Bombs awayyyyyy! Watch out for that tree.

Just saw on my friend's Facebook page an image of a 'seedbomb'. Was so impressed with it that I had to share!  Who would have guessed the day when weapons of mass destruction become weapons of mass plantation :)

The tree bombs have funnel shaped tin bottoms filled with fertilizer, and will plant themselves when they hit the ground. As the trees take root, the tin disintegrates. The idea is to plant these trees in deforested and otherwise hard to reach areas. As many as 1 billion trees could be planted in a year—that is a bunch of C02 eaters on the ground. Successful tests have been performed by one of these planes in several remote places, including Scotland and China. This method is a direct and more permanent solution to the problem than some of the other projects on this list, it is one idea that is not that hard to implement on a large scale.

Want to get your hands on a seedbomb? Check out greenaid's website for home garden seedbombs to grown your own edibles such as arugula. For $39.99 you get a gift pack of little round seedbombs; it even comes with a slingshot!  I definitely will need to try this out this summer. Watch out neighbours.

Carpooling and the likes of Lyft. A Sustainable future, and open people!

One of the automatic benefits of living in a start-up saturated city such as San Francisco is that you get to try new things all the time; some of which go on to be big things. There is an app or start up for pretty much everything. 

Take Lyft (www.lyft.me) for example. Lyft is an on-demand ridesharing app for a cheaper, safer ride. It came about in response to the horrible city cab service and limited availabilities; Lyft provided an opportunity for locals with a car to give people rides in return for a suggested donation. All drivers are fully insured and background checked. There is also a driver and rider rating system integrated into the app to ensure some standards are in place. 

My favourite thing about Lyft is that it is extremely easy to request a Lyft from the mobile app. A map view showing the whereabouts of the driver and the estimated time of arrival is much appreciated. I only had to link my credit card details at registration and don't have to worry about carrying cash or card with me with taking Lyft.  

There are other alternative companies such as Lyft available in San Francisco, such as Uber and Side Car. I haven't yet tried their services but they offer the same service. 

There is also the likes of Zipcar and Car2Go, a car sharing self-service where users pay for all inclusive use of car rentals by the hour. The cars are usually located through the city at different predetermined parking lots. 

SO, how is taking a lift better than driving your own car and/or taking a cab?

1) Save money and time

A vehicle provides freedom but at the cost of quite a few pennies. One friend of mine calculated that she spends nearly $12,000 a year on her car - a sedan. Not on "blinging" up the car but for parking, insurance, tickets, check-ups, fuel, and replacements. 

2) Less green house gas emissions 

Having fewer cars on the road means reduced Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and improved air quality. The average passenger vehicle emits about 423 grams of CO2 per mile and 5.1 metric tons per year. Which is fueling global warming. 


3) Less traffic 

Everyone hates getting stuck in traffic. If you carpool you can go on the HOV lane and also contribute to less traffic. It's more fun to commute with others too! Does your work facilitate carpooling? 


Do you currently carpool or take ride sharing options like Lyft? Or do you own a car and cannot fathom living life without it?  

We are now living in an era where consumers are open to collaborative consumption. Now you can derive more value from a good, and socially benefit the environment and your community at the same time. Yay! Are we moving forward or backwards? Either way, I predict that this generation will be less materialistic. Okay, maybe not 'predict' but more 'wishful' that humans are advancing in this way. 

And the greatest part is that these services are SO very easy to join and use on a regular basis. I used to desire a sleek gas guzzler to call my own, but after looking at the costs and benefits - its much healthier for the planet to choose the alternative of ride sharing and carpooling. In fact, at the moment, my roommates and I (five of us) all share one vehicle and it's working out very well so far! 



==
Sources: 

www.lyft.me
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Trade Offs in The Power of Packaging

Some people may say ‘one cannot judge a book by its cover’ but shoppers often judge product by its ‘packaging’. Successful execution of package design and package material can give products a facelift, increase sales, unify products within a brand, or reaffirm brand identity (Marketing News, 2011). In addition, changing consumer lifestyles are influencing consumer behaviour towards product consumption and packaging. Mintel (2011) research found that the biggest contributor to household waste is the fast growing one-person household who have a higher rate of consumption of ready meals and convenience food. Also, packaging for FMCG products has evolved to become more than a functional necessity, it is an important marketing tool for standing out from the crowd and reaching target markets. Furthermore, consumers’ attitude and behaviour towards packaging, including its storage and usage, has environmental implications for marketers. At what costs to the environment are consumers and businesses willing to trade to make the sale? In the 1990’s, author of sustainable lifestyles, David Wann stated “...the packaging for a microwavable "microwave" dinner is programmed for a shelf life of maybe six months, a cook time of two minutes and a landfill dead-time of centuries.” In today’s environmentally conscious consumer world, his words continue to ring true, as it is unavoidable for the packaging industry to produce without considering environmental consequences.

What is the Purpose of Packaging?

Packaging typically refers to the material in which a product is packed - or more specifically, the surface design on the material. A wider definition includes all the various aspects of presenting a product - e.g. the shape size and appearance of the packaging, colour and design, and the convenience of using the packaging (The Times 100, 2011).  The importance of packaging can be illustrated by its industry spend. In the UK, £5.6 billion was spent in 2009 on packaging materials for the food and drinks industry alone (Mintel, 2011). Although the basic functions for packaging are to protect and contain goods, provide convenience, and communicate, there is a stronger reliance on its non-functional role in sales and promotion of a product (West, 2011). Effective packaging is found to increase sales by better satisfaction of customer needs through visual cues of quality (Wright and Rathmell, 1958). Shoppers are able to separate the brand from others and identify the information they need in order to purchase a product by reading the package label or identifying with its package design. In earlier days, Ernest Dichter in 1958, stated that an effective package must “reach out” by offering the consumer:

·      convenience,

·      adaptability (to domestic storage requirements),

·      security (assurance and quality),

·      status and prestige (the act of purchase is an expression of the consumer’s personality),

·      dependability (reliance on the manufacturer), and

·      aesthetic satisfaction (pleasure in design, odour, and shape of the package).

Fast-forward 50 years later, researchers find this criteria set by Dichter still relevant but emphasis colour, typography, graphic forms and illustrations as most influential on perceptions today (Ampeuero and Vila, 2006). The main additional challenge for today is the increased competition on store shelves. Marketers are forced to find more innovative means through packaging to reach their target market. Packaging is crucial for FMCG products, especially as it could be the first and last thing that the customer sees before making the final decision to buy (Louw and Kimber, 2010). The consequences of bad package design could do the reverse and lead to a decrease in sales, negative impact on the brand, and even kill off the product. A widely discussed example is of Tropicana, a juice products brand, which saw their sales drop by 20% in fewer than two months of redesigning their cartons (Marketing News, 2011). It was found that consumers had an emotional bond with the brand; the new packaging resembled a generic store brand. The loss of the iconic orange no longer reinforced the fresh, not-from-concentrate idea in the mind. In other words, packaging can hold strategic importance for product sales and promotion; it is the visual that signals the brand’s familiarity in the mind.

New and Old Tropicana Packaging

Packaging and Product Branding

In a competitive marketplace, packaging can be deployed strategically by product differentiation through the development of a brand for your product. A brand’s image could be directly affected by packaging as it communicates a brand’s values and benefits (Louw and Kimber, 2010).  An attractive brand image for a product enables a firm to differentiate its homogenous physical product or service and avoid competition, ultimately leading to sales (Chaneta, 2010). To illustrate, a study found that 18-24 year-olds are willing to switch drink products because of eye-catching packaging (Mintel, 2011). Modern marketers believe that packaging is much more powerful than advertising for reaching target markets and much more influential on consumers on how they perceive and experience the product and brand (Hofmeyr and Rice, 2000), especially for products with low advertising support (Rundh, 2005). Most FMCG product purchase decisions are mostly made at the time of purchase and tend to be low involvement products – further requiring packaging that makes the product stand out from the rest. Differentiation can also be achieved through innovative use of colour, a unique shape/structure, a strong logo/brand mark, or a unique visual icon (Louw and Kimber, 2010). Capitalizing on this knowledge is Heineken, who recently redesigned its can, adding texture to make it look like condensation in order to make their product more visible and a more enjoyable drinking experience (Fuhrman, 2011). The update of its package supports their brand, known for driving innovation in their industry. Another study discovered children were attracted to yoghurt packaging that were brighter and showed cartoon characters, leading mothers to prefer those products – ultimately driving brand choice (Siloyai and Speece, 2004).

Packaging also has the power to reinforce brand values over time by continually satisfying the customer, as it is the only part of marketing communication that the consumer takes home. It can also increase or support ongoing sales from existing customers with a product usage focus on the package (i.e. drink more) (Barker, 2011). Thus, package labelling and information is significant in consumers product choice at point-of-purchase and can provide reassurance post-purchase.

Storage and Usage

Brands are investigating ways to better reach their consumers with packaging through consumer research on storage and usage. A recent Mintel research report found that the trends in packaging include increased usability; consumers are demanding easy to open and re-sealable packaging so that goods can be stored longer. Also, consumers are looking at businesses and government in reducing packaging waste. Interestingly, the over 55 year-olds are keen on changing their lifestyle habits to benefit the environment, such as buying recyclable products (Mintel, 2011). This indicates that new consumer attitudes and lifestyles need to be taken into consideration in designing packaging in order to appeal to shoppers. Summit Brewing Co., responded to changing customer needs for easy-to-open packaging. After receiving numerous comments from their customers about the difficulty in twisting open their bottle caps, they developed ‘pry-off caps’ which also improved quality (Fuhrman, 2011). In this case, Summit Brewing Co., were aiming to influence sales and customer loyalty through improving ease of use of the packaging.

Wider Environmental Costs of Packaging

Consumers are experiencing busier lifestyles with less time and less favourableness towards cooking at home (INCPEN, 2011). This is leading to more ready-meals, which demand more packaging and in turn, lead to more waste. In fact, in the UK 10 million tonnes of packaging are used each year to protect all goods purchased by businesses and consumers, with each household generating about 4kg of packaging waste a week (INCPEN, 2008). Packaging manufacturers and brands are already working together in reducing packaging, albeit nudging higher costs, in anticipation of increasing environmentally influenced consumer attitudes and behaviour. This is leading to an innovation drive in the packing industry to come up with more appealing packaging that catches-the-eye and better packaging solutions for the environment. One successful company to have achieved such a mammoth task is local UK brewery Adnam’s Brewery who have reduced their glass usage for their bottles by 624 tonnes a year and also being named the first carbon neutral beer; helping to boost their sales for beer by nine percent (CBI, 2009).

UK Households Have Weekly Wastage of 4kg

Findings and studies on consumer behaviour in terms of packaging and environmental concerns, portray consumers becoming more aware of the impact of their activities on the environment (i.e. waste from packaging) but are not necessarily changing their actions to match the increasing attitudes on environmental friendliness. Studies conducted by Perception Research Services found that almost half of shoppers believe they should be responsible for recycling and are more interested in recyclable products (Rokka and Uusitalo, 2008) with 30 percent indicating they would like to choose more environmentally friendly packaging; however, this finding is contrasted by the fact that less than 18 percent of consumers actually check whether the product is environmentally friendly or recyclable before purchasing (Sandoval, 2010). This demonstrates that although consumers are increasingly becoming more aware and favourable towards environmentally friendly products, at the point-of-purchase they are more influenced by other factors more pertinent to their needs and wants (i.e. price, brand, etc.). Product marketers will need to reconsider whether environmental-friendliness and packaging is really an important attribute for consumers in purchase decisions. However, Danone Waters of America use environmentally friendly packaging to help consumers feel good about the purchase and feel encouraged to recycle (Fuhrman, 2011).

In conclusion, it’s becoming clear that consumers would rather rely on manufacturers to provide products and packaging that they can feel good about, without changing their behaviour, giving up performance/quality, or paying more. For today’s marketers, packaging is an integral marketing tool for FMCG products in reaching and engaging with target markets. Effective marketing communication via packaging can make customers feel good about their purchase; thus reinforce behaviour with brand choice. Re-sealability in packaging and innovative packaging design can help increase sales by catching the eye on cluttered shelf space. And with environmental friendly packaging, consumers are still demanding businesses and manufacturers to be the action-taker with reducing packaging and wastage. For future research, it would be interesting to research the long-term consumption or loyalty effects from switching products based on packaging.

References

Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. (2006) Consumer Perceptions of Product Packaging,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23 (2), pp. 100-112.

Barker, A. (2011). Strategic Marketing Analysis. Analysis and Strategy for Marketing Communications. University of Westminster, unpublished.

CBI. (2009) Adnams – Sustainability hits the bottle. [Online] Available at: < http://climatechange.cbi.org.uk/business/case-studies/adnams-sustainability-hits-the-bottle> [Accessed 08 September 2011].

Chaneta, I. (2010) Marketing: Packaging and branding. Journal of Comprehensive Research, 8, pp. 19

Dichter, E. (1958) How good a salesman is your package? The Management Review, January pp. 34-35.

Fuhram, E. (2011) Packaging changes keep sales up. Beverage Industry [e-journal]. Available through: Business Source Complete database [Accessed 06 September 2011].

Hofmeyr, J. and Rice, B. (2000) Commitment-Led Marketing. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

INCPEN. (2008) Packaging in perspective. [Online] Advisory Committee on Packaging. Available at: http://incpen.org/docs/PackaginginPerspective.pdf [Accessed 10 September 2011].

INCPEN. (2011) The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 September 2011].

Louw, A. and Kimber, M. (2007) The Power of Packaging. The Customer Equity Company. TNS (UK). Available at: http://www.tnsglobal.com/_assets/files/The_power_of_packaging.pdf [Accessed 09 September 2011].

Marketing News. (2011) Packaging: Thinking outside the box. 45(4), pp.12-16.

Mintel (2011) Food and Drink Packaging Trends January 2011 [Online]. London: Mintel. Available from http://www.academic.mintel.com [Accessed 23 August 2011].

Rokka, J. and Uusitalo, L. (2008) Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices – Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, pp. 516-525

Rundh, B. (2005) The multi-faceted dimension of packaging: Marketing logistic or marketing tool? British Food Journal, 107 (9) pp.670–684.

Sandoval, A. (2010) Packaging and the environment: Shoppers say “It’s not my problem”. [Online] Perception Research Services International. Available at: [Accessed 25 September 2011].

Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004) Packaging and Purchase Decisions, British Food Journal, 106 (8) pp. 607-608.

Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., and Hogg, M. (2009) Consumer behaviour: European perspective. Financial Times/Prentice Hall. 4 ed.

The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment. (2011) www.incpen.org [Accessed 02 September 2011].

Packaging Digest, Jan2011, Vol. 48 Issue 1, p20-20, 1p [Accessed from database] Business Source Complete.

The Times 100. (2011) Marketing techniques. The Times 100. [Online]. Available at:  [Accessed 03 September 2011].

West, Richard. (2011) Packaging and branding. Sales Promotion and Management. University of Westminster, unpublished.

Wright, J.S. and Rathmell, J.M. (1958) Storage and packaging. Journal of Marketing, 23(1) pp. 92-93

Bibliography

Mullin, R. (2010) Sales promotion: How to create, implement & integrate campaigns that really work. 5^th ed. Kogan Page Publishers: London, United Kingdom.

Official Board Markets. (2011) Consumers Resist Packaging Recycling Burden. The Yellow Sheet: Official Board Markets, 87(17). Available through: Business Source Complete database [Accessed 06 September 2011].

Wood, A. (2011) Adnam’s brewery goes carbon neutral. Energy Rethinking. [Conference]. London: Institute of Directors, Pall Mall. [Date attended: 02 March 2011].