Pushing The Brand

It’s been more than a week since Governor Douglas issued his “Next Steps on Climate Change” plan and I’m still waiting for somebody to point out that his proposal isn’t offering a profound vision of the future but rather a modest continuation of the state's existing branding initiative first undertaken in 1998. The most recent (2003) O’Neal Vermont Brand Report (illustrated here) reiterated earlier findings that our clean, pure, and natural environment is our most valuable marketing asset.

The Douglas proposal is an attempt to leverage the one substantive attribute on the list – Authenticity. The other attributes are simple observations that, by themselves, are difficult to leverage.  Authenticity on the other hand defines the character of the state – not just its superficial attributes.

For example, Disney World is peaceful and clean with lots of outdoor fun but it hardly compares to Vermont (except Woodstock perhaps?) because everybody knows it’s artificial. So, even if a Disney greenskeeper does know more about growing grass than a Vermont farmer, most people wouldn’t ask the greenskeeper for advice on growing hay.  Likewise, few people would ask the state of New Jersey for advice about pollution even though that state arguably has more of it than anyplace. Instead, people prefer to ask Vermont because we aren’t polluted and they’d like to believe it’s because of something we did right.

Douglas’s strategy is, perhaps unintentionally, based on an emerging marketing strategy first identified by Gilmore and Pine in their recent book, “Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want”. The basic theory being that in a world of ubiquitous copycat products, people are looking for things with history or a story that differentiates them from the rest. The Vermont brand is money in the bank because we are widely recognized as authentic while the rest of the world is filled with deliberately and sensationally staged fakes.

The most fascinating aspect of the Douglas report is that it has thus far only been assessed on its merits – i.e. do carbon credits work or will UVM be effective in the endeavor.  But, if the plan is based on the marketing strategy of authenticity, it doesn’t much matter if carbon credits work or if we really are the best in the field. Only perceptions matter and they only matter to the extent that we can capitalize on them.

What’s not to love about this plan? The environmentalists at UVM will get paid to study anything they like so long as it contributes to the perception of climate change expertise. And, the business community will be able to capitalize on the perception of authenticity, real or otherwise, without guilt because for one brief moment the objectives of environmentalist and entrepreneurs will have converged.