Is ‘green’ making marketers lazy?

In his recent article “A Clockwork Green” Michael Mercier proposed adding key descriptors to make the general term ‘green’ more specific. “For example, a label such as ‘Green Community Contributor’ would clearly tell consumers that a brand has programs that give back.”

I applaud the impulse and desire for clear communication. Yet labels like “Green Community Contributor” and “Green Nonpolluting Packaging” aren’t all that clarifying for me. Why not simplify and stick to what it is “Nonpolluting Packaging”? Without the term green, the phrase still goes a long way to explaining how this company operates in a less harmful manner.

To be clear, I recognize the power of green. The benefit of a broad term is that without a lot of background knowledge (scientific or otherwise) anyone can conclude that a green company addresses environmental or social concerns. In certain cases, when referring to a broad effort across industries or the general ‘green space,’ it’s very helpful and appropriate to use such a broad term.

The downfall is that the term has become so broad and standard-less that any company or person can throw it around without actually doing anything environmentally or socially beneficial. It has become so easy to use the word that sometimes marketers just miss the point—communicating the unique benefits of their product. Like the examples above, in these instances, I have to question the relevance of using green. If green is more distracting and confusing than clarifying then why use it at all?

The concepts under the umbrella of green are deeply exciting, but we shouldn’t use this buzzword at the cost of communicating real value. The basics of marketing communications still hold strong: Stick to a unique value proposition that is clear, compelling and relevant to consumer needs.

But what do you think? Is green an automatic go?