View Thread

  • 1.  consumer willingness to pay more ...

    Posted 09-25-2007 19:11
    Thanks for posting this. Since you invited comments...

    I'm in the midst of my own research on consumer attitudes toward green goods and services, trying to explore that frustrating gap between stated attitudes and actual behavior. I'd welcome contact from others working in this area.

    I will request a copy of the full report re green electricity, but in the meantime, based on the summary, preliminary research, and my own observations of the local green energy marketing program, I would agree that motivation and reassurance are key.

    As Jacqueline Ottman (www.greenmarketing.com <http://www.greenmarketing.com/> ) has pointed out, consumers need more reasons to buy than just environmental benefits. To be chosen, the environmentally responsible option must also be a good value (at least in the long run), or convenient, or perform well, etc. You can't expect the consumer to sacrifice performance for principle. By the way, the same goes for nutritional products (which must be edible), and sweatshop free apparel (which must be wearable).

    These are often complex decisions and in the case of an intangible service like this, the true "product" is even harder for the consumer to judge. From a personal perspective, how am I supposed to choose from a list of green energy providers, with no comparative pricing or other information? Pick the one that calls me most frequently? or that "sounds" most responsible? Once I choose, since Con Ed (my current supplier) maintains control over delivery, how can I be sure that the electrical power coming through my wall outlet is really generated by windmills and not coal? Trust, but verify. But how?

    And I would go one step further on the role of government/leadership. If we as a society agree that reducing reliance on fossil fuels is vital to our environmental sustainability and national security (there's that supporting benefit, this time at a societal level), let's mandate a certain percentage of all power to be generated from renewable sources (as Congress seems sometimes on the verge of doing), and let the local utility company do the legwork and find the lowest cost, greenest supplier. Thus millions of consumers would be instantly relieved of this decision, and the goal would be achieved! (And while you're at it, go ahead and mandate a meaningful fuel economy standard for cars.) Then consumers can get back to shopping for compact fluorescent light bulbs and recycled paper, and maybe have time left over for dinner with the kids.

    Until I crank something out from my own research :), for those interested in additional online sources regarding green marketing and consumer behavior, I have found Makower's blog very informative. Here's a recent posting.
    http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2007/09/whats-behind-th.html

    And as an aging hippie, I'm more inclined toward advocacy and action at this stage of the game, so I'm planning to attend the Co-op America Green Fest in Washington, D.C. If you don't already know about that organization, check them out: www.coopamerica.org

    Cheers!

    Fredrica

    Fredrica Rudell, Ph.D.
    Chair
    Department of Marketing
    and International Business
    Hagan School of Business
    Iona College
    New Rochelle, NY 10801
    914-637-2748
    frudell@iona.edu
    www.iona.edu/hagan/academicdepartments/marketing

    Chair, Environmental Concerns Committee
    www.iona.edu/academic/ecc


  • 2.  consumer willingness to pay more ...

    Posted 09-25-2007 23:27
    I really question whether there is a "real" market for green products. My
    guess is it is very marginal --a couple of percent perhaps--if cost is
    factored in.

    I doubt we'll ever get an overwhelming mandate to alternative fuels, as the
    greenest alternative fuel is nuclear energy, and many old guard greens are
    too ideologically hard-headed to put that option on the table.

    I don't believe that most consumers would be relieved of having to pay even
    a few dollars more for their energy needs--that's a very affluent-centric
    view, that is just not supported by empirical data or even a cursory
    understanding of human.

    I wrote extensively about the love affair with deregulation by the green
    movement in California in the 1990s. I've posted links to a few articles
    below. I remember taking a lot of heat for criticizing the hegemonic left
    led by the Environmental Defense Fund and others who embraced dereg because
    of their belief that consumers would choose it and it would be able to
    compete with normal electricity channels. Those of us (like me) who actually
    looked at the evidence knew that deregulation would almost destroy that
    alternative energy market because people are too price sensitive. But the
    "left" pushed for deregulation and contributed to the disaster that we had
    in California and set alternative energy back years.

    "Green energy" is largely a misnomer anyway. It's destined to being a
    boutique option for years to come. We do as a society need to keep it on the
    tape and nurture its potential through regulation, but that's as far as
    society is likely to go.

    Here are some articles challenging the "conventional wisdom" that consumers
    would choose green energy...it was me and Ralph Nader. Of course the
    "socially responsible business" community got this issue TOTALLY wrong, as
    usual...since the SRI movement is essentially a backward looking, status
    quo, conservative movement, that's no surprise.

    The Green Power Hustle: "Clean" Energy's Dirty Little Secret
    Solar Utilities Network, October 1998
    http://www.solarnet.org/greenwash.htm

    Deregulation and Green Marketing: The Threat to Safe Energy
    Dollars & Sense, September 1997
    http://www.jonentine.com/articles/dereg_green_mkt.htm
    http://www.jonentine.com/articles/clean_powers_dirty_secret.htm

    Clean Shell: Clean Power's Dirty Little Secret
    The Progressive Populist, June 1997

    On 9/25/07 7:11 PM, "Rudell, Fredrica" <FRudell@IONA.EDU> wrote:

    > Thanks for posting this. Since you invited comments...
    >
    > I'm in the midst of my own research on consumer attitudes toward green goods
    > and services, trying to explore that frustrating gap between stated attitudes
    > and actual behavior. I'd welcome contact from others working in this area.
    >
    > I will request a copy of the full report re green electricity, but in the
    > meantime, based on the summary, preliminary research, and my own observations
    > of the local green energy marketing program, I would agree that motivation and
    > reassurance are key.
    >
    > As Jacqueline Ottman (www.greenmarketing.com <http://www.greenmarketing.com/>
    > ) has pointed out, consumers need more reasons to buy than just environmental
    > benefits. To be chosen, the environmentally responsible option must also be a
    > good value (at least in the long run), or convenient, or perform well, etc.
    > You can't expect the consumer to sacrifice performance for principle. By the
    > way, the same goes for nutritional products (which must be edible), and
    > sweatshop free apparel (which must be wearable).
    >
    > These are often complex decisions and in the case of an intangible service
    > like this, the true "product" is even harder for the consumer to judge. From
    > a personal perspective, how am I supposed to choose from a list of green
    > energy providers, with no comparative pricing or other information? Pick the
    > one that calls me most frequently? or that "sounds" most responsible? Once I
    > choose, since Con Ed (my current supplier) maintains control over delivery,
    > how can I be sure that the electrical power coming through my wall outlet is
    > really generated by windmills and not coal? Trust, but verify. But how?
    >
    > And I would go one step further on the role of government/leadership. If we
    > as a society agree that reducing reliance on fossil fuels is vital to our
    > environmental sustainability and national security (there's that supporting
    > benefit, this time at a societal level), let's mandate a certain percentage of
    > all power to be generated from renewable sources (as Congress seems sometimes
    > on the verge of doing), and let the local utility company do the legwork and
    > find the lowest cost, greenest supplier. Thus millions of consumers would be
    > instantly relieved of this decision, and the goal would be achieved! (And
    > while you're at it, go ahead and mandate a meaningful fuel economy standard
    > for cars.) Then consumers can get back to shopping for compact fluorescent
    > light bulbs and recycled paper, and maybe have time left over for dinner with
    > the kids.
    >
    > Until I crank something out from my own research :), for those interested in
    > additional online sources regarding green marketing and consumer behavior, I
    > have found Makower's blog very informative. Here's a recent posting.
    > http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2007/09/whats-behind-th.html
    >
    > And as an aging hippie, I'm more inclined toward advocacy and action at this
    > stage of the game, so I'm planning to attend the Co-op America Green Fest in
    > Washington, D.C. If you don't already know about that organization, check
    > them out: www.coopamerica.org
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    > Fredrica
    >
    > Fredrica Rudell, Ph.D.
    > Chair
    > Department of Marketing
    > and International Business
    > Hagan School of Business
    > Iona College
    > New Rochelle, NY 10801
    > 914-637-2748
    > frudell@iona.edu
    > www.iona.edu/hagan/academicdepartments/marketing
    >
    > Chair, Environmental Concerns Committee
    > www.iona.edu/academic/ecc



    --

    Jon Entine
    American Enterprise Institute
    http://www.jonentine.com

    P. (513) 527-4385
    C: (513) 319-8388
    FAX: (937) 910-6676


  • 3.  consumer willingness to pay more ...

    Posted 09-26-2007 08:51
    The New York State RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) was enacted quite deliberately, following several decent studies of market potential and technical feasibility. The "policy calls for an increase in renewable energy ...from the then current level of about 19% to 25% by the year 2013. Two approaches were identified ...central procurement ...that would provide for increases to about 24% and a voluntary green market approach that would provide at least the other 1%." [http://www.dps.state.ny.us/03e0188.htm] 
     
    Most environmental advocates here seem to think that the relatively low reliance on voluntary purchases is appropriate, or that such reliance should be even lower.
     
    The seven volume study I mentioned, as well as many other resources bearing on the policy decision, are available from the "Related Documents and Resources" link on the page referenced above.
     
    Chris Young


    From: Jon Entine
    Sent: Tue 9/25/2007 11:27 PM
    To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: consumer willingness to pay more ...

    I really question whether there is a "real" market for green products. My guess is it is very marginal --a couple of percent perhaps--if cost is factored in.  I doubt we'll ever get an overwhelming mandate to alternative fuels, as the greenest alternative fuel is nuclear energy, and many old guard greens are too ideologically hard-headed to put that option on the table.  I don't believe that most consumers would be relieved of having to pay even a few dollars more for their energy needs--that's a very affluent-centric view, that is just not supported by empirical data or even a cursory understanding of human.  I wrote extensively about the love affair with deregulation by the green movement in California in the 1990s. I've posted links to a few articles below. I remember taking a lot of heat for criticizing the hegemonic left led by the Environmental Defense Fund and others who embraced dereg because of their belief that consumers would choose it and it would be able to compete with normal electricity channels. Those of us (like me) who actually looked at the evidence knew that deregulation would almost destroy that alternative energy market because people are too price sensitive. But the "left" pushed for deregulation and contributed to the disaster that we had in California and set alternative energy back years.  "Green energy" is largely a misnomer anyway. It's destined to being a boutique option for years to come. We do as a society need to keep it on the tape and nurture its potential through regulation, but that's as far as society is likely to go.  Here are some articles challenging the "conventional wisdom" that consumers would choose green energy...it was me and Ralph Nader. Of course the "socially responsible business" community got this issue TOTALLY wrong, as usual...since the SRI movement is essentially a backward looking, status quo, conservative movement, that's no surprise.  The Green Power Hustle: "Clean" Energy's Dirty Little Secret Solar Utilities Network, October 1998 http://www.solarnet.org/greenwash.htm  Deregulation and Green Marketing: The Threat to Safe Energy Dollars & Sense, September 1997 http://www.jonentine.com/articles/dereg_green_mkt.htm http://www.jonentine.com/articles/clean_powers_dirty_secret.htm  Clean Shell: Clean Power's Dirty Little Secret The Progressive Populist, June 1997  On 9/25/07 7:11 PM, "Rudell, Fredrica" <FRudell@IONA.EDU> wrote:  > Thanks for posting this.  Since you invited comments... >   > I'm in the midst of my own research on consumer attitudes toward green goods > and services, trying to explore that frustrating gap between stated attitudes > and actual behavior.  I'd welcome contact from others working in this area. >   > I will request a copy of the full report re green electricity, but in the > meantime, based on the summary, preliminary research, and my own observations > of the local green energy marketing program, I would agree that motivation and > reassurance are key. >   > As Jacqueline Ottman (www.greenmarketing.com <http://www.greenmarketing.com/> > )  has pointed out, consumers need more reasons to buy than just environmental > benefits.  To be chosen, the environmentally responsible option must also be a > good value (at least in the long run), or convenient, or perform well, etc. > You can't expect the consumer to sacrifice performance for principle.  By the > way, the same goes for nutritional products (which must be edible), and > sweatshop free apparel (which must be wearable). >   > These are often complex decisions and in the case of an intangible service > like this, the true "product" is even harder for the consumer to judge.   From > a personal perspective, how am I supposed to choose from a list of green > energy providers, with no comparative pricing or other information?  Pick the > one that calls me most frequently? or that "sounds" most responsible?  Once I > choose, since Con Ed (my current supplier) maintains control over delivery, > how can I be sure that the electrical power coming through my wall outlet is > really generated by windmills and not coal?  Trust, but verify.  But how? >   > And I would go one step further on the role of government/leadership.  If we > as a society agree that reducing reliance on fossil fuels is vital to our > environmental sustainability and national security (there's that supporting > benefit, this time at a societal level), let's mandate a certain percentage of > all power to be generated from renewable sources (as Congress seems sometimes > on the verge of doing), and let the local utility company do the legwork and > find the lowest cost, greenest supplier.  Thus millions of consumers would be > instantly relieved of this decision, and the goal would be achieved!  (And > while you're at it, go ahead and mandate a meaningful fuel economy standard > for cars.)  Then consumers can get back to shopping for compact fluorescent > light bulbs and recycled paper, and maybe have time left over for dinner with > the kids.  >   > Until I crank something out from my own research :), for those interested in > additional online sources regarding green marketing and consumer behavior, I > have found Makower's blog very informative.   Here's a recent posting. > http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2007/09/whats-behind-th.html >   > And as an aging hippie, I'm more inclined toward advocacy and action at this > stage of the game, so I'm planning to attend the Co-op America Green Fest in > Washington, D.C.  If you don't already know about that organization, check > them out: www.coopamerica.org >   > Cheers! >   > Fredrica >   > Fredrica Rudell, Ph.D. > Chair > Department of Marketing >   and International Business > Hagan School of Business > Iona College > New Rochelle, NY 10801 > 914-637-2748 > frudell@iona.edu > www.iona.edu/hagan/academicdepartments/marketing >  > Chair, Environmental Concerns Committee > www.iona.edu/academic/ecc    --   Jon Entine American Enterprise Institute http://www.jonentine.com  P.      (513) 527-4385 C:      (513) 319-8388 FAX:    (937) 910-6676 


  • 4.  consumer willingness to pay more ...

    Posted 09-26-2007 09:50
    This issue is really one of multi-attribute decision-making. A survey
    should help determine rankings of various product attributes, including
    environmental attributes. It is quite common that individuals indicate
    higher willingness to do something for the environment and then do not
    act thereupon. My former employer, Tetra Pak, did extensive surveys to
    determine consumer willingness to engage in selective waste collection,
    and while 70% said they would do something, only around 30% actually
    acted. These numbers seem to be fairly consistent across various
    environmental attributes/actions.