June 19th, 2008

E+Co Wins Sustainable Investor of the Year

I am proud to announce that a small nonprofit client of mine won a prestigious award this month. E+Co, a non-profit investment company that tackles climate change and poverty by investing in clean energy businesses in Africa, Asia and Latin America, has been awarded the Financial Times’ Sustainable Investor of the Year. The Sustainable Investor of the Year award highlights groundbreaking achievement in the area of sustainable investment, recognizing programs with outstanding triple bottom-line impact.

“You hear talk about boutique investing, about SME investing, about technology investing; E+Co brings all three together. An inspiration.” states the 2008 Judging Panel of the Financial Times Sustainable Banking Awards. I thought so too, when I had a chance to work with E+Co — I love the elegance of their solutions to address multiple issues in the environment and society. And they’re really nice people to boot!

E+Co invests in individual energy enterprises and has built a portfolio of companies in developing countries that provide clean energy products and services. Success is measured across a triple bottom line of positive financial, social and environmental impacts. To date, E+Co has brought energy to more than 4 million people, offsetting 3.3 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and mobilizing $172 million of co-financing. With more than 100 active energy investments, E+Co’s portfolio encompasses solar, wind, hydro, biogas, LPG and energy efficient businesses.

Posted by perry
Permanent Link -  No Comments »

June 13th, 2008

Metrics: GRPs for the Web?

On MediaPost’s Online Metrics Insider, David Smith argues that the GRPs measured from traditional media (”gross rating points” that measure a percentage of your total audience reached) should be included among web metrics marketers use. He argues they are still a valid measure and help those who still buy a majority of their media offline to make a more direct comparison of web versus traditional buys, he argues.

Commenters to his blog post critique the use of GRPs, partly missing David’s point (helping the client), but make good points of their own — that GRP is flawed and that in its current form cannot connotate an apples-to-apples comparison between traditional media and web-based impressions.

I agree with David that if his clients find GRPs a useful metric, it can’t hurt to use them even with interactive media. I also see many potential problems with doing so from the clients’ standpoint, though, and I would spell out the differences for clients verbally and/or in footnotes if I ever decided to use GRPs for web.

However, there’s never been any GRP in direct marketing and yet marketers still manage to make both media and direct marketing buys intelligently, understanding the difference between the two.

I agree with one commenter it’s kind of hard to compare web and broadcast GRP – certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison for the reason he mentions and because impressions on the web can be video (TV), audio (radio) or web-unique visual (rich media, flash, gif-animated or static that can’t be compared to print), etc.

That’s why another commenter’s idea to try to apply media habits (maybe some kind of weighting tool) to the metric the GRP represents may have some merit — will that be making rocket science of marketing I can’t help but wonder, though!? Don’t forget that metrics are useful, but marketing will always also be part art (not all science) and intuition!

Posted by perry
Permanent Link -  No Comments »