The Art of Selling Doubt

How can we distinguish eco-mindful brands from the immoral companies utilising doubt to employ green-washing tactics in their predatory marketing?

Marketing and Morality: Are they compatible?

Marketing is to inform about a product or service via aural, literary, and visual communication – specifically to communicate “the unique, distinctive function of a business” (Silk, 2006). Naturally, there is undeniable bias in every example of marketing rhetoric, because to effectively influence an audience to part with their hard-earned money – no matter how useful or necessary a product may be – a brand will inexorably present itself in a positively-biased format.

Whether it’s immoral to omit your negative aspects is dependent on whether those aspects negatively affect other people. Ethics dictate that the affectation of other people against their will (i.e., in a way that affects that person’s autonomy of body or psyche) is unethical (Kilcullen & Ohles Kooistra, 1999) (Baron, 1996). Hence one could argue that if a product has no negative effects in its usage, then it cannot be immoral to market it to the public… the caveat being that it can also be argued that, even so, marketing is always inevitably manipulating a person against their will – whether for better or worse – by providing information in a biased delivery method. Essentially, marketing ethics’ pinnacle of morality comes in the form of questioning whether a company is being “truthful, accurate, complete, or exaggerated” (Andreasen, 2001).

While morality is subjective, and varies between culture marketing holds itself to its own standards – because it has to. For instance, it will inevitably upset people whose opinions are that Pepsi is the best cola, when Coca-Cola promotes itself as the superior beverage (Andreasen, 2001). Because of course it will – brands will inevitably exaggerate their claims using hyperbole. Legally, marketing practices expect observers to apply a practical amount of rationale to any information with which they are presented. But this line can be blurred beyond common knowledge, into the realm of deception. Marketers are free to hide behind hyperbole and the laws of personal responsibility (Szmigin, Bengry‐Howell, Griffin, Hackley, & Mistral, 2011) so that it is the consumer that is held accountable for the processing of information. It’s a concern that it is “during the process of comprehension [that] claims are accepted before being discredited” (Cowley, 2005). That processing time is where the doubts can creep in.

Doubt: A Marketing Tool

“[Doubt] is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public.”

This quote from Doubt is Their Product  (Michaels, 2008) explains how immoral marketing can flourish. Historically, tobacco companies hired scientists to question research being done on the effects of smoking, and deliberately instigate confusion about health concerns – obfuscating its connections and severity among the general public.

The same tactics occurred in the latter half of the 20th century when serious concerns raised around the effects of burning fossil fuels on climate change (Levy, 2023) were obstructed from public attention to ensure Big Oil’s economic success at the cost of the planet (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), by countries and companies alike. Today, the negative stereotyping around “hippies” and their communist ways don’t hide the facts behind ecological awareness. Brands changed tactics: by marketing under the guise of visual ecological stereotypes, it’s easier to pretend you’re environmentally responsible. This tactic falls under FUD – a marketing acronym, short for “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt”, said to be coined by Gene Amdahl in 1975, but appearing in the 1970s in response to the frustration with the marketing wars surrounding the computer industry (PRADS, Incorporated, 1975), (Elliott, 2003).

 

Research Methodology: Artificial Intelligence

What are visual ecological stereotypes? I employed a method of combining lexical prompts to extract an interpretation from AI. The use of AI has been a matter of much debate among the artistic and literary communities, and while it’s justified that we should be wary of replacing human creative talent with the inaccuracy-ridden, temperamental projections of an algorithm informed by the internet’s popular opinion, we can still use it as a complementary research tool (Venkatesh, 2021). AI usage is still up for ethical debate, but as concept-building toolkit, it’s something that visual artists can play with to garner a sense of popular opinion, established status and symbolism.

By typing prompts into programs like Firefly (Adobe, 2023), we immediately receive a global comprehensive impression of a concept. Utilising AI is the perfect way to learn what ecological branding looks like in the mainstream psyche – it is the ultimate visual communication of established ideas. However, it’s best to ratify computer simulation with actual human opinion.

Research Methodology: Interviews & Surveys

It is evident that visual branding – particularly the materials and colouring of packaging and print – does the legwork in communicating the intentions of a company’s broader purpose. This is likely because people have neither the time, inclination, nor resources to investigate. The survey I issued was clear in its responses; a quantifiably high percentage of people rely on their preconceptions of ecological stereotyping in packaging and print branding to comprehend whether or not a product is ecologically responsible in its manufacturing processes.

Responses included quantitative information – with the graph attached demonstrating that most respondents thought it important to shop with ecological impacts in mind (81% claiming it to be important, or very important); and 83%, and 67% of responses admitted that they overwhelmingly relied on the recyclability of packaging, and materials, respectively, to gage the ecological reliability of the products they purchased.

Qualitative responses came from a couple of questions, but I found it most fascinating to learn how people reasoned their inclinations to trust the companies that they believed to be responsible in ecological terms:

• “Because everything about them speaks ‘eco-friendly’ from product to packaging to supply chain. They appear to have the full package.”

• “I’ve seen marketing they’ve done based on their ecological values.”

• “Marketed as being environmentally friendly.”

• “Lush have sustainable packaging and use renewable products.”

• “[Smol] is sent in cardboard boxes which is highly recycled, the products don’t come in extra packaging as the dishwasher tablets…have a dissolvable film that keeps the tablets separate.”

When I enquired about packaging, replies were notoriously similar to one another, with very few outliers to what was expected:

• "Green” – a lot of Green!

• Beige, Khaki

• Paper, Cardboard, Metal

• Plant/lead motifs

This is what people expect – and confirms the AI analysis – when it comes to what colours, fonts, and materials people expect from ecological branding. And while my research was limited in its scope due to the small number of participants, it was evident through research into secondary sources (Gnatta, 2023) that people have come to expect a certain aesthetic from green, eco-minded brands.

In marketing, however, there is always someone ready and waiting in the shadows to take advantage of these apparently widely assumed patterns in branding, which we all take for granted. This alleged “common knowledge” is key in the application of underhanded marketing tactics by companies and brands which will ride the wave of any trend in order to appear current. Unfortunately, they cannot put their money where their mouth is – and will do anything to hold on to those profits. Enter greenwashing – the latest guise of marketeer doubt. 

Greenwashing: What is it?

Greenwashing is the obfuscation involved when companies portray their business, products, and philanthropic activities as ecologically aligned and ethical – but are in fact doing little or nothing to ensure sustainable or ecological practices within the company policy or production processes. Often these claims are negated in legal terms by loopholes in how language is utilised, including claims of hyperbole and a lack of guidelines in law around what it means to ‘be green’ – but it’s very hit and miss as to whether the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority can call company claims to heel (Dahl, 2010).

          An example would be Clorox’s GreenWorks and its launch slogan “Finally, Green Works!” which not only implies that the product is an ecological ‘green’ product, but also implies that all products that came before – both Clorox own and other companies’ products – were not ecological enough to be effective in their ‘green’ promises. The problem is that not only was it full of chemicals that were found to be toxic to the environment and people alike (Tennery, 2011), but that Clorox also tested – and continues to test – its products on animals (PETA.org, 2023).

How to Escape the Greenwashing Crowd

I played around with the idea of rebranding companies with known apathy towards ecological care or awareness, designing new packaging and branding based on my research. I remodelled the Evian red-and-white plastic water bottle into a box, made from recycled cardboard and sugarcane ‘plastic’ replacements, with a cellulose lining to allow the entire structure to be both waterproof as well as biodegradable. After all, plenty of coffee cups, while made from paper and card externally, are lined with a non-degradable plastic to retain a liquid host – which sort of defeats the point to eco-mindedness in the paper straws department (Vogel, 2006). They dissolve in your drink before you’re finished!

My personal preference for boldness in branding, and Sylvain Boyer’s marketing strategies of softer palettes being more sympathetic to the cause of CMYK reduced ink and paper usage, led me to wonder: if greenwashing is so prevalent, would it be beneficial if society can move away from the monochromatic “greenest green” (Boyer, 2019) stereotype, and instead embrace a plethora of unique company identities, with the aim of making the future of eco-branding more colourful, memorable, bold, and obvious?

If green-washing companies are going to hijack the visual communication associated with recyclable papers, greens, browns, beiges, and jutes to mislead, why not break the mould? It may be a better idea to employ eye-catching, dynamic branding – giving customers a clear and unique brand image with which to identify; and in doing so, encourage a culture wherein we are more aware of our purchasing habits (with a little extra effort when it comes to research). And, in turn, being able to make purchases with confidence and verifiable information that has been clearly, quickly, accurately, and effectively communicated. I ended up doing my own case study on what was a successful rebranding of the company Wild Cosmetics (if success in marketing is indicated by increases in sales since, which, it is – size, market share, and profitability (Kay, 1993)).

Colour Theory 101

When investigating digital or print branding, we must first consider some digital colour theory – after all, colour is more than just a little influential when it comes to the presentation of brand purpose and identity.

The additive colour model, also known as RGB colour (Red, Green, Blue) goes from dark to light colours. It is the colour model we use in artistic settings, adding more of either red, green, or blue to create various shades of any colour on the spectrum.

The subtractive colour model includes the primary CMYK colours (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black) which go from light to dark – these are utilised in printing, and depending on the amounts used, can change the final colour perceived by the human eye.

This is essential knowledge, because while online creation of digital branding is perfectly workable as is in the age of the internet, and your computer screen RGB display can display about 16 million tints and shades, print advertising and packaging is far more limited in its scope on the visible light spectrum. Hence, it’s important in marketing to consider the CMYK methods for print when designing brightly coloured visuals.

Colours are arguably the most important factor when communicating visually. It’s the first thing that catches our eyes (Rani, 2015). Speaking anthropologically, humans being apes means that colour has always been essential to gathering the correct nutrients, identifying edible fruits and vegetation, and recognising danger (Regan, et al., 2021). So, it makes sense that colour is the superlative element of visual design. In a more modern human psyche, colour can trigger connections to past emotions and experiences in all sensory capacities. Additive and subtractive colour models help in visually communicating aesthetically pleasing – and vice versa, aesthetically repulsive – messages. Plus – when CMYK printing, the colour green uses more ink.

“Fruit. It’s just God showing off. ‘Look at all the colours I know!”

                 — (Dylan Moran, 2006)

Johnson Banks and the Rebranding of Wild Cosmetics

The original Wild start up site was designed by a team at Eastside Co., and though it’s true that it’s somewhat colourful (self-described), it still aligns with the stereotypical eco-branding greens, and pastels on cardboard vibe; accompanied by models with au natural, healthful exuberance. There are also the accreditation symbols we’d expect to see from an ecologically mindful brand (Stokes, 2020).

But visually, it’s boring. It’s cliché, fading into the lineup of any other burgeoning reusable deodorant start-up. It’s obscuring any semblance of uniqueness in brand identity, rather than creating any semblance of tone, connectivity, or the product’s USP in a growing marketplace of green products and brands.

Even the typography accounts for underpinning the branding – the font/typeface used here is Brandon and it just isn’t as playful and bold as the logo would imply the company wishes to appear. It disappears into the colour scheme. Key phrases require literal underlining in certain sentences because the paragraphs are too bulky, and communication tactics are too convoluted.

If this brand wants to live up to its name, I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of any copywriter, and the Johnson Banks Design Team (Heaton, Keeffe, & Lennon, 2022), in the opinion that Wild needed to embolden itself, become more fun and engaging, and appeal to audiences with imagery that stands out from the eco crowd.

“The biggest part of the project was to develop a quirkier tone of voice and a photographic style that we began and they could continue – in short creating a far brighter, punchier and ‘wilder’ design toolkit.”

                 — Johnson Banks Design Team (Heaton, Keeffe, & Lennon, 2022)

Colour was the most recognisable change in the Wild redesign, and it fit with our most primal, positive psychological reaction to colour: fruit – the most vitalising of natural resources.

Garish. Kitsch. Gauche.

Individually, each harmonious colour palette in the redesign, coupled with the occasional complimentary colour set, works for its intended purpose: Catch the eye of the passer-by. As wide as the spectrum of colour may be, the “Go Green” message is very literally portrayed, in both the verbal and photographic elements of the re-brand: this is nature meeting its modern application.

Its categorical imperative is to relay the knowledge of the existence of this company, and its positive action, its exciting aura, and the kind of person who would be engaging with them in commerce. It asks the observer: are you ecological? Natural? Playful? Bold? It invites its viewer to fulfil the role of the anonymous hero (Lester, 2006) (carefully obscured in these set-ups with appropriate props to allow whomsoever would wish to self-insert to do so).

The Future of Ethical Eco-Marketing

          So far, my creative research has returned an extrapolative view of ethical ecological marketing – the view being of an ethical minefield, particularly when neither consumers nor the law know how to identify the right qualifiers. There are certifications and accreditations galore, but by simply putting a symbol on your packaging that claims the product is made from recycled materials (even if it isn’t recyclable in its final form) can convince shoppers to put their money in the pockets of morally grey – and not morally green – businesses. By employing the classic marketing tool of doubt in both lobbying and terminological situations, brands can utilise our assumptions to trick us into taking cultural myth as common knowledge to tactically disguise themselves into the genuinely ecological mindful crowd.

          I believe it is crucial to the industry that visual communication exhibits the indisputable and evidential facts when it comes to company action and brand intention – and that it could not only be suggestible as a USP, but to distinguish a brand’s awareness of their unique identity outside of the assumed ‘green’ crowd in the marketplace, to not rely on classic eco-branding to identify a truly ethical brand. Direct communication is key.

References

 

Adobe. (2023). Retrieved from Adobe Firefly: https://firefly.adobe.com/

Andreasen, A. R. (2001). Ethics in Social Marketing. Washington D.C. USA.: Georgetown University Press.

Baron, J. (1996). Do No Harm. Codes of Conduct: Behavioral Research Into Business Ethics, 197-213.

Boyer, S. (2019). Greenest Green. designboom, Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.designboom.com/design/french-designer-greenest-green-ink-consumes-less-ink-12-24-2021

Cowley, E. (2005). Processing Exaggerated Advertising Claims. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 728-734.

Dahl, R. (2010). Green Washing: Do You Know What You’re Buying? Environmental Health Perspectives, A246 - A252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.118-a246

Elliott, G. P. (2003). School Mobbing and Emotional Abuse: See it - Stop it - Prevent it with Dignity and Respect. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK.: Routledge.

Gnatta. (2023, April). The Future of Eco-Friendly Products: A Trend Analysis Report. Retrieved from Gnatta.com: https://gnatta.com/blog/future-eco-friendly-products-trend-analysis-report

Heaton, K., Keeffe, D., & Lennon, J. (2022). Go Wild. Johnson Banks. London, UK.: Johnson Banks.

Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of Corporate Success: How Business Strategies Add Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kilcullen, M., & Ohles Kooistra, J. (1999). At least do no harm: sources on the changing role of business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Reference Services Review, 158-178.

Lester, P. M. (2006). Visual Communication: Images with Messages. Belmont, CA. USA.: Thomson Wadsworth.

Levy, A. (2023, May 30). Scientists warned about climate change in 1965. Nothing was done. Knowable Magazine. Adam Levy, 30th May 2023. Scientists warned about climate change in 1965. Nothing was done. Knowable Magazine | Annual Reviews. . doi:doi:10.1146/knowable-052523-1

Lewis, D., May, N., & et al. (2022). WWF-UK Annual Report and Financial Statements. London: WWF.

Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:ISBN: 0199719764

Moran, D. (Director). (2006). Like, Totally [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London, UK.: Bloomsbury Press.

PETA.org. (2023). Beauty Without Bunnies. Retrieved from Cruelty Free: https://crueltyfree.peta.org/company/green-works-clorox

PRADS, Incorporated. (1975). Clothes. Clothes, 14-24.

Rani, R. M. (2015). A Guide to Visual Presentation. Rockport Publishers. doi:ISBN 978-1-63159-103-7

Regan, B. C., Julliot, C., Simmen, B., F. Viénot, P., Charles–Dominique, & Mollon, J. D. (2021). Fruits, foliage and the evolution of primate colour vision. The Royal Society, 356(1407).

Silk, A. J. (2006). What is Marketing? Boston, MA. USA.: Harvard Business Press.

Stokes, J. (2020). Wild Deodorant. London, UK.: Eastside Co. Retrieved from https://eastsideco.com/portfolio/wild-deo

Szmigin, I., Bengry‐Howell, A., Griffin, C., Hackley, C., & Mistral, W. (2011). Social marketing, individual responsibility and the “culture of intoxication”. European Journal of Marketing, 759-779.

Tennery, A. (2011, November 22). 4 'green' claims to be wary of. The Big Money; American College of Toxicology.

Venkatesh, V. (2021). Adoption and use of AI tools: a research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Annals of Operation Research, 308(January 2022), 641–652. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03918-9

Vogel, D. ( 2006). The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington, D.C. USA: Brookings Institution Press.