Let's change people's minds!

Green hot rodders

More on fuel efficiency.

The procedure has been around for a while but it sure starts to seem more like an innovation - Plug-in cars.

Although the hybrid industry with Toyota and Honda in lead has done everything to persuade people it's not about plug-in, people are doing it. By adding extra batteries to their Prius they receive up to 250 MPG. And now the industry starts to listen as well. I think this statement from Toyota very well examples that the real innovators are the users who want the little extra:

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."

So, now you have a choice. Fuel your CNG car with natural gas, or plug in your hybrid. Just add a vending machine and your own garage will offer full 24h service.

Nearest gas station: 0 miles!

For a new product to succeed it has to be better. It has to do a job people like to get done, and it has to do it better than previous solutions.

Honda has just come up with such a product. The PHILL. It makes it possible to fill your car at home, while you are sleeping, and to a rate that sure will give you sweet dreams. If you have a CNG car, that is.

The problem with CNG (compressed natural gas either drilled or from landfill gas) has always been the infrastructure. How do we get enough filling stations out to secure the demand of the cars and how do we get enough cars out on the market to create sufficient demand of gas? Especially when other solutions such as ethanol, biodiesel and in future, fuel cells, will compete in the same marketplace.

But while nobody saw the woods because of all the trees, Honda did just that. They saw that the infrastructure is in fact out there already and it could be much more compelling to drivers than the current alternative. By using the PHILL appliance CNG drivers in California now actually can use their own gas equipment in their homes to fill their cars. So instead of driving to odd places to find CNG, PHILL users now barely ever have to visit a gas station at all. And, on top of that, they pay about a buck for a gallon.

I am not saying this is an immediate success. But it's sure very interesting and puts the concept of fuel and its distribution in a completely new perspective. And I just love my own CNG V70 a little extra.

Wouldn't it be nice...

Haven't we seen so many presentations of new groundbreaking technology starting with those words?  Too many, perhaps.

But often, people don't think it's nice. Or, more correctly, not nice enough to buy. Take a look at this offer (put your European glasses on):

Wouldn't it be nice to buy a Volvo V70 that takes you 100 kilometres for SEK 70 ($9), that decreases greenhouse gasses with between 30 and 100 per cent and with no bad smelling emissions when filling to a price 10 per cent lower than other V70s?

Really? If you live in Sweden you then still have the opportunity. About 50 vehicles alike are still available on the Swedish market right now. But more likely you belong to those who still think CNG (compressed natural gas) is something you only have heard of, still waiting for friends of yours to buy one. Then, here I am:

I bought my V70 Bi-Fuel last week. A 2003 model, it cost me SEK 195,000. Taking a look at bilweb.com (Sweden's largest car buyer's website) I conclude it was in fact the lowest priced V70 in the whole nation, taking milage, equipment and model year (but not fuel system) into account. As this particular car as new actually is priced about SEK 30,000 above an equal traditional model, this means a lot more people like expensive, bad smelling gasoline cars instead of those using clean and cheap gas.

Why is this? Well, one reason is probably that you never have seen an ad for this car, have you? And talking to Volvo people they say this is only "in waiting for" (in waiting for what??). There are no proud people out there telling you this is a great car, running on a great fuel. The CNG stations are normally small and located in industrial areas so normal people never sees them and the prices are never displayed.

Adoption is not only about rational thinking. It's much more about emotions. And what emotions do you have about a car that its maker isn't proud of, when you are standing there in the industrial area, under no roof.

Honda makes hydrogen less futuristic

Jim Motavalli of New York Times has been driving Honda's hydrogen car FCX for a week. And he gives us some interesting remarks, both when it comes to the characteristics of hydrogen driving, but also on how to make new futuristic products look less futuristic and more "now".

A small two-door hatchback with seating for four, it came with traction control, a CD player and even an automatic climate-control system. There may be fewer than two dozen of these cars in the world, but Honda went to the trouble of giving this one classy floor mats embroidered with the FCX logo.

It seems to make a lot of sence that making experimental products look experimental will cement our perceptions of the technology as, well eh - experimental. So how would we perceive it if it looked more contemporary?

Expert advice made simple

The Internet-based car buyer's guide Edmunds.com has launched an expert section on fuel effiency, energy development and what you can do to improve your own fuel consumption.

It's really not rocket science. And that's what makes it so good. Easy-to-grasp advice in the right place. They mix hands-on information with the opportunity to build a effective but sufficient knowledge base. Or what about this very easy, down-to-earth explanation about the state of energy (which still means OIL):

Bringing this discussion down to a practical and personal level, it seems that Americans need to make several important realizations:

1. Oil is not an infinite resource.
2. Remaining supplies of oil should be used wisely.
3. Alternative sources of energy need to be brought on line soon.

Think of these issues the next time you fill up your tank or the next time you buy a car.

Spinning meters

A couple of months ago I was researching the solar power industry in Southern California. I visited manufacturers, installers, advisors and not least owners of photovoltaics. My goal? To understand what makes people investing some $30,000 with a pay back time of more than 10 years. The reasons varied of course. Conciousness about climate change, tech-interest, independece of foreign energy sources etc. But after some time with each respondent I more often than not ran into one very specific reason:

People love to see their meters spinning backwards.

As the daytime energy surplus is sent back on the grid the energy meters spin backwards and thus showing the daily gain from people's private power unit very explicitly. That was what really turned out to be the key to why people invest. They want to make a gain, no matter how much they have invested to achieve it.

I have previously argued that same mechanisms are driving the sales of Toyota Prius. As the payback time of a Prius comared to a similar non-hybrid vehicle is about 3-4 years, pure economic reasons simply don't fit. It's obviously something else. It's the wonderful feeling of spending less, eventhough you have spent a lot more on the car.

At least one person confirms this. Dr Peter H. Gleick, a distinguished climate change researcher and President of the Pacific Institute in Oakland writes about his new Prius:

This car has changed my driving habits. The Prius comes with a remarkable computer screen capable of displaying sufficient information to warm any data freak’s heart. For example, it displays a graph of average fuel efficiency every five minutes. It shows how much energy the regenerative breaking system puts back into its special battery. It displays instantaneous miles per gallon, along with a schematic showing which part of the gas-electric-hybrid system is in use at any moment......My goal, which used to be to get from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time, is now to get from point A to point B with the highest level of fuel efficiency. I’ve gone from a lead-foot to a feather-foot. I wave at other Prius owners. I can drive from my home to the State Capitol in Sacramento at 65 miles per hour and get 50 miles per gallon. But I also know I can drive the same route at 60 miles per hour and get 52 miles per gallon and arrive only seven minutes later.

Both the solar power and the Prius example clearly show how visual  aids may stimulate a changed behavior. And that the achievements in relation to prior achievements are much more important than the achievements in relation to the effect of climate change.

The face of an innovator

An innovator isn't someone who invents something. That's an inventor (apparently). An innovator is a person that develops a new behavior around an idea or a technology. And who tries to find out how to make use of it and how to profit from it.

Love them.

They are the ones who take the high risks of failing. They are the one who accept high costs only to "find out". And they are the ones who pave the way for new products that eventually will be in a store near you.

Tim Bennecker in Tahoma, Washington is an innovator. He now probably evaluates what way he best can make use of his 1,700-gallon underground rainwater cistern in his yard. The system that set him back almost $5,000 now can be used to irrigate the lawn, flush the toilets and wash his clothes. But it won't make him rich. In fact he never expect  to see a positive net. He just would like to test it.

However I wouldn't be so sure. What so wonderful with innovative people and technology is that they love each other so much. Cause what wouldn't you be able to to with your own cistern:

- Start selling irrigation to your neighbors
- Become a flourist
- Add purification technology and get better-than-bottled-water for free

But also. Innovation isn't always about saving or making money. How about building waterfalls and water sculptures in the yard, things that otherwise would have been too expensive.

My point is: innovators are not necessarily driven by dreams of wealth. They want to find solutions on annoying or interesting problems. On their way, they may however stumble on "the big thing". And that's when we will remember them.

No excuses

The Royal Society has released a report that detects and kills the myths about those alternative explanations of human created climate change. The report is excellent and a great example of how research can be used not only to generate but also to defend knowledge. Thanks Infidel for the link.

However my position still stands. Just because the green house effect is happening it isn't necessarily the best reason for people to change their behavior. It's hard to understand, there are still a lot of reliable spectics out there and it doesn't seem so terrible. Acid rain, cancer, pollution and the effect on the ozon layer is much more involving. And therefore better reasons to change.  More on this here.

Not worthy our great ideas

By giving up their stretch limos for Toyota Prius, buying recycled fashion and organic food, Hollywood celebs have turned into the new environmental movement. As what Brad, Julia, Leonardo, and Hilary do sooner or later normally becomes mainstream, environmentalists would cheer the move with happiness.

But they don't. In a recent article in the Independent (subscribers only) enviromentalists say they are afraid the A-list people are doing it only because it's cool and not because they are particluarly engaged in the issues,  or informed about the real importance of protecting our environment.

This not only high-lightens the stupidity among some environmentalists. It also illustrates the bizarre view of communication so many have.

"A change in knowledge leads to a changed attitude which will turn into a changed behavior". That's a rather common position among marketers and campaigners.

Often, this position proves incorrect.

Knowledge about global warming may lead to a changed behavior like driving less, sort your garbage or invest in solar power equipment. But it may as well be the other way around - the changed behavior leads to increased knowledge. In fact quite a lot tells us it's more common the other way around or in some cases the attitude towards green issues will affect knowledge as well as behavior.

But that doesn't seem to bother the environmentalists. Because when it comes to environment and energy (and, sure, technology industries also are fairly well represented) people think you must change knowledge first. And worse - the knowledge sometimes seems to be the goal rather than the changed behavior. Learning that people are adopting their ideas on wrong premises can actually foster new communication efforts, even though the behavioral effects already is in place.

Personally I think the environmental move in Hollywood is just great and the work done from the Toyota marketers with the Prius two years ago is smashing. We always have copied the way the celebs eat, wear and look. Why wouldn't we not this time buy and behave like them.

More fuel efficiency

Carmax, the US leader in used cars, today announced they are offering advice on which cars to consider if fuel effiency is important to you. Which it obviously is for a lot of Carmax customers.

Here's the list:

Sport utility vehicles

Ford Escape, Toyota Rav4, Nissan Pathfinder, Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Two- and four-door sedans

Toyota Echo, Scion xA and xB, Dodge Stratus, Honda Accord, Ford Escort ZX2.

Luxury sedans

Volvo S-80, Audi A4.

Pickup trucks

Ford Ranger, Chevrolet S10, Nissan Frontier.

Hybrids

Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Ford Hybrid Escape, Honda Civic Hybrid.

I can't stop thinking. Is somebody at the GM's head quarters worried that only one of twenty models is coming from their plants?

Fuel efficiency approaches the tipping point

"Not that the market has swerved to be solely focused on fuel efficiency. Gains in sales of light trucks, including SUVs, outpaced those of cars once again. The acknowledged trend appears moving to smaller big vehicles, though"

In a snap overview by Green Car Congress one could conclude the more progressive efforts in making cars fuel efficient that are made from car manufacturers, the faster they will grow.

In the commentaries following the March Sales reports the fast-growing manufacturers Toyota (+12.3%), Honda (+6.9%) and Daimler Crysler (+4%) all stress the importance of its hybrid or low-fuel-consumption models. The only company that doesn't comment on the issue is General Motors. Showing a decline in sales of -1%.

Even if the high-profiled hybrid vehicles still count for a small portion of the sales this is definetaly on of those weak signals showing we are approaching the tipping point in sales of fuel efficient cars.  And once again. Detroit should worry.

Farmer's dilemma

The success of innovation marketing lies in the ability to understand what job a product does for its customer and successfully serve those needs. That ability normally means higher profits than selling the actual resources it takes to produce the product.

Except when it comes to oil.

The oil producing countries seems to be quite alone in generation of wealth based on its natural resources.

Therefore it's pretty weird why farmers are so inactive in pushing for renewable fuels based on their produce. Basically farmers can offer a whole product range, totally displacing the use of oil:

• Car fuels (biogas, ethanol, RME)
• Heating (wood pellets, biogas and crops)
• Plastics (read about how corn turns into plastic here)

So why aren't farmers fighting to dethrone the Arabic princes?

The only reason I can see is the old dilemma Clayton Christensen once wrote about in his "The innovator's dilemma": They are too tied up in doing their daily business and have invested too much in their current customers (even though it's rather odd as farmers worldwide normally sell to them selves, organized in cooperatives).

Of course there are some interesting companies working there right now (I am working myself with some of them). But I am fascinated about the lack of push from the farmers. - Hey there are people out there creating markets for your products, get it!! And the way to success is already paved:

- Strong public support
- Low entry barriers
- Technology is in place

Go and get rich!

The perfect customer

Yesterday I got my hands on a slide presentation about a biogas project in which I will be involved working with the communications strategy. It contained the objectives from the project management so far and the comments from the customer, a medium sized city in Sweden. And I must say I love the comments:

Objective: Make people aware of the fact that biogas is a clean fuel
Comment: Yes, but priority one is to improve people's recycling behavior (so we get biomass to produce the gas)

Objective: Make people proud of the fact that we are way ahead in the environmental area compared to other cities
Comment: Yes, but priority one is to improve people's recycling behavior

Objective: Make people understand how recycling decreases the contribution of green house gases
Comment: Yes, but priority one is to improve people's recycling behavior

Between the lines I read: Guys, you are on the track, but don't fly away!

Oh God, don't I love that kind of customer!

In my work as a communications consultant working to change people's behavior I am so tired of customers who like to do something else. Like affecting people's knowledge or their attitude. Often the objectives like above may have a positive impact on people's behavior. But far to often it hasn't.

Do you want people to improve their recycling behavior, here are some ideas:

- Pay them
- Reconstruct their kitchens
- Improve information in the waste areas
- Tell them they make a great job
- Thank them

Do you need to educate them about the Kyoto treaty? I hope I have made my point. Do you need to understand the construction of an Otto engine in order to drive a car?

Technology isn't enough for building segments

Is there a segment in the automotive industry that can be named environmental cars? I would argue no, there isn't.

A segment, by definition, is a group of customers who share the same needs and values and can be expected to react in the same way to the company's offer. And I find it interestingly that the reasons why people are buying different kind of environmental cars differ a lot.

Let's take the Toyota Prius. It's a pretty small car that retails for more than $ 21,000, some 3 - 5,000 dollars  up on a similar vehicle without Toyotas famous hybrid technology. Of course, doing your math will show that you pretty soon have ended up with a positive result as you don't have to fill it up that often anymore. According to dealers though, the main reason for buying the Prius is a good social and environmental conscience. And the people buying them can afford to be councious, the median household income for men buying the Prius is $98,000 and $89,000 for women. Eighty per cent of them have a college degree.

Saving money isn't the first job the car has to live up to.

On the other hand if you look at vehicles with bi-fuel technology(combination of petrol gas and methane), most common in Europe with a lot of models from Opel, Volkswagen, Mercedes and Volvo, suddenly price is important. The difference in price which more or less is the same as for the Prius is lower in relation to the total cost, as European cars sells for about double the price in the US.

Driving a bi-fuel car is considerable cheaper than an ordinary vehicle. In some countries about half the price compared to other fuels. And because of an enormous taxation of fuel in all EU countries (more than 80 per cent of the total price) every cut is welcome.

Apparently people in Europe seems to buy bi-fuel because of the price. At least is that the assumption from people in the know. It's all about economy, according to manufacturers as well as  public envangelists. The conclusion is that two different technologies that basically leads to similar results - lower cost of fuel and less contribution of CO2 represent two different kind of buying behaviors.

Why? I think the answer is to be found in the level of intervention of your ordinary life. Similar to the situation in California, methane isn't especially easy to find in Europe. One could argue their are a lot of methane gas outlets covering wide geographical areas, but compared to other fuels there's not.

A clearer conscience is worth $5,000 if you can afford it. But paying with your time and convenience is not an option, not to that relative high number of people in the US who actually bought a Prius.

On the other hand you don't buy a Prius if you want to save money. You would better buy a Corolla for less than two thirds of the price and still find that the gas meter isn't too tough on you. But if you would like a bigger car, especially in Europe when gas prices are record high, you actually would consider to take some extra time to find new kind of gas stations, eventhough you have to drive through dark and empty industrial areas.

So the result:

Hybrid vehicles - people with plenty of money wanting a clearer conscience
Bifuel cars . people wanting a better fuel economy

Not the same people. Not the same segment. There is no such thing as an environmantal vehicle market.

By the way, if you would like to found out more about cars on alternative fuels - visit Green Car Congress

How do they say Global Warming in Italian?

I have previously argued that the threat of Global Warming is a lousy argument if you want people to change their behaviors that with high probability are affecting the climate. Why is that? I'll give you three points:

- It's too far from the individual's everyday concern

- It doesn't sound that scary, in fact it sounds pretty nice

- It is still perceived as very unsure

All these arguments repeatadly lead to the willingness to show people it does affect us, not only in the future but already today. Every flooding, every storm (like this Winter in California and Scandinavia or the quadruple of hurricanes in Florida) are described as effects of Global Warming. In Sweden actually one of the actions taken by the government after the storm that caused physical damage of more than two billion dollars was more research on Climate Change! The digital cause-effect perception of our politicians really is amazing.

So, why is this a problem? A new study from the University of California San Diego (UCSD) actually shows significant proofs of man-made global warming in their computer modelled research. The glaciers are melting, so is the Antarctic.

Well the problem is that when you use it in your communication it's too easy to point out the opposite of Global Warming phenomena.

Ask right now for instance the Italian people about their point of view in the issue. Freezing degrees, Snow in Genova and Milan (in Italian) and snow chains on the wheels. Are they convinced of the fact that our world is getting warmer and warmer. Hardly.

Pollution is every year causing enormous problems on the earth. We get cancer, we get poisoned, our lakes and oceans suffer and our cities get dirty. And still, the world is only concentrating on lowering the emissions of carbon dioxide. The idea of Global Warming is actually so powerful it makes our governments promoting fuels more cancerous than other more healthy alternatives only because the goal is to lower the level of carbon dioxide, without enough concern about other effects.

I personally think we face a serious problem when we talk about Global Warming. But making people change their mind about what the climate effects may be will just not be effective if you want them change their behavior. We don't need the knowledge about CO2 or other gases. We just need to change the way we live. And there are several reasons for doing that. But it doesn't necessarily involves the need of getting the tempurature down. Just ask the italians.

9.50 to spend?

€ 9.50. That's what will set you back to buy the right to emission one ton of CO2. The price was set yesterday when the world's first CO2 exchange premiered in Oslo, Norway (article in Norwegian).

To be honest, I don't have a clue weather this is an innovation that will decrease the CO2 emissions. Probably it will. More than 75 per cent of the world's biggest polluters have agreed on the procedure. Can they be wrong?

The only thing I think is weard is that the price will depend of the demand. But as at the very same price (or cost) will serve as an incentive to lower your emissions, doesn't that mean the demand will go down? And as it does, what then will happen with the price? To me it sounds like a great way to keep status quo.

Why knowledge sucks! (2)

Yesterday the Kyoto treaty kicked in. It will commit the signatories to reduce their level of primarily carbon dioxide emissions in order to further prevent global warming. At the same time the treaty allows countries to sell and buy emission rights from each other, which puts a value (or a price) on the emissions.

I am not an expert in this and I guess the treaty is better than doing nothing, even if I find it rather bizarre legitmate pollution by actually building an exchange market for it. Also the fact that it´s basically only carbonoxide that is concerned when gases like methane stays unregulated, contributing to the green house effect twenty times more seriously than CO2 feels pretty weird.

But I am an expert in what make people change their behavior. And I just can ask all of our alternative energy advocates - don´t use the Kyoto treaty in your communication.

If climate change is the main purpose for people to change their lives, then we don't have to do it if it proves wrong. Isn't that right?

And it does prove wrong all the time. In a recent article in Geophysical Research Letters researchers Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre argue that the simulations of the worlds future temperature development are based on an incorrect mathematical model. The results given, an important argument for the green house effect showing the tempurature will rise significantly in the coming years, will be the same using random data as if the researchers are using the data said to represent the tempurature in the past. The article is only one in the long line of critics that challange the image of a world soon drowned by the water from previously potent icebergs.

The thing is not to stop care about what could be done about our environment. But to argue on a lower and more basic level. Without the greenhouse effect there are still tons of arguments for not driving too big cars, clean our industry or stop using landfills for our waste. To prevent acid rain, lowering risks for cancer, save our oceans and stop the pollution in our cities are only some and they actually lead to the same behavioral change that the knowledge of the green house effect does. But they are scientifically unchallanged.

Further we can drive smaller cars because they are cool, like the Mini Cooper, or because Leonardo di Caprio has one, like the Prius. We can recycle organic waste because it "feels" good, no matter what it leads to. We can make industry to stop pollute because we want no smell.

The reasons why people change their behavior is not important. It's the fact that they do change that is.