10 Sources/Readings

10 Sources/Readings:


Don’t Be Fooled: America’s Ten Worst Greenwashers
http://www.greenwashing.net/

'Greenwash’: A Way to Say ‘Hogwash’
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/business/businessspecial2/17certify.html

“What is Greenwashing?”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman

“Deceptive Greenwashing Aims to Trick Ecotourists”
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2008/05/23/deceptive-greenwashing-aims-to-trick-ecotourists.html

“A Brief History of Greenwash”.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243

“Medical Groups Promoted HPV Vaccine Using Funds Provided by Drug maker” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009- /08/18/AR2009081803325.html

“Greenwashing”.
http://www.source- watch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing

“Why Greenwashing is a problem?”
http://www.greenwashingindex.com/why.php

“Wal-Mart's organic milk not really organic, say critics; "greenwashing" scam alleged”.
http://www.naturalnews.com/020481_organic_milk_Wal-Mart_cows.html

“Greenwashing- A National Sin?”
 http://www.broowaha.com/articles/4948/greenwashing-a-national-sin

10 Sources/Readings

Deen, Shireen. August 29, 2009. “Don’t Be Fooled: America’s Ten Worst Greenwashers”. Greenwashing.net. November 7th 2009. http://www.greenwashing.net/

Glater, Johnathan. May 17, 2006. “‘Greenwash’: A Way to Say ‘Hogwash’”. The New York Times. November 11th 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/business/businessspecial2/17certify.html

Hoffman Jane & Michael. April 1rd 2009. “What is Greenwashing?”. Scientific American. November 11th, 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman

Judkis, Maura. May 23rd 2008. “Deceptive Greenwashing Aims to Trick Ecotourists”. U.S. News. November 11th 2009. http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2008/05/23/deceptive-greenwashing-aims-to-trick-ecotourists.html

Karliner, Joshua. March 22nd 2001. “A Brief History of Greenwash”. Corp Watch. November 7th 2009. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243

Stein, R. August 19, 2009. “Medical Groups Promoted HPV Vaccine Using Funds Provided by Drug maker”. The Washington Post. October 25th 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009- /08/18/AR2009081803325.html

Unknown. October 28, 2009. “Greenwashing”. Source Watch. November 1, 2009. http://www.source- watch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing

Unknown. 2009. “Why Greenwashing is a problem?”. EnviroMedia Greenwashing Index. November 7th 2009. http://www.greenwashingindex.com/why.php

Unknown. September 21, 2006. “Wal-Mart's organic milk not really organic, say critics; "greenwashing" scam alleged”. Natural News. November 11th 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/020481_organic_milk_Wal-Mart_cows.html


Walker, Dean. June 29, 2009. “Greenwashing- A National Sin?” BrooWaha. November 11th 2009. http://www.broowaha.com/articles/4948/greenwashing-a-national-sin

5 Summaries of Suggested Readings

Greenwash’: A Way to Say ‘Hogwash’:

More and more companying are using stickers and signs say that they are using green products. These stickers/ seals are being put on everything from lumber to recycled things. The most recognized seal of approval is the U.S. Green Building Council. This is a nonprofit group that promotes energy efficient and environmental benefits in construction and design. They established criteria to measure how efficient buildings are. So far 450 buildings have received some certification from them. One thing while testing out the buildings the company learned that verifying recycled content of an item is very difficult because a lab test cannot always reveal what something is made of. After testing and talking to companies about the things they use people have learned that if you have some sort of certification, it OK. Don’t believe this until you know for a fact it is safe or not. Some day there will be a certifying system that works for everything but for now you have to do the research yourself.

Glater, Johnathan. May 17, 2006. “‘Greenwash’: A Way to Say ‘Hogwash’”. The New York Times. November 11th 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/business/businessspecial2/17certify.html


Deceptive Greenwashing Aims to Trick Ecotourists:

Not everything that has a green label deserves it. TerraChoice Environmental Marketing found that 99% of green labeling do not follow up to their claims. Analysts say that one of the main problems to this has to do with the definition of ecotourism and the interpretations of being green. Some companies do try to strive to have reusable and environmental friendly products, while others rather just have the label and continuing what they normally do. Ayako Ezaki from The International Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well being of local people. Ezaki started looking further into traveling companies to see if they were living up to their green advertising. He found that Orbitz was only meeting only one of the four environmental criteria. But the problem with this is Orbitz relies on hotels to marketing materials to determine if it meets the green criteria. Ezaki wishes that there would be a global site that could tell what hotels are green friendly and are not. He knows something like this is very hard to do and will take time to make but for now customers will have to rely on nonprofit organizations and their own personal research.
Judkis, Maura. May 23rd 2008. “Deceptive Greenwashing Aims to Trick Ecotourists”. U.S. News. November 11th 2009. http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2008/05/23/deceptive-greenwashing-aims-to-trick-ecotourists.html


Wal-Mart's organic milk not really organic, say critics; "greenwashing" scam alleged:

Wal-Mart has been selling organic food for a while now, milk happens to be the most popular idem. Wal-Mart started making its own organic milk, which is being produced by the company Aurora Organic Dairy. Customers started to worry that the milk might be selling diluted organic milk. Senior farm analysis at the Cornucopia Institution, Mark Kastel said that Wal-Mart is trying to make producing milk as cheap as possible. Wal-Mart and Aurora both said that they are following the Agriculture Department’s standards for organic dairy. Aurora said that they have only 4,000 cows on a farm which is compared to a non organic farm which can normally have up to 25,000 cows. Agriculture Department says that they are planning to up the requirements for milk to be called organic causing Aurora to reduce the number of cows on a facility, triple the grazing area for their food and open up another farm. Kastel was not impressed with what Aurora was saying. He said that Aurora was just greenwashing. He said that they are doing things the cheap way instead of doing things the healthy way. Customers say that Wal-Mart doesn’t have to go the cheap and biggest supplier, they should go with someone who does the procedures right.

Unknown. September 21, 2006. “Wal-Mart's organic milk not really organic, say critics; "greenwashing" scam alleged”. Natural News. November 11th 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/020481_organic_milk_Wal-Mart_cows.html

Greenwashing- A National Sin?:

In 2007, TerraChoice released a report stating that “Of the 2,219 North American products surveyed, over 98% committed at least one of the previously identified Six Sins of Greenwashing and a new Seventh Sin emerged." Research done by TerraChoice showed that not all companies are engaging in greenwash, even though a majority of companies are.

Here is a summary of the seven sins:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-off, committed by suggesting a product is 'green' based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues. If something comes from nature or a natural thing doesn’t always mean that it is green. An example of that would be paper.

2. Sin of No Proof, committed by an environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. Pretty much if there isn’t any proof then chances it could not be healthy.

3. Sin of Vagueness, committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. It may have the title of being green but doesn’t have any information to back it up with actual “green” ingredients.

4. Sin of Irrelevance, committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.

5. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils, committed by claims that may be true within the product category,

but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category

as a whole. Fuel-efficient cars is an example of this.

6. Sin of Fibbing is committed by making environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples were products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered.

7. The Sin of False Labels, is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists.

Walker, Dean. June 29, 2009. “Greenwashing- A National Sin?” BrooWaha. November 11th 2009. http://www.broowaha.com/articles/4948/greenwashing-a-national-sin


A Brief History of Greenwash:

During the contemporary environmental movement of the mid 60’s companies started to use environmental images ads on their products in order to promote them. In these images were normally eco-friendly. This initial wave of this greenwashing was labeled as ecopornography. This was the time of the anti nuclear movement. People were not happy about the nuclear testing so the nuclear power division ran a few ads that stated "everywhere, extolling the anti-polluting virtues of atomic power" as "'reliable, low-cost...neat, clean, safe.'" Other companies used these types of greenwashing in order to promote their products. As time went on companies and people became smarter and more aware of greenwashing.

In the early 90’s, a poll was done that showed that 77% of customers are affected and buy things due to a corporation's environmental reputation. Another poll done showed that 84% of people considered corporate environmental crimes more serious than insider trading or price fixing. Because of these polls companies tried to go as green as they could go. One fourth of new products made were labeled as recyclable, "biodegradable" "ozone friendly" or "compostable”.

Throughout the next few years some of the world's greatest polluters spent millions on making their products seem more “green”. A few of the companies started to put animal friendly images on their packaging, some started to use wording like “environment safe” and “good for the air” and others statements that were earth friendly.

While all of this was going on in the US, Europe was dealing with greenwashing itself. A Swiss chemical corporation was trying to restore its image after the 1986 Basel spill. They ran advertisements which made them look like they were environmental friendly by using a forest, a tranquil pond, and a clean looking river. A corporation in Great Britain, which happened to be considered one of world's largest producers of the ozone, advertised its use "a new generation of ozone friendly fluorocarbons" to cover up its real use of air pollution.

Third world country companies also were starting to use greenwashing. Countries like India, Malaysia, Argentina and Brazil were using greenwashing as ways to get customers to feel safer for using their products.

Even though it seemed like the world was being brained washed and fooled by companies and their greenwashing, people started finding ways to detect through the greenwashing ads. They came up with things to look for when researching a product. They also found ways to tell the average consumer about greenwashing and how to not to be fooled by it.

Karliner, Joshua. March 22nd 2001. “A Brief History of Greenwash”. Corp Watch. November 7th 2009. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243

2 Easy Sources

Against Greenwashing:

Greenwash Marketing - Avoid the Greenwash
By Trudy Slabosz

Modern society has started to acknowledge that our current lifestyle, especially in the developed world, is having a very real and negative impact on the environment. As a member of this society we hear daily about 'climate change' and pollution and are overwhelmed with calls to be 'green' and 'eco-friendly'.

The corporate world has heard the call and many companies and organisations have hurried to establish themselves as pro-environmental. That there is positive change afoot in the corporate world is fantastic, but can we trust the integrity of some of these big business enterprises?

We've all seen the bogus advertisements dripping in green slogans and awash with images of clean running streams and unfelled forests.But how often do we let clever marketing and eco-friendly claims convince us of true environmental commitment and integrity?

The term Greenwash has been coined to represent the false and disingenuous actions of some manufacturers and marketing agencies that present themselves as environmentally friendly when they are anything but. Having a pro-environmental image is great marketing and can sucker consumers into buying products and supporting businesses that have put a lot of effort into advertising but maybe only a little into improving their environmental impact.

We are bombarded with advertising on new 'eco-friendly' policies and confronted with new bright green shinny labels and claims. But it is easy for a manufacturer to create a pro-environmental image without actually having to prove anything.We need to look beyond the publicity to really discover what positive actions lie behind the green spin.

There is significant market-based incentive to 'go green' but very little legal control around many of the terms used to promote 'green' commitments. It is in a manufacturer's interest to have a green image so be careful to insure there is substance to backup their eco-friendly claims. The simplest way to do this is to look for legitimate certification.

We need to put pressure on the manufacturers to provide us with real alternatives to polluting and unsustainable products and policies. By insuring the products we buy are certified environmentally friendly and not simply a product of Greenwashing; we are not putting money into marketing spin but into real positive change.

Greenwashing not only hurts the consumer but also degrades and threatens the environmental awareness we as a society are beginning to embrace. If we put our money into products only to discover that their eco-friendly promise is all just hype than we become disenchanted. We start to see the environmental cause as a lost cause and turn away from anything claiming to be green or pro-environmental. It again, all comes down to us the consumer. We need to be informed, active and clever in our choices. Become Greenwash savvy, look for a certified environmental commitment not a clever slogan.

Greenwashing is out there and as with any form of marketing it is up to the consumer to not be swayed by clever spin. Claims of being 'Green', 'Eco-Friendly', 'Natural' etc are meaningless without certification by an independent third party. Always look for products that meet your own environmental standards. Base your product choices on the real issues and not on market spin.

Don't let some manufacturers take advantage of our desire to make the world a better place and source out the real alternatives from those who share your desire for a positive impact. Have a browse through the sites and find out more about greenwashing and some of the biggest culprits. It is simply just a matter of shopping with a conscious and looking out for marketing ploys.

Make real choices and we make a real difference.

Slaboza, Trudy. 2009. “Greenwash Marketing-Avoid the Greenwash”. Ezine Article. November 17th 2009. http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Trudy_Slabosz



Pro Greenwashing:

The Tools Of Greenwashing: Adverts

Not everything on The Unsuitablog is greenwashing, sometimes it is about organisations that are just being foolish or aren’t informed enough to realise they are being hypocritical; sometimes it is about stuff that is just plain bad, and is featured because it is bad enough that everyone should know about. But the vast majority of stuff here is Greenwash. If you are a regular reader (for which I am very grateful) then you will already know how to spot greenwash. But just spotting it won’t stop it happening; we need to know more about the various tools companies, authorities, NGOs and other areas of life use to pull the leaves over our eyes.

The first one in this small series is Advertising.

The first time most people, including me, come across greenwashing is in the form of an advertisement. Adverts are, by their nature, commercial tools: they exist to encourage people to spend money. Straight away we can see a problem here, because the act of spending money — in the vast majority of cases — is unsustainable, regardless of the product being purchased. If you buy something new (when was the last time you saw an advert for something pre-owned?) then you are almost certain to be using non-renewable materials; and also non-renewable energy that was used to produce, transport, market and retail the item.

There are many different types of advertisement, ranging from press adverts in your local, small-circulation freesheet, national newspaper and magazine adverts, radio and television adverts (again these could be local or national), cinema adverts, billboards and the various forms of moving and placed adverts in a huge number of different items — bus tickets, schoolbooks, taxicabs etc.

In general, the glossier, bigger and larger circulation the advertisement, the more money that has been spent on it — and, therefore, the more money the advertiser is hoping to recoup from the sale of the item. For instance, a full-page adverts in National Geographic, Time or the Washington Post will cost tens of thousands of Dollars / Euros / Pounds etc. A 30 second spot in the middle of a major sporting event can cost millions.

If you see “green” claims in these, high-cost adverts, then you can be sure that you are looking at a piece of clever, slick greenwash. These people pay advertising agencies a hell of a lot of money to ensure their messages get across – the messages that the advertiser wants the public to see, and nothing else. Compare this to a local radio or newspaper advert, that might make environmental claims: if greenwashing, they are far more likely to be clumsy and opaque; but greenwashing is rare in such adverts. The high-cost advertisement is the home of much of the very worst greenwashing.

The public, sadly, have very short memories: this is not the fault of the public; it is the fault of the advertisers who continually pump a stream of digital sewage into our brains — who can blame people for forgetting the slip-ups of the past. And here is another key point: the greenwasher with money can afford to take a chance that they will be exposed, because if they do manage to pull off the perfect greenwash, they will have pulled it off in front of millions of potential consumers, many of whom are looking for products that are that bit greener. If they do get found out; well, there will be another advert, another slogan, another logo along in a short while ready to wipe out the memory of the greenwash.

The key message here, then, is be vigilant, be smart, and never forget.

Oh, and forget the “greensumption”: it’s just a con.
Unknown. (May 14th, 2008). “The Tools Of Greenwashing: Adverts”. The Unsuitable Blog. November 17th 2009. http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/05/14/the-tools-of-greenwashing-1-adverts/

Weekly Blog Postings #5

Sometimes it is hard to believe that a lot of products are being greenwashed. Some of the times you can see that something doesn’t seem right when a highly dangerous product’s company says that they are lowering their toxin levels or making their products safer. Sometimes you had no idea that a product was a lot dangerous than the way it is being made out to be. Here are a few companies that have really greenwashed their products. You may be surprised or some of these may not surprising at all.




Examples of Greenwashing:

• Mobil Chemical added starch to their 'Hefty' trash bags which were labeled as biodegradable. They were sued for the biodegradability claims and removed the term from their packaging and advertising.

• BAE Systems promoting weapons as “environmentally friendly”.

• Shell advertising that insinuated oil refineries emit “fresh flowers” instead of pollutants.

• Exxon Mobil indicating they were reducing greenhouse gas emissions while they were actually increasing.

• Kraft's Post Selects Cereals, promoting its cereals as having "natural ingredients" when, the corn used in the cereal is genetically engineered.

• Tyson Chicken promoting its products as "all natural," even though the company uses antibiotics with its chickens.

• Comanche Trace, a commercial developer, bills its golf courses as "great habitats," even though golf courses use pesticides that poison surrounding groundwater.

• Clairol claims to have a "truly organic experience" with its Herbal Essences line of shampoos but, chemicals such as sodium lauryl sulfate, propylene glycol and D&C red no. 33, which are not organic are used in the ingredients.



Were you surprised to read that some of these companies’ products are being greenwashed? Why or why not? Which one were you most surprised about? Least surprised about?

Weekly Blog Postings # 4 Greenwashing

Seven Deadly Sins of Greenwashing!

TerraChoice is an Environmental Marketing Consulting that practices and converts knowledge of markets, science and marketing into winning, client-centered solutions to help sustainability leaders deliver results. In 2007, they released a report stating that “Of the 2,219 North American products surveyed, over 98% committed at least one of the previously identified Seven Sins of Greenwashing." Research done by TerraChoice shows not all companies are engaging in greenwash. For those that are you should look for these seven sins. If one or more of the sins are found then chances greenwashing is covering up something.

Here is a summary of the seven sins:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-off, committed by suggesting a product is 'green' based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues. If something comes from nature or a natural thing doesn’t always mean that it is green. An example of that would be paper.

2. Sin of No Proof, committed by an environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification. Pretty much if there isn’t any proof then chances it could not be healthy.

3. Sin of Vagueness, committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. It may have the title of being green but doesn’t have any information to back it up with actual “green” ingredients.

4. Sin of Irrelevance, committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.

5. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils, committed by claims that may be true within the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole. A fuel-efficient car is an example of this.

6. Sin of Fibbing is committed by making environmental claims that are simply false. The most common examples were products falsely claiming to be Energy Star certified or registered.

7. The Sin of False Labels, is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists.

In your opinion, which do you think is the most common sin that companies use? Why do you think this?

Weekly Blog Postings # 3 Greenwashing

History of Greenwashing




During the contemporary environmental movement of the mid 60’s companies started to use environmental images ads on their products in order to promote them. In these images were normally eco-friendly. This initial wave of this greenwashing was labeled as ecopornography. This was the time of the anti nuclear movement. People were not happy about the nuclear testing so the nuclear power division ran a few ads that stated "everywhere, extolling the anti-polluting virtues of atomic power" as "'reliable, low-cost...neat, clean, safe.'" Other companies used these types of greenwashing in order to promote their products. As time went on companies and people became smarter and more aware of greenwashing.

In the early 90’s, a poll was done that showed that 77% of customers are affected and buy things due to a corporation's environmental reputation. Another poll done showed that 84% of people considered corporate environmental crimes more serious than insider trading or price fixing. Because of these polls companies tried to go as green as they could go. One fourth of new products made were labeled as recyclable, "biodegradable" "ozone friendly" or "compostable”.

Throughout the next few years some of the world's greatest polluters spent millions on making their products seem more “green”. A few of the companies started to put animal friendly images on their packaging, some started to use wording like “environment safe” and “good for the air” and others statements that were earth friendly.

While all of this was going on in the US, Europe was dealing with greenwashing itself. A Swiss chemical corporation was trying to restore its image after the 1986 Basel spill. They ran advertisements which made them look like they were environmental friendly by using a forest, a tranquil pond, and a clean looking river. A corporation in Great Britain, which happened to be considered one of world's largest producers of the ozone, advertised its use "a new generation of ozone friendly fluorocarbons" to cover up its real use of air pollution.

Third world country companies also were starting to use greenwashing. Countries like India, Malaysia, Argentina and Brazil were using greenwashing as ways to get customers to feel safer for using their products.

Even though it seemed like the world was being brained washed and fooled by companies and their greenwashing, people started finding ways to detect through the greenwashing ads. They came up with things to look for when researching a product. They also found ways to tell the average consumer about greenwashing and how to not to be fooled by it.



How do you feel about greenwashing being around since the 60’s? What are your feelings on greenwashing being all over the world? Are you surprised that even third world countries are using it? Why or why not?

Weekly Blog Postingss # 2 Greenwashing

Greenwashing is everywhere we look. Companies try to make their products out to be something special, healthy, and/or safe that the regular consumer should use. Companies will try very hard to allure customers to purchase their product but a smart health consumer should know how and what to look for with greenwashing. Greenwashing is mainly designed by journalists, politicians and activists to catch the consumer’s eye but there are some things to look for to see if the products’ information was made by the government and/ or a company. These are made to know what to look for when it comes to detecting and finding greenwashing. These eight things to do are:


• Follow the Money Trail: many companies donate to political parties and other groups in the community. A few companies actually disclose their annual reports to who they exactly donate to. You, as a consumer should ask about all their donations, not just those they boast about in glossy documents, even the ones that aren’t published.

• Follow the membership trail: most companies boast about the virtues of their environmental policy and performance but hide their anti-environmental activism. Find out what industry association companies are and see what their policies are.

• Follow the paper trail: a few companies will make submissions to the government on a wide range of issues. These submissions often will be posted to a website. Ask about submissions made by the company and their lobbying on issues you are interested in.

• Look for skeletons in the company's closet: every company has major problems that it doesn't want the public to know about. Some companies include information in the annual reports about problems that have been in the past years but most often companies try to keep their problems in the dark and hidden.

• Ask for access to information: many companies will make claims about their products being in the best quality and has the best customer satisfaction. You shouldn’t always take their word. Ask around for information of history of the company. If there is something that interests you, ask to see it. If the company tells you that it is commercially confidential that is a way of corporate telling you know no.

• Ask about international consistency: most companies operate with different standards in other countries. Check to see what their operating standards are, what their procedures are and whether they opt for lower standards.

• Check how they handle their critics: some companies go to extraordinary lengths to try to silence their critics. If they do try to do this see if there were any legal battles with this company or not.

• Test for consistency over time: it is common for a company to launch a policy and then starve it of funds. Also a company might make promises when they are under public pressure but never intend on keeping them when the spotlight fades away.

Hopefully these eight things will help you as a consumer to look beyond the catchy information and promises of a product of a consumer. Hopefully you can read the lines when it comes to learning about a company’s history.

What are your thoughts on asking companies for their information? Would you be more willing to keep digging if they don’t give their information to you the first time you asked for it? Why or Why not?

Weekly Blog Postings # 1 Greenwashing

Greenwashing is a term used to describe the practice of companies twisting their products and policies to make them more environmentally friendly. Two ways they do this is by cutting costs cuts and the reductions in the use of resources. The term green comes from "Going Green", saving the environment and recycling. But what companies do is they make their product look more environmentally helpful. One way a company does this is by looks and wording. For example a company that has a toxic chemical in their product, they may put a tree on the label saying that safe to the environment. Having a tree on a bottle will more likely make the customer want to buy it because of the tree. Another term that environmentalists use to describe greenwashing is linguistic detoxification. This term is normally used when referring to when a name of a certain substance or toxic level is changed, it will less likely to consider a certain toxic. Having different wording can sometimes make the customer be more willing to purchase something that sounds okay to use.