antennagroup.com

Global warming doomsayers may have taken an ironic satisfaction from the fact that the cocktail reception and exhibition at the recent 4^th Annual Mid-Atlantic Cleantech Investment Forum was held in the dinosaur hall at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University in Philadelphia. In their view, the mass extinction of the dinosaurs offers a preview of their apocalyptic vision for the destiny of humankind if we don’t take strong steps to prevent man-made global warming from overheating the Earth.

Under the shadows of more than a dozen full skeletal mounts of Cretaceous-era titans such as Tyrannosaurus rex and Corythosaurus casuarius, or duckbill dinosaur, the conference participants munched on hors d’oeuvres and traded notes on what they were doing to prevent such a fate.

The reception followed a conference focused on clean tech opportunities and challenges in the mid-Atlantic region that included panels on “fostering clean tech investment” and shale gas development, the latter being only fitting since most of Pennsylvania is covered by the Marcellus Shale Formation, the world’s third largest reserve of natural gas. The panels were followed by a cleantech showcase highlighting companies involved in enterprises as diverse as OmniWind’s wind turbines and Primus Green Energy’s technology to transform biomass and natural gas into a high octane, drop-in gasoline.

But if the conference were to be distilled down to a single idea, it would be energy efficiency, which was the theme of keynote speaker Mark Fulton, the managing director and global head of Climate Change Investment, Research & Strategy for Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors. While politicians may still be debating the existence of climate change, investors at financial institutions such as Deutsche Bank are planning how to deal with it. Fulton coordinates a team of analysts who publish white papers on key industry, policy and strategic topics that are used to advise investment managers on climate change-based strategies across their asset management platforms.

Drawing on a  research study conducted by Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors and the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/united-states-building-energy-efficiency), Fulton said that proven technologies to retrofit buildings — from upgrading lights to replacing heating and cooling systems and building controls — can both conserve energy and create a large number of jobs. He noted that buildings consume about 40 percent of the world’s energy and are responsible for 40 percent of global carbon emissions. According to the study, an investment of $279 billion in the residential, commercial and institutional energy efficiency market segments could yield more than $1 trillion of energy savings over 10 years, which would be the equivalent of saving approximately 30 percent of the annual electricity spend of the United States. Perhaps more importantly — at least from a climate change perspective — the retrofits represented by such an investment would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by nearly 10 percent.

But the report also noted that, despite the market potential and rapid payback of energy efficiency upgrades and retrofits, this “low-hanging fruit” in the energy and climate space has consistently proven to be farther out of reach than expected. In his address, Fulton profiled various financing models with the potential to scale investment in these markets and to overcome supply- and demand-side barriers. He concluded that the Energy Services Agreement (ESA) model holds the most promise for the near term, given its potential to scale without the need for policy initiatives or regulatory changes. Under such a model, the lender funds the costs of improvements and assumes responsibility for the payment of the energy bill. The property owner is then charged back based on historic consumption, thus allowing the lender to capture the energy savings. For more on the benefits and drawbacks of the various financing models, please consult the report.

We hope that the climate change prophets of doom, many of whom say we have only a few years left until we lose the levers of control, are wrong. But if we are well on our way to environmental annihilation, as the zealots aver, learning to control the carbon emissions produced by the built environment, while not especially glamorous, would seem like an eminently sensible way in which to forestall catastrophe while we are waiting for those magic bullet technologies that the optimists predict are on the horizon.

- Stefanie Matteson

Here at Antenna Group, our job is to communicate. A lot. Given the piles of email in my inbox, quite possibly too much.

So, last week—as part of a constant effort to freshen our thinking with outside perspectives—Antenna hosted an in-depth, no-holds-barred, two-coast cleantech pizza briefing with energy and climate analyst Jesse Jenkins. Jesse’s a friend, and also a fellow at the Breakthrough Institute as well as an editor at the Energy Collective, where he assembles the best of the web in clean energy and climate. He’s regularly featured as a cleantech commentator in leading media, and appeared on NPR’s Morning Edition just last weekend discussing Japan’s overreaction against nuclear power in the wake of Fukishima.

It was a little like sitting down with a combination of Al Gore, Steven Chu, Wikipedia, Otto van Bismarck and Ryan Seacrest. Jesse’s knowledge of cleantech is encyclopedic and visionary, with a deep understanding of how we got here and where we need to go. Jesse drew historical parallels underscoring the essential role of government in pushing clean energy innovation and market adoption, from military investment in semiconductors in the 1950s moving us toward the iPhone 4S, to government investment in shale gas drilling and jet engines sparking the cheap natural gas and reliable air travel we enjoy today. He also noted that the federal government invests $30B in NIH and $18B in NASA today, compared to just $4B in energy R&D—a sobering figure.

My favorite question—aside from “how many slices of pizza do you want?”—was from Antenna Group’s own Sarah Horn, who asked, “If you were running for president, what would your slogan be?”

Leaping to the task, Jesse unveiled his campaign bumper sticker: “Make Clean Energy Cheap.” It’s a communicator’s favorite sort of saying—short enough to tweet, seemingly simple but richly layered, honest, and—most important—sticky.

The greenest 100,000 people in the world will go for clean energy without much prodding. The rest of us need to see a pretty big payoff to overcome inertia. And no technology—or product—will stand up in the market for long without winning on the merits, which in the case of energy—a commodity—is price.

Jesse’s point: we can’t simply encourage clean energy production. We’ve got to promote clean energy cost-competitiveness. Because from the feistiest Tea Partier to the most granola-snacking Berkeley hippie, we can all agree that saving money on energy never goes out of style.

by jenn.kho on April 14, 2010 on Sweat Investor

SweatInvestor Guest Post: Jennifer Kho is a San Francisco Bay Area-based freelancer with more than a decade of reporting experience. Her stories have appeared in The New York Times’ Green Inc. blog, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, MIT’s Technology Review, The Christian Science Monitor, Reuters.com, Earth2Tech and more. She has been covering green technology since 2004, when she initiated cleantech coverage for Red Herring magazine. She also helped launch Greentech Media’s news operations as its founding editor in 2007.

Sure, the Google Campfire last month announced its apps marketplace by the glow of kitschy fake campfires, under a canopy of fake tree silhouettes, in a room with a tent and campfire-logo fleece blankets as giveaways. But only the props were fake. The event was backed by a real product with 50 real customers. And, as fitting an enterprise product, it definitely qualified as a restrained launch for a company as big as Google.

Bloom Energy used some of the same tactics when it launched its fuel cells in February — although there was certainly nothing restrained about the event, which took place at eBay headquarters and included California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former U.S. Secretary of State Collin Powell. As with Google Apps, Bloom kept (mostly) quiet until its launch and then made a splash by announcing key customers, including Wal-Mart, eBay, FedEx, Staples and, of course, Google.

The result, in the case of Bloom, was a huge bang of publicity. With its star lineup of Kleiner Perkins investors and directors such as Powell, the company scored a feature on 60 Minutes and many high-profile publications followed. All the hype has sparked envy from other startups that want the same attention.

Should other startups take a page from the launch book of Bloom, Google or Apple, which also has been known to keep quiet until a product is ready (although not in the case of the iPad), and get more attention by keeping quiet?

If You’re Not Google

Well, it doesn’t always work. One major difference, of course, is that Google and Apple launches are guaranteed to be big news. As a reporter, I knew I’d attend the Campfire regardless of what was being launched – and I was sure I’d get a story out of it. And Bloom had the advantage of big newsworthy backers and partners right out of the gate. Not so for most startups.

Using stealth as a marketing strategy comes with plenty of potential pitfalls, as well. Of course, the main reason to keep a company or technology quiet is to protect intellectual property. Once patents are secured, the decision becomes one of strategy.

Melody Haller, CEO of public-relations firm Antenna Group, explains that if you’re a big company, you have two choices: One is freezing out the competition by pre-announcing products that aren’t ready yet, which is a tactic Microsoft is famous for. (Once Microsoft has announced it is entering a space, competing startups are less likely to score backing from investors or partners as they wait to see what Microsoft has in store.) The other is waiting until a product is ready before launching it, like Google does.

The Cost of Quiet

The choices aren’t the same for most startups, as speaking out is less likely to deter competitors. Keeping quiet might help artificially bolster a launch, but could have the opposite effect if the company isn’t viewed as newsworthy enough to cover. In the meantime, the company may be missing out on potential partnerships and customers that could ultimately help it succeed. “It comes at a cost,” Haller says.

The extent to which a startup should talk largely depends on how much it needs others, she explains. For example, a company with a limited customer base and good access to those customers needs far less publicity than a company targeting consumers or hard-to-reach customers. Building a reputation can help companies meet those partners, or get them to pick up the phone.

In general, if a company’s in stealth mode after patents are filed, it’s a sign its product isn’t ready yet – or it’s still working out an issue that might not stand up to public scrutiny. Personally, I tend to be skeptical if a company makes big claims while keeping its product hidden from public view. Most entrepreneurs I’ve interviewed are proud of their products and want to discover any problems early.

Public Troubleshooting

The danger of avoiding public scrutiny is the same as the danger of skipping peer review in science experiments – you could be missing a significant challenge which could end up being an Achilles heel. Once a product is launched, a company will usually have to spend more time and money to correct the problem than if it discovered the issue earlier.

By isolating themselves, startups also can end up victims of their own company cultures, Haller points out. Because startups tend to be dominated by researchers and engineers, rather than employees focused on marketing and selling products, they might focus on the science and technology and miss usability problems that their customers might face. Companies tend to be optimistic, which can be a key to success, but could also blind them to potential failures.

Finally, if startups succeed in generating huge launch buzz, it could be setting itself up for a fall if it can’t meet the lofty expectations it has (perhaps inadvertently) created. In other words, the greater the publicity, the higher the expectations – and the easier it is to plunge in the public eye.

Slow and Steady…

In the case of hardware, for example, it’s important to match publicity with the company’s ability to deliver products, Haller says. If a big launch creates more demand than a company can fulfill, customers will be disappointed when they can’t buy the product and the company could suffer a backlash, she says.

The best strategy depends on the specific product and its target audience. When the product is a free social networking tool, for example, which depends mainly on popularity for success and doesn’t face product availability obstacles, the challenges are different. In that case, it’s more important than ever to get the word out early and test the product with a beta group of early adopters while the user base grows, Haller says.

All in all, the biggest point startups can take away from Google and Apple product launches is the importance of building a company, she says. Google and Apple didn’t take shortcuts, but first built strong companies and products – then used savvy marketing strategies to get the most out of their launches. They need publicity because the success of their products depends on having users, but they deserve the buzz they get because they have – for the most part – lived up to the claims and expectations they have set, Haller says.

Compass

If you are concerned, as I am, that climate instability is a critical issue, then you are very lucky to be a PR pro. Your craft gives you the power to make a difference. No scientific finding will be acted on unless someone has the skill to explain and transmit it. Solutions will go unused unless thousands of PR pros like you and I direct our skills to create understanding and the will to try.

Challenge equals opportunity. There is a ground swell now: Flagship businesses are proving that sustainable practices are safer and more profitable, especially as new policies include the real costs of wastefulness.

Scientists, entrepreneurs and policy-makers are searching for improvements to every practice of civilization. Governments on every continent face the need for transformation. And citizens want to do more than spend their lives as unconscious consumers. Green is good business; it’s industry; it’s life.

Four PR paths

There are four PR paths: Cleantech, Corporate Sustainability, Green Lifestyle and Government Relations. Build on the brand you have. If you excel at corporate counsel, then learn the principles of corporate sustainability. If your expertise is in consumer products, lifestyle or healthcare, then you can shift toward green lifestyle and LOHAS (lifestyles of health and sustainability).

If you’re in government relations, you may already be experiencing a boom in demand. Modern energy and efficiency have been designated the saviors of our economy and environmental woes.

My passion is cleantech. Emerging technology has always excited me: I love being at the edge of change and am willing to accept the business risk that comes with that.

Guidelines for going green

Like a good physician, above all, do no harm. Entrenched power players will keep acting in their short-term self-interest. You don’t have to help them. The knowledge you may have of a dirty business can get you a good job or client engaged in cleaning it up.

Avoid greenwashing, for your company or your clients. Do your homework and bring your heart to your work: How satisfying that is!

Don’t be afraid to set sail in a new direction.  Antenna Group was founded in dotcom days. I met our first solar client at a cleantech venture-capital event. Go meet new people and perspectives.

Build community. If there aren’t useful green networking events in your area, you can organize them for your clients as a way of refocusing their practices and brands. Antenna started our Power Hours three years ago – now we host seven or eight receptions a year, each with a different co-host to spice up the guest list. We also sponsor events.

Extend from your base of strength. Building on one good client in the solar space, we now represent about a dozen solar companies (and many more in other cleantech areas). The first one is still a happy client, five years later. We’re now attracting Fortune 500 clients seeking guidance in areas new to them.

High-tech PR with industrial gunk

Like the technology PR of recent decades, cleantech PR works with wildly creative scientists and entrepreneurs. We try to win our clients a temporary suspension of disbelief so they have a chance to turn their dreams into reality. Using our technical and business knowledge, we paint their products into the landscape and translate their technology’s features into the audience’s benefits.

Unlike Web 2.0 and software high-tech, cleantech is about the messy physical stuff of our world. It spans many different industrial and manufacturing sectors and is overlaid with complex issues of public policy and finance.

For each client at least one audience will be extremely technical, yet you also have to be able to communicate to business, finance, government and community audiences, internationally. If your practitioners do not genuinely enjoy the constant learning about science, technology and policy, you will lose either them or your clients.

In hiring I aim to create a mix of people to learn from each other. Those with strong technical affinity collaborate with skilled PR pros, as everyone grows. My ideal entry-level candidate arrives with a dual-major degree in Communications and Environmental Science or Economics.

Purpose at a premium

While these people are deeply purpose-driven, they are talented high-achievers who expect to be rewarded well. I’m still trying to figure out how to charge the premium the craft deserves. The traditional industrial sector hasn’t invested much in marketing, other than IR or crisis communications.

But marketing spends will grow as the young cleantech industry sees more big successes and becomes increasingly competitive. Companies get the best leverage on their PR investment when pursuing a large market opportunity in the midst of substantial competition. And there’s never been a larger market opportunity than modern energy.

Don Solo/Flickr

Cleantech companies are particularly prone to intellectual-property paranoia. Caution is reasonably called for: do get those patents filed before gabbing.

Industrial innovators burn a lot of capital before reaching healthy revenues. Some directors cut cost corners by keeping portfolio companies in stealth mode for years. A small executive team is expected to reach key customers and get sites installed with little more marketing than a cursory website. Supposedly, this not only saves money but also hides their brilliant innovation from imitators.

Companies may be lingering too long in the shadows, simply because their leaders don’t understand the power of the strategic communications sword. How many VCs or board members do you know who have a strong marketing background? Yet history shows the best technology does not always win. The good-enough solution that is fastest to penetrate the market and relentlessly defends its leadership will win the lion’s share.

Even in situations where staying under the radar might give an edge versus competitors, it also brings a downside: it hides the company from customers, potential talent and the investors needed for each new round. A company that does show market momentum also has a better shot at winning approval for its ARRA application. Smart PR accelerates all those initiatives. So, what is not invested in public relations may instead be lost on a longer sales cycle, larger sales force, costlier executive-recruiter effort, more expensive capital and far more CEO time spent courting reluctant investors.

Shut off from a real market response, a company can get trapped in a self-referential box. Unable to outgrow its anti-marketing culture, it may be on its way to cleantech Betamax, to being Novell instead of Microsoft.

The transition from hiding your light under a basket to being able to dazzle your customers is as difficult for a company as puberty is for a teenager. Luckily, unlike puberty, you can hire people to help you through it.