We attended this years second annual Kitchen Conference in Portland which is a gathering place for the visionaries out there who come bearing the latest ideas, trends, and insights of marketing for values-based businesses. It is inspiring and thoughtful and renews our commitment to doing this work for those agents of change who see a better pathway.

There were some good highlights, including presentations from Theresa Marquez, a champion of the small farmer and chief marketing officer of CROPP Cooperative and Organic Valley, Jay Friedman, who is the ex-vice chair of the original National Organic Standards Board and the preeminent organic regulations expert, and Ben McConnell, well-known for his book, Citizen Marketers, which points to the influence on brands by the average joe and jane consumer through consumer generated content and peer to peer networking.

This last trend is especially important for brand managers to understand. When they fully understand what is going on in the realms of the citizen voice, they realize that they are in fact not brand managers at all, but brand stewards, doing their best to guide the brand through the consciousness of the consumer by leaving well enough alone and allowing for channeling by and through the masses. Good brand stewards recognize the limitations of their influence on the brand, and that indeed, brands are defined by consumers not brand managers or marketing officers.

We saw this manifested recently in living color with Comcast’s sleepy serviceman and Barack Obama (yes, Barack Obama is a brand). The best defense any brand leader has is to develop a clear understanding of who your consumer is and from that craft a solid brand platform from which to design a communications blueprint. Course correction is to be expected because brands are living entities, and, like people, tend to change.

Personally, the highest highlight was the latest insight from our friend and fellow green consumer junkie Laurie Demerrit of the Hartman Group, a research firm, which indicated that as green moves into the mainstream through the expected drivers associated with self-interest (health, taste, cost, convenience, etc.), the next level of interest showing up for consumers with this audience (as opposed to the Advocates, for example) in driving purchase behavior are the social issues, rather than the environmental ones. This caught us off guard because of all the conversations we have been having around the environmental matters (think global warming, climate change, pesticides, etc.) After a little thought, though, it makes sense. For mainstream consumers—what egg refers to as the Moderates–the “people issues” (e.g. fair trade, labor, human resources) would seem to resonate more deeply than the environmental ones. It is our model of enlightened self-interest taken to the extreme, so that when we go beyond even the self-interest drivers, the things that people can connect to are those that are closer to them, and people are more real and emotive than the environment.

Could stand for Core Social Responsibility Brand Values. Or Corporate Social Responsibility Brand Values—it’s the same thing. When one talks about Core Values, “social responsibility” had better be included in the conversation. With the high level of transparency offered the average consumer today by virtue of the wonderful World Wide Web, anyone can easily learn about a company’s practices, its efforts, its focus, and essentially, its soul. And it does not count for enough today to simply deliver a product or service that just works well. At least not for long-term brand success. No, true differentiation happens at the “soul” level and consumers gravitate towards brands with soul, and particularly these days, soul that “does good”. It’s obviously necessary to do well in the process of doing good, and consumers are acknowledging this across the board from the way they buy food (Stonyfield Farm, Organic Valley, Earthbound Farm) and personal care products (Aveda, Tom’s), to their transportation choices (Toyota, Honda), technology (Dell, Phillips, and HP), and gradually, energy (Sharp, BP). (We need to keep working on that cheap clean coal concept.)

The President/CEO of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) Bob Liodice reminds us of the importance of brand value in citing a marketing-accountability study from the organization that suggests long-term brand factors effect up to 80% of a brand’s current-year sales. In an Advertising Age article, Want to Build a Powerful Brand? Don’t Forget Core Values he also states that intangible long-term assets such as brand equity and market effects contribute approximately 40% to a company’s overall value. The article goes on to talk about innovation in brand building and keeping brands fresh and relevant in order to prevent slippage—a fancy term for gradual brand death.

While Roger Adams, senior VP-chief marketing officer at Home Depot jokes that hiring a new ad agency is not the solution, at egg we would argue that there are different kinds of agencies out there, and that while a marketing partner cannot generally effect change in the business model — although we are working on that one – the good ones can surely help guide a brand through the way finding process as a company incorporates the themes of CSR that align with its true values.

The article illustrates the example of JetBlue, whose core values are reflected in its mission of “bringing humanity back to air travel” and helped it recover from a public-relations nightmare after two-day ice storm in February left passengers standard on the tarmac. Its response to the crisis was a “direct expression of the brand, said Andrea Spiegel, JetBlue’s VP-sales and marketing. We recognize here the similarities in our past work at GSD&M with another great in air travel, Southwest Airlines, who some might argue re-invented and re-focused the concept of core values as an expression of the brand.

Today, as consumers begin to grapple with the meaning of hot-button issues wrought more pressing by globalization, like global warming, food quality and security, and natural resource management and waste, a key to success will be the authentic embodiment of core values that take into consideration a flatter world and the health of the planet for future generations that will live in our wake. The companies that successfully revitalize their brands to reflect these core values will be warmly embraced by an increasingly dissociated consumer who is searching for meaning and some good brand soul.

At egg, every day is Earth Day. So when the actual Earth Day comes along, we have to raise the bar a bit. This year, we spent some time at Seattle’s largest Earth Day cleanup event, where 400 volunteers gathered along the banks of the Duwamish river to remove invasive weeds and plant native trees. And we brought along the Mud Monster.

We are sworn to secrecy about the Mud Monster’s raison d’être at this time, but rumor has it that a big campaign is to launch at the end of May, and all will eventually be revealed. Suffice it to say that some heavy-hitting environmental groups are about to begin something very significant for Puget Sound.

Meanwhile, the Mud Monster worked the Earth Day crowd with aplomb. He was shy at first, crawling out from a muddy cove and skulking behind shrubs like a latter-day Sasquatch. But he quickly warmed to the crowd, and his energy was infectious. Children flocked to his side for hugs and photo ops and autographs, and even adults were momentarily tempted away from their digging by this wacky creature with starfish on his shoulders and eelgrass for hair (rumor has it that his creator also made the costume for the Mariner Moose). He remained silent throughout, and when people demanded an explanation from his companion (a young man wearing a t-shirt that said “I’m with the Mud Monster”), they were told only that the Mud Monster was here to do good for the Sound and its shorelines, and that they should visit mudup.org and look forward to something big launching on May 31st.

It was a deeply inspiring day. People for Puget Sound ran a well-planned event, providing tools and food and instruction, and the volunteers were a diverse and enthusiastic group. Seattle City Council was well-represented in Richard Conlin, Sally Clark, and Tom Rasmussen, and the requisite speeches were made by EPA, the Port of Seattle’s new Chief Executive, Tay Yoshitani, and PPS’s Kathy Fletcher. It’s a wonderful thing to see hundreds of people gathered in the drizzly chill of a spring Seattle morning to bring a polluted waterway back to life. Volunteers were getting deep into the mud and scratched by blackberry brambles, but they continued undaunted for hours. We asked one little girl if she knew what Puget Sound was, and she replied, “It’s the biggest ocean in the world.” And this is why we all came out to the banks of the Duwamish on this wet cold Saturday morning, Mud Monster and shovels in tow.

Thomas Friedman’s recent New York Times Magazine essay, The Power of Green, demands a New Green Deal in America. He makes a compelling argument for the need to transcend red and blue divisions and unite in a new green nation that will set an example for the world. Buoyed by the fact that green has “gone Main Street” in recent years, he puts out a call for green innovation, a philosophy of stewardship, and policy work that incentivizes the forward thinking companies ready to step up and go green.

We also recognize from Friedman’s piece the need for a reworking of the “green” movement brand. What started from the left, the Green brand was born as a political movement that stood for the goals of, and values inherent in, environmentalism and social justice. Wrapped up in these two powerful themes are a number of issues and ideas that include sustainability, ecology, and conservation, with a leaning towards the important environmental, feminist, and peace social movements.

While in Europe, the Green movement is more deeply rooted in the political framework as “political ecology”, in this country, the Green political movement never really breached the mainstream (sorry, Ralph). Instead, it has lately become more of a market movement, driven by a demand from enlightened consumers for more responsibility and accountability. And from the supply side, we are seeing a sudden rapid acceleration in corporate social responsibility and the greening of corporate America to meet primarily the demand of the market, and to a lesser degree, the demand of the conscience.

But Friedman posts a strong argument for a new view on green: a combined political and market driven vision that could strategically position the country for decades to come, and if you can imagine it, serve humanity while serving self-interest.

Friedman states “I want to rename ‘green,’…I want to rename it geostrategic, geoeconomic, capitalistic and patriotic. I want to do that because I think that living, working, designing, manufacturing and projecting America in a green way can be the basis of a new unifying political movement for the 21st century. A redefined, broader and more muscular green ideology is not meant to trump the traditional Republican and Democratic agendas but rather to bridge them when it comes to addressing the three major issues facing every American today: jobs, temperature and terrorism.”

Freidman’s tone is one of cautious optimism — he provides solutions and direction, but is also quite realistic about the huge gap between a surface-level green allegiance and the sort of innovation that leads to deep change.

At egg, we understand this gap all too well, and we also understand the need for companies that are truly committed to sustainability to develop brands that reflect this commitment in a way that resonates with the right audience. It was telling and sad to see how few ads there were in this issue that acknowledge the green pull that is happening all around us. In the entire magazine, there are exactly two “green” ads — a green-clad baby sitting on a white Crate and Barrel sofa (thankfully with a protective water-based finish), and a LEED-certified luxury high-rise on the Upper East Side whose headline encourages us to, um, “Live Grandly.” Turn the page, and we’re back to the usual messages and imagery, with nary a nod to the greening of America. You might think that the NYTimes ad sales department isn’t doing their job well, but more likely, green just hasn’t penetrated this elite psycho/demographic–on the supply side, as well as demand.

So let’s take green to the global marketplace and redefine the green brand in a way that unites, rather than divides, the country. Let’s make it a competitive advantage, while respecting all the stakeholders. Let’s find returns in innovative strategies that respect the flat world Freidman speaks of, and indeed paves the way for a brighter green future. The world is ready, the country is ready, and the people are ready. Companies, are you listening? Let the New Green Branding begin.

This weekend, we assembled at Islandwood on Bainbridge Island for another intensive with BGI, our soon to be alma mater. The class in Social Justice revolved around the difficulties in applying metrics and hard numbers to the case for social justice in Corporate Social Responsibility. While it has become much easier to measure environmental costs and impact on the bottom line, a similar case cannot be made for social justice. And so, the argument goes, why should companies force the issue or even proactively support the social bottom line in practices? Not only is social justice a difficult issue to discuss, and even harder to define, but without quantifiable standards it becomes a sticky wicket indeed. But in closing remarks, Jill Bamburg, our noble and standard bearing Dean of the MBA Program and Social Justice co-instructor, brought it all home when she reminded us of the seminal Nike v. Kasky lawsuit which stirred the issue of corporate sweatshop labor. Kasky v. Nike, and then Nike v. Kasky at the U.S. Supreme Court, involved Nike’s appeal of an April 2002 California Supreme Court ruling. The California court rejected claims by Nike’s lawyers that the First Amendment immunized the company from being sued for an allegedly deceptive public relations campaign. A settlement prevented the case from going to the Supreme Court, but the damage had largely been done. Nike was perceived as the corporate behemoth that neglected third world laborers in sweatshop factory conditions to the benefit of its sneaker margins. While the negative publicity from the case hurt Nike’s share value in a not irreversible fashion — at the peak of the sweatshop issue in 1993, Nike’s share price fell more than 50% from a peak of $23 to $10, but since 1994, the share price has recovered— for many, the brand image has been irreversibly effected. And the effect on the company in its practices since — both social and environmental — has been deep and powerful. Nike now is a leader in Corporate Social Responsibility and is pushing the envelope, and the outdoor industry, towards higher standards in sustainability and corporate reforms.

We are currently amongst a team in the C5 track at BGI that is working with Nike on an Action Learning Project (image above). Our team members are, from left, Loren Bors, Dru Van Hengel, Katie Keane, Jinn Brunk, Jennifer Ulrich, and myself, Marty McDonald.

A determined and diligent group in Vancouver has launched a new site that encourages and educates designers on the issues around sustainability and design. Often, designers feel powerless in having any meaningful effect on their business and the clients they work with, other than the usual “materials” issues–paper, inks, coatings, adhesives, etc.. This is a great start but a broader view on how designers should consider themselves in the bigger picture is necessary.

smashLAB has done some hard work in creating a vital site with some good slide shows that serve to educate on the issues and give real, meaningful solutions for designers. Check it out. For full-disclosure sake, we should add here that they approached us during development to feature our Seattle Monorail Project on this site as an example of design that can have meaningful effects and lead to large scale change. (That the silver bullet died later due to political missteps and management errors must be noted, but the campaign was a tremendous success.)

Now that green is the new black, it’s rather puzzling that Apple — a company whose brand is built around maverick design — has remained firmly in the red. Greenpeace has been pushing for Apple to go green for years now and has even launched a campaign to create change, but their just-released “Guide to Green Electronics” tells the real story. High design, high prices, dangerous materials and practices. How much longer can Apple retain their brand position? Yes, they were (and still are) pioneers in interface design, but they need to get with it or they’ll lose their urban hip lustre once green more firmly establishes itself and the word gets out. Perhaps because they have a monopoly on cool, they feel they can continue unchecked on issues around manufacturing materials and such, but as Mac’s become more like PC’s, and vice-versa, it’s only a matter of time before an upstart with a conscience starts chipping away at the hearts and minds of consumers.

Apple’s success is built on an uncanny knack for creating designs that take the human into account. Will they take the logical (and emotional) next step and build an even deeper brand loyalty by making electronics that recognize the importance of sustainability to humanity? Or will they become a poster child for planned obsolescence?

Back in 2002, NEC tried to grab the green spot on the far right of Greenpeace’s dial with their eco computer.

But they were ahead of their time, and sales were so lackluster that they ceased production one year later. Now that CSR has moved closer to the mainstream, it’s time for a new green vision in computers. Or there’s always the Luddite solution.

We always love to see our clients getting attention for the good stuff they do, so it was particularly satisfying to be wading the New York Times this Sunday and come across this piece in the Money section on wind power and the potential financial upsides inherent with this renewable clean technology. Inside, the author talks about various residential wind power products and mentions the Skystream 3.7, the first reasonably affordable residential power appliance (RPA) from Southwest Windpower in Flagstaff.

Best of all was that it appeared in the Money section, rather than one of the au courant “green sections” or green issues appearing in just about every one of our favorite magazines of late, including the NYTimes itself. The message here is pretty direct: hey, concerned about energy prices and control of your electricity costs? Check this out. Take control back into your own hands, and save money in the process. In the long run, you will be the one with the power, literally and figuratively.

Our consumer research on the Skystream 3.7 confirmed our beliefs: for the average person, this was going to be primarily all about ROI and saving money, with the secondary drivers being green power, global warming and energy security. It’s a good example of enlightened self-interest in green branding, where people make purchase decisions based around a weighted balance of altruism and self-interest, depending on where they land in the green consumer landscape—on the one extreme, Advocates and Early Adaptors are closer to the “core” green consumer and weight more heavily towards altruism, while at the other end, we have the Moderates, or mainstream America, that is motivated by the “what’s in it for me?” In the case of Skystream 3.7, we have a product that delivers on both, so it has a broad aperture for both the core and the mainstream consumer. Good for green. Good for us all.