Commentary

Green Monster Swallows New York

Now that I've caught your attention with a, ahem, monstrous headline, how about we continue by presenting an article that offers little substantiation to its hyperbolic claim?

Technically, the following article is about green marketing, so it's not that much of a stretch to say that a green monster swallowed New York, is it?

According to the Los Angeles Times, consumer skepticism is growing about green marketing again. The headline of the online edition reads: "Skepticism grows over products touted as eco-friendly." While reading the article in your Internet browser, you will notice that the meta-description of the article is more specific: "Consumers grow wary of green-washing: skepticism grows over products touted as eco-friendly."

I read the article with great interest, hoping to find some benchmark statistics on the number of consumers who were interested in green marketing in the past, versus the time of the article's publication. Obviously, to know whether there are more or less people interested in something, you need to know how many people are interested in the first place. Right? Apparently not.

The article (in the business section of the Times no less), doesn't offer any substantial proof for the claim that "there is growing skepticism by consumers." Instead, some agencies were asked for some opinions and research, which showed uniformly that ... Okay, are you ready for this readers?

"Companies sometimes lie or exaggerate when they try to sell stuff."

Ogilvy & Mather was quoted as saying: "These days, greenwashing is reaching epidemic proportions."

But, are consumers buying it? Yes. Are consumers victims of fraud (whether you call it legal or just ethical fraud)? Yes. Are there some valid green claims? Yes. Are there lots of bogus green claims? Apparently, yes. Although, interestingly no actual product is named in many of the reports I've read. There is just a blanket statement that seems to always accompany such articles. Which companies? Which products? I'd like to know, and I think many L.A. Times readers would as well.

I'm not saying there isn't evidence to the effect that people don't like lying and snake oil. But, if you are making claims about consumers, markets, business trends, etc., then you should at least set the evidence bar reasonably high. Perhaps as high as you'd have it set with green marketers, as a starting point.

I have a suggestion for the L.A. Times. Rewrite the headline to reflect what the article is actually about: mainly, companies trying to deceive consumers. "Massive Ad Agencies Ask for Greater Regulation of Growing Green Marketing Claims" or "Companies are Trying to Deceive Consumers with Green Claims."

A really great newspaper article would shed light on a specific company that has violated a rule of basic business ethics, or law. I challenge newspapers to print a story about a company whose green claims are suspect or outright lies. Maybe some solid investigative journalism can dig up some real dirt on a few companies that need to get called out.

To take it to the next level, they could show which products' green claims are valid. The roving green police could approach consumers outside of Walmart, saving them from their own purchases, help them return the offensive merchandise in exchange for veritably green products. Now that would be consumer business journalism, in my mind.

Generally speaking, greater effort should be made to place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the lying perpetrators. Unsubstantiated claims, blanket statements about an entirely ethical sector, and claims that consumers are hapless dupes or reactionary divas should be kicked to the curb.

Otherwise, the credibility of the entire newspaper industry is threatened, no?

Next story loading loading..