This great presentation tip from my  Eloqui Communications & Presentations Training made me think about what enviro professionals can incorporate into their next talk:

In the cerebral cortex, there is no such thing as ‘words’. The brain sees words as tiny pictures that it has to translate.

When information is presented orally, audiences remember only 10% if tested 72 hours later. Retention goes up 65% when a picture is added. Amazingly, we can remember more than 2,500 pictures with 90% accuracy after several days, with only a 10 second exposure. Some images remain in memory decades later. Researchers named this potent phenomenon PSE, or Pictorial Superiority Effect. So, in a presentation, use visuals paired with your most vital information to make your content memorable. (This is why graphics or images in PowerPoint are far superior to text.) Better still, speak in visual snapshots, to deliver information in a way that is suited to the hardwiring of the brain.

So, I think about the images over the last decade, of all the PowerPoints and big screens, not so big screens, in auditoriums, on walls. And the best image I have come across, by far, is Ray Anderson’s journey in climbing what he calls “mount sustainability”

The graphic is an icon and symbol for Interface to meet their zero-waste goals. Here is their more recent adaption to this illustration, below:

Wal-Mart Chairman Lee Scott can speak at a large corporate conference about sustainability initiatives being more about the bottom line than it is about brand image.

But I don’t buy it.

Yes, I believe Mr. Scott did save money greening supply chain and adopting renewable energy technologies. Approximately 350 of their stores and facilities in Texas use wind energy. They have a laudable vision and monster environmental goals: “To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain people and the environment.”

(If you want to create a green trivial pursuit game, you can download 23  sustainability fact sheets here)

Why, then, did this big box leader create so much press, hire scads of environmental consultants, speak at The big boys green conferences, and earn a place in the green business debate?

Sure, I believe Mr. Scott was smart. He figured out that in a business of his size, waste equals a lot less profits, and that the bottom line was important driver for sustainability. But he went further than saving money, he invested in new technologies. His company spent some of their resources on research; and training. And, in the end, it helped his brand image with some of the enviros – at least the ones that go to green business conferences.

Brand image is a funny thing. You can’t touch it, but it’s visible and emotive. Brand image is an impression in the minds of the people you call your customers and stakeholders. Brand is even greater than emotion; it’s the experience we have when we interact with the created product, store, or service. And experience eventually translates into value, and “goodwill.”

“A brand’s value is merely the sum total of how much extra people will pay, or how often they choose, the expectations, memories, stories and relationships of one brand over the alternatives,” says Marketing Guru Seth Godin,.

And now, in the web 2.0 world, brand is also the many impressions or conversations  created in various networks.

Arguably, consumers choose Wal-Mart over other retailers because of price, and sometimes, because it’s the only retailer around. The experience that Wal-Mart created by going green was ultimately, a smart business decision, but it also was part of helping their brand image. Which, a short while ago was in peril.

In 2006, Business Week, among other media sources, reported on Wal-Mart’s not-so-altruistic business practices:

It’s been that kind of year for Wal-Mart. The Bentonville (Ark.)-based company has been pushing hard to improve its public image, at a time when its financial fortunes increasingly depend on it.It’s come under heavy fire from workers and politicians, for everything from the low wages it pays workers to the small retailers it pushes out of business. That dark reputation has resulted in communities around the country taking on Wal-Mart, by trying to halt construction of new stores or forcing it to pay higher wages and benefits.

Had Wal-Mart wanted to, they probably could have dealt with some of these pressures by giving more to charities, and giving their workers health care. They could have, perhaps, strong-armed their supply chain and brought their prices down lower, without making a fuss about green initiatives. They could h ave closed a lot more stores, and not gotten involved with the complexity of green business.

But Mr. Scott turned the green light on; and Wal-Mart profits under a better light. Profits and image had to co-exist for this brand to make a comeback.

As much as Mr. Scott says he approached sustainability as a business decision, he also says, “If we as a company focus on waste, we can make Wal-Mart a better company and at the same time, become a better citizen.”

Wal-Mart has also been unpredictable and some-what hard to define brand. Are they evil or ultimately, a game changer? What is their place in our larger, vision of the economy? Perhaps Godin has a clue:

“If you want to grow a valuable brand, my advice is to keep awareness close to zero among the people you’re not ready for yet, and build the most predictable, emotional experience you can among those that care about you.”

Sources: Environmental Leader
Business Week

Creating a Facebook page, Tweeting on Twitter , and writing press releases are all worthwhile and fun tactics, but to gain visibility and favorable public attention, consider a brief public relations plan. An effective final plan is written document that will keep you focused and creative, while you build effective public relations activities for your organization.
So gather a few stakeholders in your company, including a customer or trusted advisor, turn of the cell phones, and entertain a strategy session that will answer:

•    What is the main objective for your public relations activities?
Is it to launch a product or company? Gain new customers? Support your partners? Community? Gain website content? Be identified as a thought leader?

•    Which strategies should you select that support those goals?
Think out of the box to create results. Why not try tweeting a reporter with a 140 character pitch about your new product launch instead of sending a 5 paragraph press release via email? If your goal is to build awareness, why not organize a live event in your community that is unusual enough for the press to come? Anything  you can make bigger than life-size so that the public will come experience your product or service What is new, different or helpful about your product or serve and how can you “show” as well as “tell” your story.

•    When will you be achieving your strategies?
If you’re a green business, is Earth Day really the best day to launch a huge press campaign? It may be if it involves a community activity, a Facebook contest or a community trash clean-up. And competition might be stiff for getting the presses’ attention. Your best strategy might be to get a calendar out and mark key dates: holidays, historical events, seasonal milestones, important national dates, and craft an angle that might fit one of those events.

•    How can you use few resources to help achieve your public relations goals?
•    Leverage a partnership, pitch to the press, and also have them also pitch on your behalf.
If you are Realtor, and want to show off a new home technology, can you approach the manufacturer of that product and co-author a release?

•    Look to local traditional outlets for recognition.

There may be a greater chance of earning trust and building relationships in your home turf, which can also assist in building your reputation in your community. Effective press mentions, also called “hits” can help with your search engine optimization and may be picked up by larger media outlets.

• How can you get your target media’s attention?

- Create an intriguing, wild subject line for your email pitch. This one for a trade show presenter, got press attention: “If Houdini were alive today, would he be in trade shows?”

-Create a visual picture in your pitch will help entice reporters: “Risking life and limb, Tim Kelly will escape from a strait jacket while balancing atop of a small plank of wood while seesawing on a small round cylinder.”

-Position yourself as a thought leader. What do you know about your industry that can be articulated clearly to the press?

And don’t forget to prepare your answers and practice them aloud! You’ll be prepared for any unexpected interviews!

Way back in 2006, when  author & educator Michael Pollan’s raised concerns about the national supermarket chain Whole Foods in his book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” Whole Foods CEO and founder John MacKey wrote a letter to Pollan. The two continued their dialog publicly, while the rise of the organic food movement lifted up small manufacturers and producers as well as large multinationals.

These two eco-minded leaders agreed on the ‘ “reformation” of the American food system,’ supporting more locally grown production: In California this would mean, anyone at a farmers’ markets to Earthbound Farm. While they both disagreed on several points, you could bet your tofu on the fact that both of these guys were advocating for change in the American food system.

But what surprised me in their paper dialog a few years ago was that Pollan was basing his arguments on some fundamental marketing principles. “..As Whole Foods recognized before many others did, there is another consumer being born out there, one who takes a broader view of his interests, understands that spending more on higher-quality food is worth it on so many levels,” says Pollen.

“As competitors like Wal-Mart and Safeway move into selling industrial organic food, Whole Foods can distinguish itself by moving to the next stage, doing things they can’t possibly do. “Local” surely is one of those things: and your buyers already know exactly how to do it. All Wal-Mart knows is how to source industrial organic food from China.”

And then something happened. Whole Foods’ stock prices went on a roller-coaster ride; and the business was expanding. Fast. 65 stores were in development in 2005; and by September 2007, WF acquired their major competitor Wild Oats. WholeFoods has its national price-friendly brand, 365 on its shelves, nation-wide. And the brand, which once stood for local and sustainable, made its mid-course correction to be in favor of big and not so local, and not so green.

Maybe this is sounding a bit like an overwrought “Wolfman” but the hidden side of this food chain is getting ugly.  As a consumer, when I pay premium prices on most of the experience I get here, and I see all the nice little signs in the fresh produce aisles  telling me where my apple, beets and tomatoes come from, I expect the same transparency in the freezers.

The 365 California vegetables, according to a recent ABC report are manufactured in China. Is there that much demand to warrant growing these thousands of miles away from the state whose namesake

Is Whole Foods looking a lot like Safeway? Has green now gone so far mainstream that it must stand by “go big or go home?” Is MacKey wrong to have certified “organic” food from China? Is mainstream television damaging the green business movement?

I think the damage comes from the lack of transparency. Consumers shouldn’t have to do all the work at figuring out the Whole Foods brand. If Whole Foods wants to handle this transparently, and up the ante on “quality” they need to step up and admit who the independent auditors are and change their packaging design immediately that these products, if they are proudly made in China.

I attended The Executive Council’s Leadership Forum on Value Based Sustainability: The Business Case for Green & Clean in San Jose yesterday; an intimate conference with 100  global brand leaders, corporate execs, a handful of consultants, and a nice handful of green-focused PR and media folks.

It may look as though nothing is new in sustainability, but in less than a decade, industries have moved from viewing sustainable practices as a risk, into reflecting bottom-line savings, and even changing operational strategies.

In 2003, few corporations were openly talking about sustainability, and now, the greening of an organization seems to include employees, customers;  anyone along the supply chain. The story of sustainability has been carried and shifted by employees, and I suspect from the point of view  of the customer.

The overarching take-aways from this one-day event weren’t entirely new. And it seemed, that most in the audience are familiar with what the Fortune 100 are doing; and are fairly involved with their respective corporate missions.

But the panel discussions, presentations and discussions were encouraging; and brought up questions that greenies have been posing for over a decade:

1. Should a company be responsible for educating the public about sustainability?

2. If a company makes something inherently un-sustainable eg: drinks in plastic bottles, if the packaging is made from 70% plant-based materials, and still recyclable, is this product inherently “green?”

3.What is the role of government in moving sustainability? Businesses are a huge lever for change, even social change, should sustainability be left to private sector or civic sector?

4. What role does marketing play in sustainability?

Trade show producer and entertainer Ken Newman masters sleight of hand but when he’s not performing on the trade show floor, Ken’s magic may be how he uses social media to market his 25-year old company, Magnet Productions.

“Email is white noise,” says Ken, who still uses email blasts to reach key prospects but he sees its limitations in its efficacy. as email conjures up only two percent of his annual revenues.

Email is like the digital equivalent of 25 lbs of recycled paper you get in the mail everyday. I’m not going to open the PG&E bill, or the letter from the IRS first. I’m going to sort the stuff on the front stoop and throw most of it that doesn’t look of interest to me immediately in the recycling bin. There is just too much for me to open and organize. On the other hand, LinkedIn is something that my prospects and former clients are excited about. They open a message from me, because it’s come from an organized network free of junk.

So Ken did an experiment to test his hypothesis that LinkedIn was more effective to getting new engagements:

He sent out LinkedIn requests to his entire address book, and asked his prospects and clients if they would write a testimonial for him and post it to his LinkedIn profile. The results?

• A 20% response rate.
• Personal messages & testimonials from marketing directors, senior execs – decision makers who hire Ken directly.
• Warm, direct responses from former clients whom he hasn’t connected with in over two years.
• 21 new testimonials in less than one week.
• Bookings for over four new engagements.
• Comments regarding Ken’s expansion of services.
• An offer to speak at an exclusive conference from his knowledge about social media.

There is the sense, it is business centric. It’s got a lot less noise. People look at that and think if I don’t respond to this in a timely fashion, I wont be thought of. The only way I can test that is empirically, the only way I did this to get recommendations on email 2%

“When someone is writing how wonderful you are, it reminds them how valuable you are. It’s happened to me, when I write a testimonial for someone else…. It makes me think,  ‘Wow, This person is really that wonderful.’ ”

LinkedIn is about connection in a very profound way, says Ken, who’s also got a healthy following on Twitter, Facebook and biznik. Even outside the viritual world, Ken knows how to build and manage business relationships, and understanding that connection in safe and trusted medium creates an impression in the mind of prospect.

A message from someone on LinkedIn may carry more value than email because it’s coming from a closed network; a perception that the sender of the message is familiar in someway, focused on business, and intelligent enough to use something that, I also have the decoder ring for.

There are 50 million LinkedIn users, and since 2002, LinkedIn has been building its credibility and product to ensure that those of us using it, will benefit from its experience.  Has LinkedIn worked in growing your business?

It’s a new year, and you’re all about a fresh start. I, for one, have a new website + higher purpose; new workspace, and more healthful lifestyle habits. It’s a nutritious beginning to a new decade. And unusual resources of inspiration helped me to re-mix The goodMix.

My advice to those who are working to do good in the world, and perhaps make a profit while doing so, is to identify your top three marketing challenges. If you are struggling to come up with this triad, you may want to go back to your business or marketing plan and refresh your mind.

If this last paragraph makes you feel as though you’ve fallen off a 40-story building, you may want to consider having clearly defined goals in written form so you can refer to this throughout the year.

Marketing goals should be: S.M.A.R.T. Which is acronym for: Specific – Who is involved; your resources + constraints;

Measurable – how will you count your results; how much, how many;

Achievable – Can you or your team really get these activities done in the time-frame allotted? (Honesty is highly under-rated)

Realistic – Is each goal something that you have the resources to do? Are you going to need meds to get them accomplished?

and Time-Bound.(That means taking out a calendar and identifying key dates)

Marketing goals for the most part are NOT your business goals. They are the activities that will: drive more traffic to your website, help you buy software, pay for an assistant (don’t even think of skipping Realistic); and help you drink less.

As the corporations hire more Corporate Sustainability Officers, certify their building, and use greener products, more attention to how sustainability will be given to feeding the bottom-line. And a new word is added into our lexicon. Value-Based Sustainability is a way of describing the realized value – and/or profit-  to the company for engaging in sustainable activities.

The upcoming conference , “Value-Based Sustainability: The Business Case for Green, Clean & Lean,” hosted at the Fairmont in San Jose on January 26th has a huge panel of corporate rock stars: Adam Werbach of Saatchi S; former Executive Director, The Sierra Club; Rupert Davis, MontaRosa; Jeff Seabright, Chief Environmental Officer, Coca-Cola Rob Bernard, Chief Environmental Strategist, Microsoft Bob Stoffel, SVP of Sustainability, UPS, to name a few.

The producer of the event, The Executive Council, is a member-based, high-level peer to peer organization dedicated to connecting business leaders, exploring best business practices, new technologies, and the forces of change shaping our future. The Executive Council has an unparalleled reputation for producing high-value, interactive, dialogue driven events rich in take-aways and networking opportunities.

It is an invitation-only event for senior level executives looking to develop relationships with peers and get content most relevant to making strategic, results-producing decisions.

This event is part of a series, with a follow-up 2010 event scheduled in New York on June 8. Stay tuned for the follow-up to this event.

What Van Jones’ resignation can teach the green business movement.

He’s been two trending topics on Twitter for several days. His google hits by now topple 12,000. He united the cause for getting poor African Americans with the environmental movement. He raised over $125 million for green collar job development and got him all the way to Washington. He challenged all of us with the elitism of the environmental movement – with terms like “eco-apartheid.” His grass-roots organizations, Green For All and the Ella Baker Center, influence legislation, business leaders and kids, giving us hope that the green movement includes and effects everyone, peacefully.

Van Jones, the same luminary who is helping the green business movement spread its influence, is apparently, also danger to American ingenuity.  He represents something that many of us aren’t used to: ambiguity.

Entrepreneurs may not admit it, but ambiguity is part of the framework for developing a business. Particularly a green business. Green leaders are really concerned about a myriad of complex values coming together at the same time. These include: prosperity, social justice, peace, sound science, good environmental practices, education, awareness and transparency. In Van’s case, transparency wasn’t really working for his image but he was about the other stuff. And he certainly has never been about hatred or bringing the country down.

He’s an activist. A visionary. A political leader.

Labels can be limiting. They don’t often describe who we are, and what we do, or even what we stand for. Green business leaders need to continually educate and discuss the vision of what we stand for. And back that up with the benefits of our actions. And this makes way for change.

When I was getting my green MBA, a former ivy-league educated colleague of mine told me I had “drunk the Kool-Aid “ when I told her about the coming of companies adopting sustainable initiatives. The $3 billion dollar corporation she’s a senior manager for made green a priority in 2007. I’ve taken hits from my own family for years about how “un-informed” I am about human impact on the environment. The more the companies my family invested in participate in sustainability, the faster the family changed  opinions on people they once vilified. Admitting, that maybe – just maybe -  Al Gore deserved the Nobel Prize after all.

When people see a vision of the future match their beliefs; they will support what you stand for.  Even if it’s a variation on what you personally believe.

“ I’ve often said that going green is not an issue for one side of the political spectrum or another, said Glenn Croston founder of StartingUpGreen.com. “ Going green is viewed as a moral, economic, and security imperative, and as a business opportunity, by people across the political spectrum. But politics is a dirty game to be sure, so I’m not surprised by the latest events. I just hope that dirty politics does not equate with a dirty, and down, economy.

The sustainability movement urgently needs outspoken heroes. But we can’t do that with green-colored glasses on. Like it or not, we have to deal with a much more vicious, hateful and racist landscape than we bargained for a decade ago.  Those leaders who are adapting green and including green collar jobs in their workforce need to pick up where this media-frenzy left off to create a healthier economy.

Quality has to be expensive, right?

This 12-year-old pink T, who is looking a  bit aged and worn has been in on my back on a 100-mile trek in the Himalayas, been washed in rivers and rocks, survived the give-away tosses, old laundromats, questionable fashion uses, and four moves. As you can see, despite the aging stretch (like it’s owner) it’s aging nicely. So well in fact, that I began to ask what is going on with the company that made it? It’s 100% cotton, made in Mariana Islands.

Back in the day, I spent under $20 at a retail store to make it part of my wardrobe.  Folded nicely, next to the blue, black and white stacks, it looked practical, comfortable and durable, and like the little black dress, a pink T is almost army issue for every woman.

So why on earth would something of this caliber stop being produced? Obviously,  I’m no Carrie Bradshaw, but it seems a missed opportunity to have something like this disappear completely from the mainsteam retail store shelf. Was it because the company that manufactured it had to continue its sweatshop labor conditions to produce high quality? Was it because of a $20 law suit that the company stopped producing 100% cotton shirts? Would I have bought more from this retailer in recent years had I seen the same attention to quality?

You bet.

Would I have paid slightly more?

Definitely.

Because my experience with the garment produced satisfaction and trust.

Sustainability needs to incorporate this attention to quality in every product produced. Built-in obsolescence is the norm, it seems, in just about every cheap consumer product. What if a bold company made this kind of claim to a plain old T – (preferably in organic cotton) under $30.

Quality…That’s something we need to believe in if we want to live more sustainably.