Politicians, multinationals, consumers – David Crosbie considers who should be taking responsibility for protecting the environment

A couple of stories in the news lately have reminded me of a question that we have previously asked consumers in our GfK Roper Reports Worldwide study – namely, who ought to be shouldering the responsibility for environmental issues.

First of all, the oil leakage in the Gulf of Mexico and the ongoing efforts to stem it are a stark reminder of the responsibilities faced by multinational corporations, particularly those dealing with chemicals or pollutants. When something goes wrong, the consequences can be dire, and citizens expect the company involved, in conjunction with government, to stop at nothing to put the damage right.    

Secondly, one of the most interesting stories from the UK’s recent general election – apart of course from the first hung parliament since 1974 and the first coalition government since World War II – was the election of the UK parliament’s first ever Green Party member in the form of Caroline Lucas. This, coupled with the fact that other parties published separate green manifestos, shows that the issue is increasingly important in voters’ decision making process.

 As I said, GfK Roper Reports Worldwide tackled the question of responsibility for the environment a couple of years ago by asking consumers around the world to name the one group they felt should take the lead on the issue of global climate change. Globally, 30% replied that this role should fall to national governments, more than double the next most common response (environmental groups) and way ahead of those who cited business and industry or individual citizens.

 Given the immense nature of the problem, one might have expected even more consumers to delegate the problem upwards and let government sort it out. However, at the same time a large proportion of consumers do tell us that they feel they ought to be doing something about the issue of the environment themselves, even if it’s something relatively small. It seems that global consumers are aware that dealing with the issue of the environment is not something that they can do solely by themselves, but they are willing to do their bit if they know that other stakeholders in business and government are doing their fair share as well.

 One thing’s for certain, it’s a topic that is becoming more and more important, and beyond political parties being judged on their green manifestos, companies are being judged on their policies too. This topic is one of many attitudinal and behavioural measures that feature in GfK Roper’s new Green Gauge Global product, which aims to advise companies on how they can best respond to the changing and complex attitudes of global consumers towards green. For more information, click here. 

  • Share/Bookmark

A reminder that a great purchase doesn’t outweigh a negative purchase experience.

By Anna Clark

It is an oft-spoken cliché that British people love to queue. The author George Mikes, best known for his humorous commentaries on various countries and their citizens, said, “An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of one.”

The recent UK General Election saw the highest turnouts for 13 years, which resulted in long queues and, in a number of cases, people still queuing by the time the polls closed, meaning they missed out on their vote. One wonders whether people would have patiently queued (in the rain) past the deadline in other countries. That is not to say that there weren’t angry scenes when the truth became apparent, but there weren’t reports of people forcing their way in or worse still, queue-jumping.

I recently found myself musing on this topic when supporting some friends at a battle of the bands contest, where, after the last band finished their set, the crowd of thrashing metallers* formed an orderly queue on the dance floor to place their vote. It seemed an unlikely sight, but perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised.

When it comes to Personal Values, in the UK, like most other countries, concepts such as ‘power’ and ‘self interest’ rank at the very bottom of the pile, according to the Roper Reports Worldwide study, suggesting consumers just aren’t willing to put their own needs before other peoples’ (or to admit to doing so).

While it’s clear that people will queue, it’s important that companies don’t take advantage of this tendency toward civility. Queuing to vote, or to get tickets for must-see concerts is one thing, but when consumers have a choice of vendors available to them, one with a swift checkout and better customer experience will win through. When a queuing procedure is deemed to be poorly organised or people are left unsure where to queue, this can damage overall satisfaction and reduce chances of a return visit.

And of course, queuing doesn’t stop at the shop door. Numerous horror stories abound about hours spent on hold to speak to people at call centres, while good experiences can encourage loyalty and recommendation. I recently called a customer service line where I was given a choice of hold music to make my wait less frustrating. Small touches like this may not cost much but can be worth a lot. Time spent in a queue is time spent in the care of your brand, and regardless of how good the purchase might be, the overall experience matters, too.

* If you’re unsure who or what a ‘metaller’ is, check out the Urban Dictionary definition!

  • Share/Bookmark

By Jon Berry

What do you get for a car that’s gone the extra mile for you? How about a trip to the car wash and replacing its missing hub cap?

Last week our 1998 Toyota Camry turned 175,000 miles. Fittingly the milestone came on a trip to the grocery store. While this mild-mannered sedan no doubt has daydreamed of lighting out for the frontier for a Blue Highways adventure, its reality has been more George Bailey than William Least Heat Moon.

 (If Pixar ever creates a car version of It’s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey, the hero who never left home, will probably be a Camry.)

There have been a lot of trips to the store in this car. And commutes to work. Drives to school. And to the movies. The odometer may evoke adventure – 175,000 miles is equal to 60 drives across the country. But the furthest West this car has been is trips to my parents’ farm in Indiana.

This has been a family car. It’s been through two kids growing up and going off into the world; two dogs (note the chew marks on the rear-seat seatbelts); family vacations to the beach (sand in the trunk); Christmas trees (pine needles); and trips to college (amazing how much can be crammed into defined spaces).

And it’s done so with minimal repairs – a record that, with all the costs of raising kids, I will be forever grateful for. Which is one reason that, even as the Camry’s sidled into being our second car, driven only a few times a week, I’d have a hard time giving it up.  
 
I bring all this up because I think I’m not alone. It’s not just cars – though my informal research, asking for a show of hands at speaking engagements for those whose cars have gone past the 100k mark suggests quite a few folks are in that category. All things “vintage” are being prized more these days, from clothes, to music, home décor, and recipes.
 
Staying power is having a star moment. Six in 10 Americans tell GfK Roper Reports® they strongly agree that they buy things that are “built to last.” That’s more than the proportion who tell us they’re “comparing prices and looking for the best price” on everything they buy. And agreement has risen since the start of the recession. Timelessness has become a theme among consumers across the world as well – and marketers have been responding.
 
I don’t think it’s simply nostalgia. There’s renewed appreciation of day-in, day-out, value-for-the-dollar quality – a value those who grew up in the Depression carried with them, and that, until recently, seemed lost on younger generations. As recession-singed consumers reenter the market, businesses should remind them that buying products built for the long haul will save them money they can spend on other things – even if it costs them a bit more now.
 
Camrys may not be cool in the way that the round-shouldered Chevys and sharp-finned Caddies of the 1950s and 60s were. But there is something innovative in them that I’d forgotten about until that magical rolling-over of the odometer knocked loose the memory of my then teen-aged son’s rationale for buying the car: “It’s the low-end Lexus.”
 
That quality of delivering luxury-car quiet, ride, and reliability at a middle-class price was part of a larger wave of innovation in marketing in its day that brought gourmet-quality food (Trader Joe’s, Starbucks), furniture (Ikea), investments (Fidelity, Vanguard), even running shoes (Nike’s “Bowerman” line) to broader audiences. In their way, they were as innovative as the first Fords, the first Chevys, or the first Apples. They’re worth studying for the lessons they offer us now. 

We still have a ways to go to catch up with the Depression generation. I am reminded of this every time I travel out to Indiana to visit my Dad, go into my Dad’s barn, and see his two tractors – a shiny red 1940s International Harvester and his “newer” model, a shiny blue early-1960s Ford. Add one more reason to hang onto the 175,000-mile Camry – to see how its story turns out.

  • Share/Bookmark