• by Ted Page , September 25, 2013

Makers of the next-generation LED lighting are somewhat in the dark when it comes to convincing consumers their super-efficient bulbs are worth the cost. The “EcoSmart” flood light bulb is a prime example, available for a mere $59.88 – apparently a 50% savings off its usual cost. So, a bargain, right? 

Its messaging, in much smaller type, points out that this bulb lasts up to 23 years and can save you $168 over the course of its life. And therein lies the problem. 

The names/brands of the products, like EcoSmart, don’t match the main benefit to consumers, specifically long-term cost savings which would help justify the high up-front expense. While sales of LED-related products from companies like Philips are up in 2013, LED technology itself could use a rebrand before it can really take off and gain broad adoption by consumers. 

For example, instead of branding a bulb EcoSmart, the product name itself should relate to the cost savings instead of the environment. Or hone in on the idea that you’re not just buying a light bulb, you’re buying a home improvement that you can take with you when you sell your house. This isn’t just lighting for your home today; it’s lighting for the next 23 years of your life. 

This is a bulb that, statistically, has a greater chance of lasting 23 years than your marriage. Buy one of these bulbs to celebrate the birth of a new baby, and you could be a grandfather before the thing quits. 

There’s also an opportunity to paint a picture in the consumers’ mind of what using old-fashioned bulbs really means to their wallet – and where that lost savings is going. Picture a web video where, once a year, a limo arrives at someone’s door, and inside is your local electric utility executive who has arrived to pick up his extra cash – delivered to him courtesy of the wasteful, outdated light bulbs used in the home. 

In short, we could make the idea of savings come alive, and show why everyone should fork over big bucks for bulbs.