"Innovations" Case Studies: Save Money and the Environment Too

General Information

• Overview
• Program Characteristics

Overview

January 2000 marked the fifth year of the award-winning
promotional campaign in the San Francisco Bay Area: "Save Money and the Environment Too." The campaign is a unique partnership that combines efforts of 110 cities and counties in a 10-county Bay Area region with more than 400 supermarkets. The goal of the campaign is to educate consumers on the first two steps of the popular phrase: reduce, reuse, recycle.

This campaign is a model of how local governments and industry can work together to increase awareness of consumers about how their actions impact the environment. The campaign promoted simple money-saving tips for shoppers to stop producing waste and buy reusable and long-lasting products. The campaign focused on television and radio commercials to get its message across. During the past five years, these tools were enhanced by messages on the following mediums:

• Banners at most heavily traveled BART stations.
• Ads in newspapers and coupon books mailed to consumers.
• 6.5-8 million grocery bags each year.
• Milk cartons.
• In-store advertising, including displays, brochures, bag stuffers, posters, and shelf-tags.
• Grocery certificate drawings.
• Hotline messages.

The regional media strategy was designed to maximize frequency of television and radio coverage by combining paid advertising, donated advertising, public service announcements, and local print features to achieve high visibility for the campaign.

This was also one of the first examples of the use of sophisticated market research tools and regional mass media advertising to advance the recycling message in the nation. The campaign used exit polling and focus groups to refine its message and relied on public relations professionals to help develop and guide the design of this program.

Originally this campaign was named “Shop Smart.” However, focus groups and evaluations from the initial years of the program determined that this name did not clearly convey the message intended. As a result, the campaign is now called: “Save Money and the Environment Too.”

Back to Top

Program Characteristics

Background. This campaign was launched in 1995 at a meeting of city and county representatives convened by San Francisco. The campaign was aided immensely by a $150,000 grant from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The CIWMB developed a waste prevention education partnership that year with the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities (LCC), and the Local Government Commission (LGC).

The campaign was coordinated by a working group of city and county solid waste and recycling staff and representatives from the statewide Waste Prevention Education Partnership. David Assmann of the San Francisco recycling program acted as chair. The working group was recruited at a meeting of city and county recycling staff called together to discuss potential regional campaigns in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. This meeting was held on February 22, 1995, and the first working group meeting took place on March 9, 1995.

Working group members and participants included: Andrew Murray, Local Government Commission; Barbara Frierson, City of Alameda; Barbara Hall, County of Santa Clara; Barbara Thunen, County of Marin; Cheri Puls, County of San Mateo; Robert Haley, William Lee, and David Assmann, City and County of San Francisco; Diane Makley, League of California Cities; Kathleen Cha, League of California Cities; Paula Magyari, Sonoma County; Shelly Reider, City of South San Francisco; and Sherri Harris, League of California Cities.

Working group meetings generally alternated with larger general meetings open to all recycling staff in the Bay Area. Initially, meetings were held monthly, but as the campaign approached, working group meetings were often held twice a month. The working group also set up subgroups to work on media relations and evaluation of the campaign.

Staffing for setting up, maintaining, and taking down the displays in supermarkets was generally coordinated by counties working with cities. In some cases counties coordinated the entire effort, and in other situations, cities handled the staffing. Many cities and counties used volunteers, and two counties hired the Conservation Corps (Alameda used the East Bay Conservation Corps and San Francisco used the San Francisco Conservation Corps) to help with staffing. City and county staff assisted in many cities. Total staffing for the campaign included more than 500 people, at least half of whom were volunteers.

O’Rorke Public Relations and Advertising was hired in December 1995 to coordinate the news conference, handle the media buys, and promote the campaign.

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) also contributed $55,000 and 500,000 buy recycled brochures. The Steel Recycling Institute contributed $4,500, and Safeway, Inc. contributed $1,000 in grocery certificates. Printed materials and advertising contributed by Safeway, Inc. exceeded $50,000 in value.

The campaign initially promoted seven waste prevention and buy recycled messages. The seven messages were:

• Close the recycling loop: choose recycled packaging: glass, aluminum, and steel.
• Close the recycling loop: look for “made with recycled content” on products and packaging.
• Reduce waste: bring your own reusable bag.
• Reduce waste: concentrates and economy sizes use less packaging.
• Reduce waste: reusable products save resources.
• Reduce waste: items with less packaging save resources.
• Reduce waste: compost your fruit, vegetable, and plant trimmings.

The regional media strategy was planned to maximize frequency of television and radio coverage by combining purchased advertising, donated advertising, public service announcements, and local print and radio features to achieve high visibility for the regional campaign. As anticipated, the cooperative and regional characteristics of this campaign generated media interest, resulting in enhanced media coverage.

The campaign received in-depth coverage in the media throughout the region, including stories in more than 46 newspapers and 29 newsletters, in-depth interviews on 9 radio stations, and news coverage by 5 TV stations.

The paid media campaign in 1996 included more than 1,600 commercials on more than 60 radio stations, 780 television commercials on 4 broadcast television stations and 7 cable stations, and ads in 50 newspapers. This was augmented by public service announcements on 4 broadcast television stations, 29 cable stations, and 19 radio stations. Campaign ads were also translated into Chinese and Spanish for radio and print.

More than 1,370 radio spots during traffic reports (each featuring one of the seven campaign themes) were combined with 66 spots on KCBS radio and 88 spots on K101 in 1996. Santa Clara County also purchased 49 spots on KKSJ, 36 spots on KBAY-FM, and 20 Spanish language spots on KAZA.

The radio spots were edited versions of the waste prevention spots produced by DDB Needham for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (using a shop smart tag). As part of the radio buy, K101 also broadcast live reports from a Safeway Store in San Jose during the campaign and gave away an additional four grocery certificates ($101 each), which were donated by Safeway.

The television campaign included buying 23 spots on KPIX-TV (Channel 5) and 15 spots on KTVU-TV (Channel 2) in 1996. San Francisco and San Jose supplemented the regional effort through purchasing 650 TV spots on KNTV (Channel 11), KICU (Channel 36), and cable channels A&E, BET, CNN, Discovery, E!, ESPN, FX, Lifetime, MTV, SCI, TNT, USA, and VH1. The TV spots were edited versions of three waste prevention spots produced by DDB Needham for the CIWMB (using a shop smart tag). The three spots aired on a rotational basis.

Individual jurisdictions also supplemented the regional effort through radio ads, newspaper ads, and direct mail. A campaign was undertaken in 1997 almost identical to 1996, but without the $150,000 startup grant from the CIWMB.

In 1997, the campaign narrowed its focus to the theme “Shop Smart: Save Resources and Prevent Waste.” The 1997 campaign focused on four specific waste prevention and buy recycled messages:

• Save resources: choose less packaging.
• Save resources: reuse bags, containers, and products.
• Close the recycling loop: choose recycled packaging in steel, aluminum and glass.
• Close the recycling loop: look for “made with recycled content” label.

Back to Top

Exit Polls-1996 and 1997 Campaigns

The 1996 and 1997 campaigns were evaluated for overall effectiveness using exit polls. Comprehensive in-store surveys were conducted at participating supermarkets in four different counties. Survey questions ranged from asking consumers what elements of the campaign they remembered to what they felt the campaign was trying to communicate. Bruzzone Research, Inc. developed the survey format for the 1996 campaign.

Exit polls were conducted both during and after the campaign in 1996 and after the campaign in 1997. These polls showed that 42-43 percent (1996-97) of shoppers remembered one or more elements from the campaign, thereby reaching more than one million shoppers. This is a conservative estimate, based on participation by half the supermarkets in the San Francisco Bay Area and assuming that supermarkets have a 50 percent market share. Shoppers at other supermarkets were reached by the media campaign, but they are not included in this total.

In 1996, 59 percent of shoppers remembered elements of the campaign while the campaign was still in progress. More than 1.5 million people remembered the media campaign (radio, television, and print). On average, each Bay Area resident would have heard 6 radio spots and seen 3 television ads.

Almost three-quarters (72 percent) of shoppers who noticed the materials were interested in the messages of the campaign in 1996. The most visible element of the campaign was the comic wrap (recognized by 19 percent), followed by the grocery bag (17 percent), display unit and shelf tags (16 percent each), television commercial (11 percent), newspaper ads (10 percent) and newspaper articles (8 percent). Four percent remembered the buy recycled radio commercials run by the Environmental Defense Fund and assumed they were part of the campaign.

More than four-fifths (84 percent) who noticed the materials were interested in the messages of the campaign (up from 72 percent in 1996), with more than half (54 percent) saying it affected their buying habits (up from 30 percent in 1996).

Of the consumers who noticed the campaign in 1996, 29 percent bought in bulk, 20 percent bought reusable products, 18 percent bought items with minimal packaging, 18 percent bought items with recycled packaging, and 10 percent brought their own bags to the checkout counter.

Of the consumers who noticed the campaign in 1997, 30 percent bought items with recycled packaging, 23 percent brought their own bags to the checkout counter, and 19 percent said they bought bulk products.

The main messages shoppers took from the campaign in 1996 were: support recycling (37 percent), reduce waste (34 percent), buy recyclable packaging (30 percent), buy less packaging (20 percent), buy in bulk (17 percent), bring your own bags (15 percent), avoid disposable products (13 percent), and avoid single serve sizes (12 percent).

The main messages shoppers took from the campaign in 1997 were: support recycling (35 percent), reduce waste (27 percent), buy in bulk (15 percent), buy recycled products (13 percent), buy recycled packaging (11 percent), and buy recycled content (11 percent).

While the messages of the campaign impacted large numbers of shoppers, relatively few took brochures (3-4 percent), and even fewer entered the contest (0.6 percent) in 1996.

Shoppers reacted positively to the look of the campaign materials, with an average of 60 percent saying they liked the display, shelf tags, radio, and television ads. The display units received the most favorable response, with about 70 percent saying they liked the units. Radio ads received approval from 50 percent of the shoppers.

1998 Focus Groups Refine Message

The 1996 and 1997 campaigns received very positive feedback, and end-of-campaign surveys showed that consumers were “getting the message.” However, in order to continue to produce an effective campaign with as much impact as possible, a series of focus groups were conducted prior to the beginning of the 1998 campaign in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach materials and messages. Andre Associates (Oakland, Calif.) conducted these groups in the fall of 1997. Based on the results from those groups, the following changes were incorporated into the 1998 campaign:

Name Change. The focus group revealed consumers would be much more motivated to change shopping behavior if they heard a message showing them how to save money while helping the environment. This would be much more effective than any other combination of messages. The focus group also showed that many consumers believed they were already shopping smart. As a result, in 1998 the campaign changed its name from “Shop Smart” to “Save Money and the Environment Too.”

Less is More. The number of messages was decreased from four to two. According to media professionals, fewer messages increase the odds that consumers will remember and act upon what they learn. Consumers react best to messages that are straightforward and that impact them personally. Too many messages only leave the consumer confused. The campaign’s two secondary messages were changed to:

• Buy reusable and long-lasting products.
• Buy the largest size you can use.

The buy recycled message was deleted from the campaign for the following reasons:

• Several ongoing buy recycled programs are already in place (for example, in 1996-97, the California Department of Conservation had a very active outreach campaign titled “Take the Next Step: Buy Recycled,” which included outreach to supermarkets).
• “Buy recycled” is the hardest sell in the context of the new campaign messages-it was felt that consumers would not save money when buying recycled in most cases.
• Consumers don’t necessarily prevent waste by buying recycled, thus it didn’t fit well with the 1997 campaign theme.
• It is difficult to coordinate a campaign with two main messages (waste prevention and buy recycled).

Logo Changed to Reflect a More Universal Shopping Message. In order to move beyond the grocery store settings, a new logo was designed. The campaign retained the rights to reproduce and distribute this logo to other jurisdictions.

Other Campaign Changes. The campaign focused on women between the ages of 25 and 54. The focus group results showed that women are the primary grocery shoppers and that many of the behaviors the campaign targets for change take place in the supermarket. More than 50 percent of women work today, and research showed that working women are more likely to change their behavior based on additional information and reminders than are those who don’t work.

In addition, the primary outreach mechanism for the 1998 campaign was switched to media advertising. This was both to maximize the impact of the money available (in order to reach a higher media profile) and to minimize the amount of work for cities and counties (many jurisdictions felt they could not sustain the effort required to put out and maintain displays and shelf tags in every supermarket) in their jurisdiction.

Based on professional recommendations, the campaign coordinators decided that it was more effective to maximize their media effort instead of continuing to evaluate the campaign through surveys. Media buy consultants recommended that future campaigns also target Hispanic, Asian, and African-American consumers, as well as college students and young adults.

Back to Top

The 1999 Campaign

The month-long campaign began on January 11, 1999. The 1999 campaign used the same secondary messages as in 1998.

• Buy reusable and long-lasting products.
• Buy the largest size you can use.

The focus of the 1999 campaign was increased media presence, concentrating on television and radio commercials. The generosity of the Alameda Waste Management Authority made possible the production of new professional television and radio spots that enhanced the impact of the messages. Radio spots were produced in Spanish as well as English. Banners with the campaign’s message were hung at the most heavily traveled BART stations. The campaign was supported by messages on grocery bags, milk cartons, and store advertising.

Media Buy. The campaign’s media buy was strategically planned to maximize the use of available funds, as in 1998. TV ads focused on early morning and evening news and high-rated programs during the weekend and evenings. Radio stations were chosen for their audience profile, programming format, and geographic reach. Radio and television ads were purchased on 3 TV and 10 radio stations as listed below.

The ads listed above were supplemented with rotating sponsorships on KGO, KBAY, KUIC, and KISQ Radio; Trash Talk program on KCBS (two each week); K101 Electronic Billboard and inclusion of K101 listener line for one week; K101 Wednesday night/Kristi Yamaguchi Embarcadero Center Rink Promotion including on-air promotions, signage at the event, space for banners, pamphlets, and coupons.

Below is a picture of a sample banner used at BART stations.

Other elements of the regional media campaign included:

• Banners at the 15 BART stations with the highest average weekday ridership: Concord, Oakland/12th Street, Dublin/Pleasanton, Fremont, Daly City, Embarcadero, Powell, Civic Center, 19th Street/Oakland, Fruitvale, El Cerrito/Del Norte, Walnut Creek, Balboa, and Berkeley. Approximately 167,388 riders saw the banners twice each day as they entered and left the stations.
• Press releases to more than 300 media sources.
• Public service announcements on more than 8 radio stations and 25 TV stations.
• News reports on 2 radio stations.
• Articles in 18 newspapers and other publications.
• Paid newspaper ads purchased by 25 cities and counties.

Back to Top | Table of Contents | Next Section

Last updated: November 01, 2007