 |
|
|
|||||
In recent years, brands have changed their entire marketing approach in order to attract the new breed of so-called eco-conscious consumers. This is unsurprising considering the mountain of research showing the majority of people saying they care about sustainability when it comes to their purchasing decisions. But the notion of an eco-conscious mass consumer who is willing to sacrifice their own personal comfort for the planet is largely a myth. This is because, while people might “say” they support sustainable practices, their actions tell a different story. Our own research reveals that almost six in 10 (57%) American consumers say sustainability shouldnt come at the expense of their personal experience. Its easy to read a stat like that and feel annoyed at peoples selfishness. At the same time, weve probably all been in a situation where, despite our best intentions, we realize too late that once again weve forgotten our reusable shopping bags at the grocery store. Or tried farmer-owned, regeneratively produced coffee beans only to go back to our old brand because it just doesnt taste as good. Subconscious decision-making So why this disconnect? People tend to shop in a hot statetask-focused, time-pressured, hungry, distractedrather than in a logical, deliberative mindset. In these moments, the subconscious mind drives decision-making, and high-minded intentions often fall by the wayside. Tasks that impede instant gratification, like cleaning up or sorting waste for recycling, are perceived as chores and routinely avoided without consciously realizing it. Thats why a halo of sustainability isnt going to convince consumers to accept an inferior experience. Its not that people dont care about the environment, its that theyre human, and their subconscious priorities often override their conscious values. Brands that boast about their eco credentials often come off as authoritarian or preachy. Meanwhile, the rise in greenwashing has fueled deep-seated consumer scepticism over eco claims. A performance-based approach It can be much more effective for brands to talk up the superior performance or enhanced user experience of a product before getting to the sustainability aspect of it. And, for a topic as complex and divisive as the environment, sometimes the best approach is not to shout about sustainability at all. Ford took this approach with its Frunk campaign, which shows EV owners popping their hoods and putting the added space normally taken up by a combustion engine to imaginative new uses, from a pop-up kitchen to a tattoo shop. Meanwhile, the iconic anti-littering campaign Dont Mess with Texas plays on state pride rather than guilt. User-unfriendly Sustainability efforts also fall short because services aimed at getting people to recycle or be more sustainable are not user-friendly. In fact, many systems are unknowingly designed to elicit the opposite effect. For example, in many food outlets and retail spaces, the recycling bin is next to the rubbish bin. Both involve throwing items into a black hole, never to be seen again, and so the semiotics unintentionally cue waste, anonymous disposal, and ultimately, the death of the product. Our study found 72% of consumers believe they’re responsible for clearing and sorting their rubbish in cafes and quick-service restaurants, like McDonalds or Starbucks, but only 29% of them actually do so. Avoiding Rebellion Neuroscience shows that we subconsciously rebel when we feel forced to do something, so retailers should focus on making us actually want to take action. This is why the gamification of coin-spinning machines collecting charitable donations works so well. Kids love them for the fun factor; the philanthropy part is incidental. Retailers and quick service restaurants should swap “black hole” rubbish chutes for playful and rewarding alternatives that encourage people to recycle. To trigger behavior change, small nudges like these are much more effective than lofty messaging in marketing campaigns. There has also been a shift toward eco-led design, with branding and packaging featuring earthy, neutral colors and worthy messaging. But this pared-back, functional design takes a lot of the joy out of the experience and turns people off subconsciously. The vegan meat category is a great example, with a number of the biggest brands opting for dull, utilitarian packaging and earnest messaging that prioritizes ethics over appetitemaking the products feel more like a compromise than a craveable choice. Effortless and indulgent Almost three-quarters (72%) of those surveyed said they love innovative brands that invest in product development and deliver pride and excitement. The question brands should ask is not just how can we make this sustainable? but how would Silicon Valley design this? Sustainable solutions should feel effortless and even indulgentthink eco-hedonism, not eco-consciousness. Brands need to stop passing the burden of sustainability to the consumer. If you can create a product or experience that is pleasurable, joyful, and rewarding, but also happens to be good for the planet, you will be able to sell sustainability to even the most selfish of consumers.
Category:
E-Commerce
On Running has hit 2025 at full speed, reporting Q1 earnings on Tuesday that saw the company grow sales by 43% year-over-year. Its a reflection of the overall growth trajectory the Zurich-based athletic lifestyle brand has been on since it launched in 2010. With a healthy direct-to-consumer business, growing retail footprint (with 53 stores around the world), and cutting edge product innovation, On has built its brand around its product quality and sleek, simple design. But cofounder and executive cochairman Caspar Coppetti says that despite the healthy numbers, the brand still has plenty of room to grow, and it’s using its own unique combination of culture and athletics to do it. Our global brand awareness last year was only 20%, while Nike is at 95%, says Coppetti. We’re not trying to be the next Brand X or Brand Y. We’re writing our own script, and that script is: We want to be the most premium brand in sports, really elevating the whole brand experience. Zendaya [Photo: On] Premium culture Every athletic shoe company has its own approach to building out its audience. Nike has recently rejuvenated its swagger aimed at competitive athletes; Adidas has leaned on big names like Patrick Mahomes, Jude Bellingham, and Anthony Edwards; and Hoka is going all-in on runners. On, meanwhile, has built its brand around a unique combination of innovative design and elevated fashion sense. Elmo [Photo: On] That’s something we’ve always had in the brand, says Coppetti says. It began with its foundational cushioning technology, Cloudtech, an engineered solution to absorb impact that looked distinct from any other sneaker. That was combined with a Swiss design ethos that’s very reductionist and clean. Our products always look different and also quite fashionable,” says Coppetti. “And when performance and fashion collide, that’s when magic happens. This year, the brand took that magic in some compelling directions. While some athletic brands have steered toward competition and the athlete mentality, Ons brand work went in a different, pretty damn quirky direction. In February, On dropped a Super Bowl ad featuring Roger Federer and Sesame Streets Elmo debating the brands logo. Subsequent spots in the Soft Wins campaign had Elmo talking about running for fun as opposed to competitive fire. Then in April, the brand launched a trailer for a fake sci-fi movie starring Zendaya (who signed as a brand ambassador last year) to hype its new lifestyle bodysuit. With a new FKA Twigs partnership inked earlier this year, On has squarely positioned itself as the workout gear of choice for people who care about art and style. In its Q1 earnings report, On credited its Zendaya partnership as one of the driving forces of the brands impressive momentum. These kinds of things have the potential to go viral, says Coppetti. Consumers are also not seeing us as just another brand shoving advertising in their face, but seeing that its actually kind of cute and clever, and that resonates. Looking ahead to the rest of 2025, the brand is looking to open 25 more stores around the world, and continue to hype it’s Lightspray shoe technology, and its expanding apparel line. Coppetti says that the challenge is to make sure people see On as a head-to-toe brand, as opposed to just sneakers. Now were expanding our market share from the feet up.
Category:
E-Commerce
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. No matter where you live, NSF-supported research has also made your life safer. Engineering studies have reduced earthquake damage and fatalities through better building design. Improved hurricane and tornado forecasts reflect NSF investment in environmental monitoring and computer modeling of weather. NSF-supported resilience studies reduce risks and losses from wildfires. Using NSF funding, scientists have done research that amazes, entertains and enthralls. They have drilled through mile-thick ice sheets to understand the past, visited the wreck of the Titanic and captured images of deep space. NSF investments have made America and American science great. At least 268 Nobel laureates received NSF grants during their careers. The foundation has partnered with agencies across the government since it was created, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% since 1950, meaning for every dollar U.S. taxpayers invested, they got back between $1.50 and $3. However, that funding is now at risk. Since January, layoffs, leadership resignations, and a massive proposed reorganization have threatened the integrity and mission of the National Science Foundation. Hundreds of research grants have been terminated. The administrations proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2026 would cut NSFs funding by 55%, an unprecedented reduction that would end federal support for science research across a wide range of discipines. At my own geology lab, I have seen NSF grants catalyze research and the work of dozens of students who have collected data thats now used to reduce risks from earthquakes, floods, landslides, erosion, sea-level rise, and melting glaciers. I have also served on advisory committees and review panels for the NSF over the past 30 years and have seen the value the foundation produces for the American people. American sciences greatness stemmed from war In the 1940s, with the advent of nuclear weapons, the space race and the intensification of the Cold War, American science and engineering expertise became increasingly critical for national defense. At the time, most basic and applied research was done by the military. Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer who oversaw military research efforts during World War II, including development of the atomic bomb, had a different idea. He articulated an expansive scientific vision for the United States in Science: The Endless Frontier. The report was a blueprint for an American research juggernaut grounded in the expertise of university faculty, staff and graduate students. On May 10, 1950, after five years of debate and compromise, President Harry Truman signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation and putting Bushs vision to work. Since then, the foundation has become the leading funder of basic research in the United States. NSFs mandate, then as now, was to support basic research and spread funding for science across all 50 states. Expanding Americas scientific workforce was and remains integral to American prosperity. By 1952, the foundation was awarding merit fellowships to graduate and postdoctoral scientists from every state. There were compromises. Control of NSF rested with presidential appointees, disappointing Bush. He wanted scientists in charge to avoid political interference with the foundations research agenda. NSF funding matters to everyone, everywhere Today, American tax dollars supporting science go to every state in the union. The states with the most NSF grants awarded between 2011 and 2024 include several that voted Republican in the 2024 electionTexas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvaniaand several that voted Democratic, including Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Colorado. More than 1,800 public and private institutions, scattered across all 50 states, receive NSF funding. The grants pay the salaries of staff, faculty and students, boosting local employment and supporting college towns and cities. For states with major research univesities, those grants add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Even states with few universities each see tens of millions of dollars for research. As NSF grant recipients purchase lab supplies and services, those dollars support regional and national economies. When NSF budgets are cut and grants are terminated or never awarded, the harm trickles down and communities suffer. Initial NSF funding cuts are already rippling across the country, affecting both national and local economies in red, blue, and purple states alike. An analysis of a February 2025 proposal that would cut about $5.5 billion from National Institutes of Health grants estimated the ripple effect through college towns and supply chains would cost $6.1 billion in GDP, or total national productivity, and over 46,000 jobs. An uncertain future for American science Americas scientific research and training enterprise has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Yet, as NSF celebrates its 75th birthday, the future of American science is in doubt. Funding is increasingly uncertain, and politics is driving decisions, as Bush feared 80 years ago. A list of grants terminated by the Trump administration, collected both from government websites and scientists themselves, shows that by early May 2025, NSF had stopped funding more than 1,400 existing grants, totaling more than a billion dollars of support for research, research training, and education. Most terminated grants focused on educationthe core of science, technology and engineering workforce development critical for supplying highly skilled workers to American companies. For example, NSF provided 1,000 fewer graduate student fellowships in 2025 than in the decade beforea 50% drop in support for Americas best science students. American scientists are responding to NSFs downsizing in diverse ways. Some are pushing back by challenging grant terminations. Others are preparing to leave science or academia. Some are likely to move abroad, taking offers from other nations to recruit American experts. Science organizations and six prior heads of the NSF are calling on Congress to step up and maintain funding for science research and workforce development. If these losses continue, the next generation of American scientists will be fewer in number and less well prepared to address the needs of a population facing the threat of more extreme weather, future pandemics, and the limits to growth imposed by finite natural resources and other planetary limits. Investing in science and engineering is an investment in America. Diminishing NSF and the science it supports will hurt the American economy and the lives of all Americans. Paul Bierman is a professor of natural resources and environmental science at the University of Vermont. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||