans for inclusion didn’t always keep pace with change. The result has been some negative press for the region, tripping up its progressive brand story. A City Lab article from April, “,” focused on the Lower Hill District, a region of the city that once saw the construction of a highway and the now-demolished Civic Arena displace about 8,000 people—mostly low-income black renters. New redevelopment plans for the Lower Hill aim to be green and more inclusive, but the affordable housing crisis in the city continues. In recent years, Pittsburgh has seen an influx of tech companies, whose young employees have priced out longtime residents in some neighborhoods.

“We’re still grappling with a lot of issues that we need to overcome to get to a more sustainable place,” Portlock says. “It’s important for people to understand that sustainability—we’re not just talking about eco-friendliness. In order to think about a society that can sustain itself, it’s not enough to just think about how we use natural resources, although that is a very important piece. It’s also about, how do we care for each other and how do we generate economic prosperity for all? The sustainable solutions for Pittsburgh, for this region, are going to come from looking at the intersection of those things and not making the trade-offs that may have led to some of our social and economic issues in the past.”

One way the city has worked to communicate its commitment to all residents—not some—has been through deliberative forums. These public meetings differ from more traditional New England-style town halls and aim to engage differences in the community as positive resources. These forums consist of small group discussions, rather than main speakers with audience respondents. The city has also begun to provide food and childcare at the community forums, as well as language services.

“It has been really important, the work that the city’s done and others to pull out that inequities are still a problem here,” Portlock says. “But that is also part of this story of the transition, that we’re not there yet. Part of where that story is now is a much more intentional approach 
 to figure out how to make sure the tables are inclusive.”

Many of the city’s green updates are particularly appealing to younger generations looking to ditch their cars in favor of bikes or otherwise reduce their energy footprints. This newer, greener story can feel at odds with the rest of the region, though: Of the 2.3 million people who live in the metro area, only about 300,000 reside in the city itself. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, is made up of 130 municipalities. Getting everyone on board with a new, sustainable vision can be tricky.

“People outside the immediate city or maybe the immediate urban core of Allegheny County, to see themselves in this narrative also is a challenge,” BikePGH’s Bricker says. “They can’t see themselves in this story. They come to the city potentially on weekends or for work and they don’t understand these investments and they have a very visceral, negative reaction to it. We’re challenged with [determining] how to reach these folks who have an outsized effect on the change that we are trying to create here, even though they really don’t live in the city.”

It may not always be that if you build it, they will come. Instead, Pittsburgh has tried to stretch its sustainable practices outward. For example, Chatham’s Eden Hall campus, home of its Falk School of Sustainability, is about a 35-minute drive from its main campus in the city.

“We found that the partners that are there at first were skeptical,” Chatham’s Campbell says. “But as time has gone on, [they] have become big supporters and partners and now we have great relationships with the township. The township has a sustainability officer that they’ve put in place. The good of Pittsburgh going out where it’s applicable in other areas is important, because to just sit there and say it from the city defeats the purpose.”

The Ongoing Story

It’s impossible to talk about the story of Pittsburgh without also mentioning one of its greatest challenges: population loss. The city lost a sizeable chunk of its population, which once stood at 676,000 in 1950, when the Rust Belt lost its manufacturing prowess. Population figures have continued to slide, but recent U.S. Census estimates suggest the number is beginning to stabilize. Somehow, even these losses are viewed as an opportunity by city stakeholders to further Pittsburgh’s story. With fewer people in the region, the residents have taken up the mantle to get things done themselves.

“There are a lot of cities where you can’t see the fruits of your labor,” says Anna Siefken, executive director of the Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University. Herself a recent transplant to the city, she’s been impressed with residents’ willingness to roll up their sleeves and involve themselves in the city’s narrative. “In Pittsburgh, you have a very direct connection to something that you can work on. You see a problem and it’s very entrepreneurial, which is a part of the DNA.”

Piacentini agrees: “Pittsburgh is all about innovation. Something that I’ve noticed since I’ve been here is you can’t tell someone in Pittsburgh, ‘You can’t do that.’ They’re going to find a way.”

The industries in the city have changed, and it’s certainly become greener, but the working spirit has continued to be part of the city’s story—one that’s still being told and aims to be inclusive of everyone who helped and continues to build it.

“One of the reasons that we have such a strong sense of place is because the people who live here and are happiest here are invested, are integrated into their communities in a way that you don’t see in a lot of other places,” Portlock says. “That’s a strength. But it makes it harder in some ways to tell the story, because for those who are already integrated it’s obvious—you don’t need to explain it. But for people coming here, that’s a story that we need to get better at telling.”

The post Industrial Evolution: From Steel City to Sustainability Pioneer appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

With New Zealand’s announcement that its 2019 national budget would prioritize human well-being over economic growth, happiness is back in the news. Called the , New Zealand’s national plan requires that all new spending be devoted to one or more of five cornerstone areas related to quality of life: transitioning to a sustainable, low-emissions economy; creating social and economic opportunities to thrive in a digital age; boosting the incomes and opportunities of indigenous people; reducing child poverty and family violence; and supporting mental health, particularly for young people.

Alongside these well-being priorities, investments will continue in housing, health, education and infrastructure. New Zealand has committed to monitor progress of its well-being plan in conjunction with its traditional economic and fiscal outlook.

The elevation of well-being as a top priority in New Zealand’s 2019 budget has won a lot of praise and admiration around the world. But there is a noteworthy nuance in the budget policy statement that has not attracted much attention. The well-being outlook informing the budget priorities found that “New Zealanders enjoy relatively high levels of overall well-being but that there are challenges and disparities to address.” In other words, despite some important problems that require immediate and urgent attention, happiness is generally not in short supply.

Mother Jones blogger and political pundit Kevin Drum reacted to the news of New Zealand’s 2019 budget by that suggests happiness is in greater abundance than people realize. The chart comes from an Ipsos study called “” that has been conducted annually since 2012. This research is designed to quantify the gap between perception and reality across a wide variety of social and economic areas.

The chart posted by Drum shows that happiness is an area in which people have the greatest misperceptions. The horizontal axis shows the percentage of people in a country who rate themselves as happy. The vertical axis shows the guesses that people make about happiness levels in other countries. If guesses about happiness matched the actual ratings that people give of their own happiness, all countries would line up in a perfect correlation along an upward 45-degree diagonal. Of course, it’s too much to expect a perfect correlation, but the data doesn’t even show a reasonably good one. People underestimate the happiness of others by a substantial margin.

The happiness data shows that the percentage of people in a given country who rate themselves as happy is much higher than the guesses made by people outside that country. For example, 90% of people in the U.S. rate themselves as very or rather happy, but people in other countries think that only about half of Americans are that happy. This pattern of results is true for every country in the world.

Marketing is rooted in the idea of scarcity, of people lacking something. Marketers offer products and services to fill that gap. The late Harvard Business School guru Ted Levitt once defined the purpose of a business as getting and keeping a customer. How do you do that? Levitt reminded us that people don’t buy products, they buy solutions to problems—what companies must study are the problems people are trying to solve. As Levitt famously put it, people want quarter-inch holes, not quarter-inch drill bits. To summarize Levitt more conceptually, people want ways to slake the scarcities in their lives.

But regarding happiness, marketers are dealing with abundance, not scarcity. Maybe the best way to approach happiness is not in terms of a gap to fill but as a resource to be developed and utilized. In decades past, when economic levels were lower and product quality was mixed, perhaps discontent was the undercurrent of life and happiness was scarce. But whatever it was then, that is not the case today. The opportunity nowadays is in finding ways to create value from the abundance of happiness, not from relieving a scarcity of happiness.

When scarcity prevails, consumers want to get things to fill gaps, so marketers deliver those things. With abundance, consumers have plenty and marketers should consider offerings that enable consumers to share. Rather than worrying only about deficits of happiness, marketers should help more people get more out of the abundance of happiness. Consumption is no longer just about getting, it’s also about giving. Marketing is no longer solely about filling gaps, but about transforming riches. No longer does value come only from satisfying needs; it comes from spreading abundance, too.

With scarcity, people think mostly of themselves. But abundance encourages people to think more of others. This shift is at work in today’s marketplace, with basic values moving from extreme, narrowly focused self-absorption to a more balanced and inclusive consideration of others. The future of status is self-sacrifice, not self-enrichment.

This makeover of happiness from a problem of scarcity to an opportunity of abundance is bubbling up in many ways. For example, a group of people referred to as the New Singerians is practicing effective altruism by working high-paying jobs that enable them to give as much money as possible to charities that have been vetted for effectiveness. They follow the utilitarian philosophy of Peter Singer, who argues that money should be spent to produce the biggest increase in net utility or happiness. In practical terms, this means that the unit of happiness a rich person gets from spending a dollar is less than what a poor person gets, so the abundance of happiness enjoyed by rich people is better shared than spent.

Many social trends reflect this focus on others and the aspiration of self-sacrifice, whether it’s Greta Thunberg’s climate change activism; David Brooks’ leadership of Weave: The Social Fabric Project, sponsored by the Aspen Institute; or the Green New Deal that was first articulated in 2006 and has only now achieved widespread awareness.

Brands are also catching on. Most famously, Nike and its Colin Kaepernick ad grabbed headlines. More and more, this is what consumers will demand: brands that find ways to create and share the value available from the under-utilized abundance of happiness.

The post Creating Value from an Abundance of Happiness appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Higher education is a crowded and intensely competitive industry. Traditional college trips and high school campus visits are no longer the optimal strategy to target prospective students. With the emergence of online learning platforms such as Coursera, Udacity and Lynda, prospective students now have more efficient and arguably more effective options to equip themselves for successful careers.

According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, at a rate that places it near the benchmark level from 10 years ago. Meanwhile, that the online learning platform industry is expected to reach .

What can higher ed marketers do to help mitigate decreasing enrollment numbers? How can these institutions position themselves as effective resources where prospective students can gain the skills needed for success? I asked a few higher ed marketing experts to weigh in on successful strategies they are implementing that have helped them relaunch, reposition and reevaluate their institutions for their target audience.

1. Relaunch

Schools must look to relaunch and redefine college. They must go beyond traditional college trips and market to their target audience where they are most present. “There are more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the country,” says George Heddleston, vice chancellor of communications and marketing at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. “An umbrella marketing strategy, often prepared by an outside vendor such as an advertising or marketing agency, usually does not work.”

Such a plan typically comes with a high price tag. UTC is a mid-major university of about 11,000 students, a median GPA of 3.24 and athletic teams in most major sports. Heddleston says the first step in a marketing strategy is to know your standing within the industry of colleges and universities. Taking its mid-market size into consideration, UTC set a marketing goal to increase its visibility using traditional and social media coverage. In just under a two-year time frame, UTC has executed the following:

• Placed 12 advertising inserts in newspapers and magazines.
• Earned coverage in 62 local newspaper articles.
• Issued more than 200 web stories.
• Created 140 videos and 521 photos on websites. Delivered 400 pieces of marketing collateral to highlight the university.

In addition to available majors and academic programs, Heddleston suggests driving awareness of other amenities that would make prospective students choose a particular school. “UTC is considered the crown jewel of the UT System,” Heddleston says. “We have highly rated housing and we are in a growing city with interesting outdoor recreational activities that draw students. We use that to our advantage. Additionally, we have ramped up international recruiting and today we have students from nations all over the world.”

2. Reposition

Higher ed institutions must shift their brand narratives, adjust their overall marketing objectives and ensure that their value is clear to their audiences if they are to stay aligned with their mission and strategic priorities.

The Fashion Institute of Technology was founded in 1944 as a fashion industry trade school in New York City. However, people have a much different perception of FIT 75 years later. The school boasts alumni such as designer Michael Kors, Elle Magazine Editor-in-Chief Nina Garcia and Google Vice President of Hardware Design Ivy Ross. FIT has remained relevant to prospective students and creative industries across the world.

Following the development of an institutional strategic plan that engaged the FIT community, school president Joyce F. Brown formed a Brand and Image Consortium of faculty, trustees, administrators, alumni and students. Facilitated by branding experts, the consortium focused its discussions and deliberations on FIT’s strategic goals and how to position the college to reach them. The consortium’s work became the foundation for execution and activation by FIT’s Division of Communications and External Relations. A subset of the consortium became the division’s advisory group and, in FIT style, conferral and consultation were part of the development process. 

“We called this initiative ‘powering the brand,’” says Loretta Lawrence Keane, vice president for communications and external relations. “We were not reconceiving this great institution, but we knew we needed to clarify it in the marketplace and ensure that our brand goals reflected FIT’s strategic goals. From the first market research study, the work took about three years and our North Stars were strategic goals, market research and community engagement.”

According to Keane and Troy Williams, the acting associate vice president for marketing and brand management, FIT undertook significant market research to understand their brand in the context of myriad target audiences. This research included testing for familiarity of the name usage of FIT versus Fashion Institute of Technology and case studies of peer institutions.

As a result, the market research findings helped FIT hone its place within industries and among its stakeholder groups. The school’s brand and messaging were clear to prospective students, parents and high school guidance counselors, as well as to industry partners and the public. “Fashion is our history and legacy, it’s in our DNA,” Williams says. “As we continue to power the FIT brand, we want to be clearly understood as an innovation center for creative industries worldwide.”

3. Reevaluate

“Universities need to do a deep dive to determine if they are offering relevant information in their courses,” says Scott Cowley, marketing professor at Western Michigan University. Academic programming is the bread and butter of colleges and universities, meaning institutions should reevaluate their course offerings to ensure that the material is appropriate. Cowley and other marketing professors studied the course offerings at marketing programs across the country and rendered concerning results.

“One in three undergrad programs in the U.S. don’t teach a digital marketing or social media class,” Cowley says. “In 2019, they shouldn’t get to call themselves a marketing program.” Cowley also noted that a lot of larger companies are changing degree requirements. “For example, Apple doesn’t require a degree for certain jobs anymore,” he says. “The job market is now more interested in the skills you bring than your academic credentials.”

Here are some tactics that institutions are employing to ensure they are executing premium offerings for prospective students:

• UTC aims to build bridges beyond the classroom, connecting students to the foundation of a successful career. Every program has to be approved by the state. “Our key to building the bridge is experiential learning,” Heddleston says.
• “Through courses such as design thinking, we make sure our students do not leave as the traditional business students and that they are not conventional thinkers,” Williams says.
• “I check current job descriptions to ensure that much of what I offer students in the classroom can be added to their rĂ©sumĂ©s,” Cowley says. “The perception is that higher ed is not equipped to teach digital marketing skills, so I create coursework that is much more experiential and skill-based that we can quickly communicate the relevance of our digital marketing program to the industry, and to make the transition from college to career easier for students.”

Moving into 2020 and beyond, more colleges and universities should take these steps to create more strategic marketing campaigns that align with their overall institutional goals and develop success metrics to ensure campaigns are measurable. Students should be achieving a return on their investment that is relative to the current job market.

The post Winning at Marketing in Higher Education appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Hootsuite’s Social Campus Report shows a widely shifting landscape of social media trends in higher education. The social media management platform’s 2019 report is based on a global survey of more than 500 social media leaders in higher education, examining how schools implement and measure their social impact, and identifying opportunities for institutions to improve their digital presence.

The report identifies a high adoption of social media among higher education institutions at every point of a student’s journey, with 98% of polled academic institutions using social media. From building brand awareness for prospective students and engaging current students, to improving alumni engagement and conducting fundraising campaigns, schools are doing more than ever to stay at the forefront of their domains in the digital world.

The strategic role of social media has become an established focus for executive teams—68% of teams buy in to its importance and 64% agree social media is connected to the institutional mission and strategic plan.

“Schools have a responsibility to stay on the cutting edge of social innovation at every touchpoint, as their audience is made up of digital natives who have high expectations,” says Jeremy Wood, VP of product marketing at Hootsuite. “Organizations that understand how to harness that in a unified way are in a better position to realize the benefits of social.”

Declining enrollment numbers at higher education institutions is one of the top three factors driving social adoption, alongside heavier student use demanding more social engagement and increased competition from other education providers. Yet despite most schools acknowledging social media’s importance on campus, not enough is being done to quantify the benefits across a student’s entire academic journey. Only 33% of schools reported an understanding of social media’s direct impact on student applications.

One reason for this disconnect may be the lack of a surefire way to measure ROI. Only 25% of schools have social media integrated with their CRM systems, preventing them from tying attribution of applications or alumni fundraising back to social media activity.

“Higher ed institutions can measure organic and paid social data together to better understand how specific tactics impact the student journey,” Wood says. “Those metrics will help social media specialists uncover more efficiencies, such as which content they should produce more of and what content can help lower the cost of customer acquisition with social ads.”

A key recommendation that comes out from the report is that cross-departmental collaboration and operational efficiency of social media on campus must improve in order for schools to realize the full benefits of social.

Georgia State University invested in designing and implementing a social media strategy that would scale across the institution. It centralized content and processes to empower teams and individuals across campus with easy-to-share quality content.

“I never saw it coming, how much the leadership team would like 
 our social media strategy,” says Terry Coniglio, director of content strategy at Georgia State University. “Prior to this program, our leadership team was hesitant to use their personal social media. The app has been critical to getting them comfortable with the idea of posting and engaging on social media.”

The post Higher Ed Institutions Learning to Socialize appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

The first time Andrea Thorpe heard about gamification, it was touted as a fantastic business tool, one that could get people to do whatever you want. Thorpe—a professor of strategy, innovation and entrepreneurship at France’s Kedge Business School—immediately pondered the ethics of gamification, which are game-like processes used to encourage human engagement with a product or service. If businesses could coerce consumers through a game, Thorpe thought it could be an ethical disaster waiting to happen.

Thorpe and Stephen Roper, a professor at England’s Warwick Business School, wrote a paper titled, “,” in which they examine how businesses could manipulate people using gamification. When Thorpe and Roper first submitted the paper, their editor pushed back with questions: How is this different from other aspects of marketing? What’s the difference between persuasion and manipulation?

“It’s a really interesting point,” Thorpe says. “It made us think, maybe this is almost like a spectrum. 
 Gamification wasn’t so much different from marketing tools and techniques, but it’s certainly at the far end of the spectrum of manipulation simply because it’s so hidden, it’s so subversive.”

How Gamification is Used

In Thorpe and Roper’s paper, published this year by the Journal of Business Ethics, they argue that gamification in marketing is different from other marketing tools and gamified environments in important ways. Gamification’s aim is to convince people to buy something, which differs from other games but not marketing. Yet it’s different from marketing because, they write, it “includes aspects of design that covertly or subversively persuade engagement.”

By way of this subversive engagement, Thorpe and Roper write that gamification’s aim is to get people to buy or buy-in, whereas advertisements aim to persuade. Gamification wants to engage you directly; advertisements and marketing are typically more passive. As Gabe Zichermann writes in the book Gamification By Design, “gamification is 75% psychology and 25% technology.”

Although gamification is covert, it’s most recognizable in external marketing, such as in apps, websites and contests. If you’ve won Gold status on Uber or become a Premier 1K member of United Airlines’ MileagePlus program, you’ve done business in a gamified environment. The most familiar example of gamification is likely McDonald’s annual Monopoly game, in which customers receive faux board-game pieces with their order for the chance to win more food, money or prizes. The game incentivizes customers to buy repeatedly for more chances to win. In 2013, McDonald’s claimed that the game helped the company .

Gamification is also used for internal marketing, such as training and engaging employees in new software, programs or projects. For example, CRM software company Salesforce engages employees with a gamified system called Trailhead, in which users collect points for completing training tasks. Such gamified environments are becoming more common in business, extending into employee retirement planning, healthcare and recruitment. In the case of , gamified recruitment extends to members of the U.S. military.

While a game can’t make a consumer or employee do whatever a company wants, as Thorpe was initially told (a study titled “” found that gamification does work, but it’s dependent on users and context), it does engage consumers on a psychological level. And businesses know it: Analysis firm Prescient and Strategic Intelligence predicted in 2016 that the gamification market would reach , a more than 2,000% increase from the 2014 gamification market.

As the industry better understands the psychology of gamified environments, they will become more powerful and likely more covert, Thorpe and Roper write.

“In the research aspect, we’ve become more concerned with the ethics,” Thorpe says. “But it’s not quite spilled over to industry. 
 Not all, but a majority of companies are not going to pay attention to the ethics of something unless there is that code of regulation in place.”

Thus far, she says, no body representing the interests of marketers, advertisers or businesses has an ethical code of conduct for gamification.

Is the Manipulation Hidden?

Gamification is manipulative, , known as a pioneer of gamification. But so what? Manipulation is human—saying “please” when you want something is manipulative, as is trying to persuade someone to go to a party when they tell you that they’d rather not. The difference lies not in the fact of manipulation, he writes, but whether the manipulation is hidden.

Chou writes that he uses a two-pronged test to determine the ethics of human-focused design: Is there transparency of the design’s intended purpose? And does the user implicitly or explicitly opt into the system? If both questions can be answered “yes,” he believes it’s an ethical system.

“However, I believe that gamification is completely unethical when there is a hidden agenda that users are not aware of,” he writes. “For example, when users think they are signing up for something, but in reality they are signing up for something else. False statements, lies and a lack of authentic transparency create unethical interactions.”

Gamification could also be unethical if the decision-maker loses sight of why their action is desirable, a process that Tae Wan Kim calls “bullshitification.” Kim, assistant professor of business ethics at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, writes in a paper that bullshitification , rather than the reasons why something is good to do, thereby putting their action at ethical risk. His solution: Give players more time to think about and understand the aim of the game, just as you would the aim of any other action.

“My suggestion is that players—that is, workers or customers—in gamified environments have what I want to call ‘Solemn Time,’ in which they learn about what their works or jobs are really doing, such as helping others, contributing to society, or enhancing important moral goods such as friendship or sustainability,” he writes in the paper.

If someone is given Solemn Time and realizes that they dislike the aim of the game, Kim says that they should be able to opt out. He offered an example: Many employees at Microsoft recently . These employees wanted to avoid letting the technology they created turn into weaponry and should be given the choice to opt out of the process. Others may not have minded and should be allowed to continue their work.

“Here’s a basic ethical principle that can explain this: You can expose another [to] risk without violating her autonomy if you obtain consent from her,” Kim says. “It’s a separate matter whether producing killing machines is ethical or not. The point is not that. It is autonomy.”

The Best- and Worst-Case Scenarios of Gamification

There is a moment when gamification moves too far toward the manipulative end of the spectrum, Thorpe says, but that moment is hard to quantify. What’s acceptable to a company and its shareholders may be unacceptable to a consumer and vice versa. McDonald’s shareholders are happy if the stock rises because millions of customers play the Monopoly game, but is it good for customer health?

Thorpe believes that the best-case scenario is a completely transparent gamified experience, one where the consumer knows that they’re playing. Thorpe says that some companies think the strategy loses its power when the customer knows they’re in a gamified experience. She says that this is a myth, one proved wrong in her own life. Thorpe drives a Nissan X-Trail, a car that gamifies whether she’s been driving in an environmentally friendly way—how much gas is she using? Is she changing gears in an eco-friendly manner? At the end of each ride, the car gives her a score.

“I know this is gamification,” she says. “I know my best-ever score is there in front of me and I have to try and beat that. I know it’s gamification. I love being played with and I know the idea is to get me to drive it in a more environmentally friendly way. 
 It’s very transparent. I know exactly what’s going on. I can even tell you what aspects of behavior or competition are being manipulated. And yet it still works with me.”

The worst-case scenario, Thorpe says, is that gamification gets better and more powerfully manipulative but remains opaque to consumers. The industry is at a crossroads right now, she says, and the marketing and business world must ensure gamification remains ethical.

“When businesses build a gamified system, it’s a really complex process,” Thorpe says. “Businesses should be stopping and pausing to think: Is this a good thing that we’re doing? It’s just a simple matter of being not only a good working professional, but also a decent human being.”

The post Gamification is Manipulative. Is It Ethical? appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

When wanted to win over a new client, it sent gifts. The appointment-scheduling software company sent golf balls to the target company’s sales operation team and a putting mat to the sales leader. TimeTrade told the potential client that if they accepted a call, they’d receive a Callaway putter to complete the in-office golf set.

“That was a creative campaign,” says Daniel Gaugler, CMO of , a marketing and printing company that specializes in tactile marketing—which others might simply call gift-giving. “It allowed them to get all the decision-makers that they want on that initial call to understand the whole problem. 
 They saw a 20[-time] return on their investment on that program, which slayed anything they were doing previously.”

People typically think of promotional gifts as swag bags, T-shirts or promotional stress balls handed out at trade shows. But Gaugler says that a well-timed gift to a potential client—particularly in B2B marketing or high-value sales—can nudge companies into doing business with you. At the very least, it goads the company into briefly paying attention to the gift-giver.

In one campaign led by PFL, a company sent a potential client’s executive decision-maker an autographed football from former NFL quarterback Steve Young. The rest of the decision-maker’s team received replicas of that football. PFL says that its client saw a 15-time increase in ROI compared with its usual campaign.

Jignesh Shah, CEO of digital gifting company , says that gifting works because it helps companies win the battle for attention, which he believes is half the battle in marketing. Gaugler agrees: The value of gifting isn’t the gift, it’s using a different channel than usual to capture attention. Where Shah differs is the medium—he believes that a well-timed gift sent via email can make people pay attention.

“There’s always two or three messages in my inbox on some webinar,” Shah says. “If there’s a coffee or gift attached, that makes me stop and pay attention.”

But the problem with corporate gifts is that the recipient often wants something completely different. Alyce, an AI-powered gifting service, released a survey on corporate gifting in 2016 and found that . And while 70% of people said that thoughtful, uniquely selected gifts would encourage them to do business with a company, 11% said that the traditional promotional items might dissuade them.

Here are six tips for companies looking to send gifts and win high-value attention from potential clients.

1. Combine Physical Gifts with Digital Tracking

Both Shah and Gaugler’s companies tie their services to CRM programs, as does most every corporate gifting company. Gaugler says tying a gifting campaign to CRM allows companies to see when the gift was sent, when it was received and what happened after the client received it. They can then tie the physical act of sending a gift to digital marketing. Marketers can track the success of what is essentially a direct-mail campaign through a digital dashboard.

Shah says that his company’s gift-sending process is entirely automated. For example, if a company wants to send out a survey, it automates sending a digital gift certificate to people who completed the survey. As soon as survey-takers are finished, they receive their gift card and the surveyor’s CRM system tracks that the survey had been completed. These tracking systems also let the company know when someone hasn’t taken a gift, Shah says, which is important—15–20% of digital gifts are never claimed. These unclaimed gifts can be reclaimed in his company’s system, Shah says.

2. Make Your Value Proposition Clear

Don’t make your gifts too cute, Gaugler says. Potential customers shouldn’t have to connect the dots when they receive a gift. Instead, the message must be clear and direct, the value proposition easily understood. The benefit of gifts is creating a moment of attention and selling clients on doing business with you—not forcing them to complete a puzzle.

“The gift can be a hook that’s going to provide a connection,” Gaugler says. “It gives you a little bit of incentive—the putter to do the call. But more importantly, the company sending this gift delivers their value proposition [when they send the gift].”

3. Avoid Overspending on Gifts

In creating a moment for potential clients to understand your value, remember that the value isn’t in the gift itself. Companies won’t do business with you simply because you bought them something—regardless of how useful or fancy it is—so there’s little reason to spend a large portion of your marketing budget on gifts.

Gaugler has seen expensive mistakes, such as sending Google Homes to cold prospects or sending items to people who no longer work at the target company. The gift’s purpose is less about its monetary value and more about the value of your proposition.

“We see a lot of people who want to send a name brand,” Gaugler says, noting that many companies want to send prospective clients YETI mugs, which can be expensive. “But a mug that is almost the same and costs a fraction of the price can improve your return on investment.”

Instead, Gaugler suggests spending enough to make your target stop and take a moment to briefly consider how your company might solve one of their problems.

4. Give People a Choice

Shah says that a benefit of digital gifts is choice. Rather than sending an unwanted physical gift to offices, he says that giving digital gifts allows people to choose what they want. Do they want a Starbucks gift card or one from Target? Would they prefer to donate their gift card to charity? Shah says that these small choices allow the gift to be more engaging and suited to the recipient.

5. Match Gifts to Your Sales Funnel

Gaugler says that high in the funnel, companies tend to stick with less expensive gifts or high-value marketing collateral. The number of people to whom they send these will be greater, the success rate lower. Sending out Google Homes at this stage would likely be a money pit.

As potential customers move down the sales funnel, Gaugler says that companies will send higher-value items to ensure executive and organizational buy-in. This would be akin to TimeTrade sending golf balls to the sales team and leader. Often, a personalized message is included in this stage, letting the new gift recipient know that you’ve been speaking with others on their team, then informing the latest recipients of your value proposition. Gaugler says that this brings more people into the sales cycle, accelerating the deal. This stage is akin to a political candidate stumping for votes.

Toward the bottom of the funnel, Gaugler says that it becomes important to get more buy-in across the company, to turn the tide of opinion in your favor. Proofpoint, a PFL client, sent its clients a kit that included a pen, journal and nameplate. Gaugler says that other people at the company saw the personalized gear and asked how they could get their own.

After a sale is completed, Gaugler says gifts can be used as a way to say “thank you”—this may be where higher-value gifts work well—and an opportunity to celebrate milestones. Done well, this stage can help foster a stronger relationship.

6. Know Your Audience

Golf balls and a putter are easy and inoffensive, Gaugler says; very few will be upset by TimeTrade’s gifts. But sending beef jerky to a vegetarian—a mistake Gaugler has seen—is never a good idea.

“If you do miss,” Gaugler says, “you actually take away from—rather than add to—the conversation.”

The post How to Win High-Value Customer Attention with Gifts appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Goal

Marketers love a good April Fool’s Day activation, and the trend isn’t relegated to well-known B2C brands. Higher education has gotten in on the joke, typically pulling pranks via fake announcements. In 2016, the University of Florida and Florida State University , while Virginia Commonwealth University announced . This year’s April Fool’s holiday saw the University of Melbourne in Australia announcing that across all campuses.

These pranks are usually an inexpensive way to elicit on-campus chuckles, but the saw April Fool’s Day as an opportunity to hype its educational and research prowess—all by harnessing the power of great visual storytelling and the region’s love of breakfast tacos.

Action

Inspiration for the video came from a decidedly non-scholastic source: “,” the 1988 comedy film in which Pee-wee Herman grows a hot dog tree. Thomas Swafford, multimedia producer at the University of Texas, saw the school’s new $9 million greenhouse as the perfect staging area for such a fictional plant. But instead of hot dogs, he opted to put a local spin on the concept and have researchers grow breakfast tacos (fully intact, foil wrappers and all).

The video didn’t just showcase the new greenhouse—Swafford shot other parts of campus and interviews with prominent UT professors and President Greg Fenves. The guiding principle for the team, which included digital content producer and managing editor Sara Robberson Lentz, was the overall UT marketing communications strategy.

“That was the key, because it was funny but it really fit our strategy,” says J.B. Bird, director of media relations and issues management. “The takeaways were that we do research here that does change the world and it has a huge impact. You see that through the choices of the people in the video.”

Lentz and Swafford had existing relationships with their interview subjects, having worked with them previously on more serious videos. “We worked with them and sold them on the idea,” Lentz says. “They were pretty much [improvising] the whole thing as we coached them through it, to talk about what they’re experts on and then compare it to the breakfast taco. That’s where the humor came in.”

The video intertwines shots of the campus and breakfast tacos with faculty interviews, featuring Bob Metcalfe, professor of innovation and co-inventor of the Ethernet (“This new discovery is bigger than the personal computer, it’s bigger than the internet,” he says in the video); Livia Eberlin, assistant professor of chemistry and inventor of the cancer-detecting MasSpec pen (“It’s really going to change the world, it’s a breakthrough”); Dan Stanzione, executive director of the Texas Advanced Computing Center (“It’s hard to imagine a breakthrough with the scope and potential impact of this one”); and Art Markman, professor of psychology and author of Smart Thinking (“Suddenly, there’s a plant-based breakfast taco—we all know the breakfast taco is the best food on the planet”).

Lentz wrote a press release to accompany the “Breakfast Taco Innovation” video that links the school’s various areas of expertise with the invention, ending with an editor’s note: “Experts and their accomplishments featured are real, but unfortunately the taco innovation is not.”

Results

The full campaign included the main video and , along with visual content for UT’s social media channels. The video organically reached more than 1 million users on Facebook and engaged 80,000 users. Twitter content for the campaign saw almost 6,000 engagements and more than 110,000 impressions. But the breakfast taco news grew beyond social networks: More than 100 media outlets shared stories about the campaign.

“I was talking to my mom who lives in Arizona and I was like, ‘Yeah, I just made this April Fool’s video about breakfast tacos growing at UT,’” Swafford says. “And she was like, ‘That was you? I was doing the dishes and had the TV on and it was on the news!’ 
 So I went and pulled the numbers—we had no idea.”

News coverage accounted for a local ad value of more than $200,000 and reached a local viewership of 2.8 million people. The campaign went on to win a Shorty Award in the education category this year.

“It’s a surprise when a more traditional brand like education takes a risk like this,” Lentz says. “I believe even in today’s world that good content rises to the top and we hit a nerve with a story that really resonated with people.”

At this time, the team has no plans to repeat this sort of prank campaign, but Lentz says she believes UT can achieve the same result in a different way. She says the breakfast taco campaign was a success because it was unexpected.

“One reason [the campaign] can stand out in a crowd is because it’s zigging where others zag,” Bird says. “If you watch educational videos, they—like corporate videos—tend to have a similar quality to them. This approach obviously stands out because it is about what a great university we are, it’s about our strengths, but it’s coming at it in a way that engages the audience with the unexpected and that is something that we do bring to all of our content projects. That’s the biggest lesson for us moving forward, to bring that spirit into all of our work.”

The post How Fake Tacos Highlighted Real University Prowess appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.