# I've tried it out



## onthecoast (Mar 4, 2009)

I try to always get items for painting that are earth friendly, from recycled pans to brushes anyway, but have decided to ad this information to a few ads. I actually get more of a response from my regular ads vs. the 'green' ads.

I think people assume because it's technically a bit different( in there eyes ) that it will be a different, more costly process and not worth the cost, because they assume paint can't really have much of an impact on the air, wildlife etc.

I think humanity no longer cares about air quality. ( LoL )


Do any of your own 'green' companies and could give me an advice as to advertising, promotions or point me in the direction of better reading materials I could share with my customers that may get the phones ringing for this type of service?

Do you find being 'green' has brought on more success?

I would love to hear your thoughts & stories.

Thanks guys


----------



## Wolverine (Apr 17, 2007)

No one???

I am curious...


----------



## ewingpainting.net (Jun 2, 2008)

Ya I too have tried the green approach. People really don't care. I think if I were to market it I would target elderly, medical, retirement facilities, property management, sickly peps. Your average home owner doesn't give a rip.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

I am not sure how much you can get out of "promoting" green as it seems to have become a cliche. I think offering information and options to people to who are interested as part of your services is enough.
I did read this today, I think it is more of an overall mindset.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

promoted it for awhile but when most find out it costs more that stops them in their tracks. We still do a few jobs a month with SW Harmony.


----------



## Workaholic (Apr 17, 2007)

It is kind of hard to be green when you are dealing with chemicals. I mean you can take some steps try to be greener but the reality is we deal in paint and paint products are not green.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

What alot of the manufacturers arent saying about their low VOC paints is that once you tint them they are no longer low VOC.


----------



## FL.BM.DEALER (Apr 2, 2009)

Why not try promoting "Low VOC Coatings", rather than green? This seems to be the terminology we hear the most in our stores from the homeowners, and there are a lot of people out there looking at that. 

And as far the cost factor, BM Eco Spec WB shouldn't be any more than a few bucks higher then SuperSpec, as well as Coronado's Superkote 5000 line wich just went fully "green". Curious to hear your experiences.


----------



## painterdude (Jun 18, 2008)

Let's be realistic here guys....with Glenn Beck and Limbaugh saying global warming etc. are part of the socialistic scam being perpetrated by the gov't, the only one's concerned about the environment are the baby boomers who remember when "earth day" actually created some excitement. Just drive behind a bunch or teens and 20's and watch them throw Mac wrappers out the windows. Count the 12 pack cartons along the roadsides compared to 30 years ago. It's no longer cool to be environmental. A bucks a buck, that's the mantra today. Comments?


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Here in Berzerkley, it's the twenty somethings that are spear heading the environMental movement.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

It's a world of beautiful flowers and butterflies until they become home owners and the reality of cost differences hits them in the wallet....
At least 10 times a month a customer will ask about low voc and I will provide an option on the proposal with a price difference of maybe $100 on a $2500 project and they will pass on choosing low voc!


----------



## FL.BM.DEALER (Apr 2, 2009)

aaron61 said:


> It's a world of beautiful flowers and butterflies until they become home owners and the reality of cost differences hits them in the wallet....
> At least 10 times a month a customer will ask about low voc and I will provide an option on the proposal with a price difference of maybe $100 on a $2500 project and they will pass on choosing low voc!


Damn, that makes me sick, $100 difference and a pass? I don't understand these homeowners anymore...


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

So people don't care about "Eco" "Green" "environmentally friendly"

Oh they do.
We have been getting way more leads than we could ever hope to service
for years now, many for just being Ecopainting Inc.
And also for being on people's faces and telling them about it.

So why would they call you, 
when they need the ECO choice they call us instead, or their local choice.

Also. it is not about the VOC, 
paint with zero VOC is not necessarily a healthy alternative. 
Acetone is VOC excempt, right?

Being environmentally friendly is a business choice,
we are still working on our policies. 
http://paintingtoronto.ca/category/green-painters/

using Harmony, Lifemaster or whatever and calling yourself green as a result, 
means nothing to today's smart and ethical consumer.


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

painterdude said:


> Let's be realistic here guys....with Glenn Beck and Limbaugh saying global warming etc. are part of the socialistic scam being perpetrated by the gov't, the only one's concerned about the environment are the baby boomers who remember when "earth day" actually created some excitement. Just drive behind a bunch or teens and 20's and watch them throw Mac wrappers out the windows. Count the 12 pack cartons along the roadsides compared to 30 years ago. It's no longer cool to be environmental. A bucks a buck, that's the mantra today. Comments?


Depends where you live,
that ******* agenda of the above clowns most here are not familiar with.
It is ultra cool to be green here, 
and cool has nothing to do with it.


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

Wolfgang said:


> What alot of the manufacturers arent saying about their low VOC paints is that once you tint them they are no longer low VOC.


Some have solved this problem,

right FL.BM.DEALER ?


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

painterdude said:


> Let's be realistic here guys....with Glenn Beck and Limbaugh saying global warming etc. are part of the socialistic scam being perpetrated by the gov't, the only one's concerned about the environment are the baby boomers who remember when "earth day" actually created some excitement. Just drive behind a bunch or teens and 20's and watch them throw Mac wrappers out the windows. Count the 12 pack cartons along the roadsides compared to 30 years ago. It's no longer cool to be environmental. A bucks a buck, that's the mantra today. Comments?


"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
Stephan Scheinder, lead 2007 UN IPCC report author.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

"Climate Change (provides) the greatest chance to bring justice and equality in the world."

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits."

Christine Stewart. Canada's former enviromental minister.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" 
1969

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large arteas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
1970

"Giving society cheap abundant energy....would be the eqivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
1978

all quotes courtesy of Paul Ehrlich, current president of the Center for Biology at Stanford.


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

We shouldn't make this political, not allowed,
but that Canadian minister you are quoting is likely indirectly funded by Exxon Mobil.

And Imperial Tobacco said there is no harm in smoking.

Just responding to politics, not starting it.

Here is a nice quote for you this nice Halloween night:



> *we are just borrowing earth from our children*


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

You're correct this shan't be made political.

And once we start expressing our own opinions whether or not global warming or climate shift is a hoax or not, it's starts to get political. There are strong feelings on both sides, however none of us have the education nor experience to speak from iron clad facts, so let's NOT begin the debate. All we can do is quote the self appointed gurus on either side - that is folly and a foundation for talk that is not allowed here.

Please DO talk about whether or not you and your company are finding it worthwhile going "green" or not. Do talk about facts about what products, although advertised as green, are really quite black.

There is plenty of room to discuss "green" as it pertains to our businesses without getting into topics that need be avoided here. 

On that note, I am very interested in "earth friendly" products. Yet I remember a talk I had with Geoff Verney of Monadnock Paper up in NH. He said that if it is manufactured it is not green. According to him, all manufacturing processes pollute the environment. I tend to agree with his assessment.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

It only became political after someone voiced opinions about commentators and some one else made disparaging remarks on the politics of non-believers. 

Of course the moderators would NEVER stop that. Just the retort as it was.

Don't start none!; Won't get none!


----------



## BrushJockey (Mar 15, 2009)

In my experience, the biggest thing isn't is it going to save the world, it's can I smell it. If you can do a job with minimum experiential impact on the client, you win the "green " game. It still is "about me".


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

I am for using greener products when available, if they perform the same or better than conventional products. When I present green options, so far builders are not interested since it cost more to build green, especially to build green at all levels, not just the painting. The occasional homeowner will be interested, but would not pay more for it. That is why Aura works from a sales perspective, it is greener, but also better than other options. For me, I view things more from a conservationist perspective than an environmentalist perspective.


----------



## LOSTinDETAILS (Jun 17, 2009)

painterdude said:


> Let's be realistic here guys....with Glenn Beck and Limbaugh saying global warming etc. are part of the socialistic scam being perpetrated by the gov't





George Z said:


> Depends where you live,
> that ******* agenda of the above clowns





George Z said:


> We shouldn't make this political, not allowed,


Nice try


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

LOSTinDETAILS said:


> Nice try


Unsuccessful at that. You caught me :whistling2:
Politics is an addiction, you wanna have one last drag before you quit.

I think we can all agree, 
there are some bad chemicals in our paints.
If "green" is too loaded, maybe Dean's conservationist perspective
is more conciliatory.
Whatever works.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

When I started selling toxin-free paints and coatings over 16 years ago, the word green was just a lowly color. Now, it the most over used and misunderstood word in the dictionary. 

Whoever mentioned acetone as an exempt VOC is right on the money. VOC's are regulated by the Environment Protection Agency because of their propensity to create low level smog and ozone. The EPA is not the Human Protection Agency. They do not regulate VOC's because of indoor air quality issues. However, every paint manufacturer out there uses the VOC issue as a marketing point. 

Consumers are getting smarter about avoiding the greenwashers. If you are going to start marketing your services as being green, make sure that there is a human health benefit to what you are doing. Low VOC, zero VOC...those descriptions trick people into believing that the paint is safe for them. Acetone, ammonia, buytl acetate, formaldehyde precursors, silica, etc. All of these ingredients and many more are not regulated as VOC's. However, many of the zero VOC products that are sold as green contain them. 

Ultimately, you have to use the products that you feel work the best. Just don't try to pass yourself off as being green just because the label on the product you use says it is.


----------



## onthecoast (Mar 4, 2009)

George Z said:


> So people don't care about "Eco" "Green" "environmentally friendly"
> 
> Oh they do.
> We have been getting way more leads than we could ever hope to service
> ...


I like this


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

People love to talk about how environmentally friendly they like to be, in public, but,in private, most don't practice it. IMHO...Look at Al Gores Multiple opulent homes and private jet travel...come on give me a break.If you don't practice it,don't preach it!


----------



## Formulator (May 28, 2008)

George Z said:


> We shouldn't make this political, not allowed,
> but that Canadian minister you are quoting is likely indirectly funded by Exxon Mobil.
> 
> And Imperial Tobacco said there is no harm in smoking.
> ...


 
George, 

The problem with you saying it isn't political is that any "eco" business model based on these theories is polticized and there is no escaping it. I would prefer to stick to the data and make reasonable decisions.

Let's take, for example, this question: Is a paint that has zinc chromate and lead in it worse for the environment than a 0 voc coating?

Now, let's take more into account: Is it better if you have to paint that object once in 30 years with the "non-friendly" paint or is it better to paint it once every 5 years with the "friendly" paint?

Taking this even further: Is it better to use that "friendly" paint which is more likely to have a failure causing damage to the protected object and, thus, causing the consumer to use even more resources to replace the damaged object?


There are lots of things like this to consider.


----------



## Formulator (May 28, 2008)

ajpace said:


> When I started selling toxin-free paints and coatings over 16 years ago, the word green was just a lowly color. Now, it the most over used and misunderstood word in the dictionary.
> 
> Whoever mentioned acetone as an exempt VOC is right on the money. VOC's are regulated by the Environment Protection Agency because of their propensity to create low level smog and ozone. The EPA is not the Human Protection Agency. They do not regulate VOC's because of indoor air quality issues. However, every paint manufacturer out there uses the VOC issue as a marketing point.
> 
> ...


 
I can "generally" agree with what you are saying. However I can tell you a few things with having to deal with the whole green thing.

The process has been so politicised that the distinction to the consumer is not clear. 

Let's take for instance your talk of "exempt" solvents. There is a reason why some of these solvents are exempt. No suitable replacement for them exists. There is now an initiative to start phasing out mineral spirits as a thinner and a cleaning solvent. So what is the suitable replacement for that? Well, industry will be replacing it with acetone. Personally, I think this is just a ridiculous move as the flammability hazard involved with acetone is so incredibly high. But hey, what's a few people turned to toast in the name of saving the planet based on unproven science.

I'm all for improving the safety of paints, but reasonable, well-informed decisions should be made and knee-jerk fad cultures in the name of being "green" shouldn't be leading a charge of any kind.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

Carbon based compounds such as acetone and ammonia were not exempted from the VOC regs because there is no suitable replacement. They were exempted because the paint and coatings industry lobbyists (accurately) argued that these compounds do not react to create smog the way that most carbon based compounds do. Once again, this proves that the VOC regulations have nothing to do with human health. Pine trees and active volcanos release 1000X more VOC's into the air than the paint industry does, but the EPA can't regulate them...yet 

There are excellent replacement formulations that do not require these chemicals, but the prices reflect the technology. High quality zero VOC paints will be much more expensive than low quality zero VOC formulations. Keep in mind that the paint industry is one of the few where you almost always get what you pay for. A paint that is $40-60 per gallon will normally have better ingredients...higher solids content, less "fillers", etc. There are some exceptions, especially when a well-known designer's name is on the can.


----------



## Formulator (May 28, 2008)

ajpace said:


> Carbon based compounds such as acetone and ammonia were not exempted from the VOC regs because there is no suitable replacement. They were exempted because the paint and coatings industry lobbyists (accurately) argued that these compounds do not react to create smog the way that most carbon based compounds do. Once again, this proves that the VOC regulations have nothing to do with human health. Pine trees and active volcanos release 1000X more VOC's into the air than the paint industry does, but the EPA can't regulate them...yet
> 
> There are excellent replacement formulations that do not require these chemicals, but the prices reflect the technology. High quality zero VOC paints will be much more expensive than low quality zero VOC formulations. Keep in mind that the paint industry is one of the few where you almost always get what you pay for. A paint that is $40-60 per gallon will normally have better ingredients...higher solids content, less "fillers", etc. There are some exceptions, especially when a well-known designer's name is on the can.


 
You're talking MIR values vs. VOC. I would still argue that if there was a good substitute for some of these chemicals then they would not be exempted.


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

Formulator said:


> George,
> 
> The problem with you saying it isn't political is that any "eco" business model based on these theories is polticized and there is no escaping it. I would prefer to stick to the data and make reasonable decisions.
> 
> ...


If you actually read most of my comments in this section,
you may find your answers before you asked your questions.You may be surprised that I agree on many.


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

Formulator said:


> The process has been so politicised that the distinction to the consumer is not clear.


Better let consumers speak for consumers.


----------



## mblosik (Jan 3, 2009)

George Z said:


> We shouldn't make this political, not allowed,
> but that Canadian minister you are quoting is likely indirectly funded by Exxon Mobil.
> 
> And Imperial Tobacco said there is no harm in smoking.
> ...


ummmmm....you called beck and limbaugh "clowns". is that considered political?:whistling2:


----------



## mblosik (Jan 3, 2009)

ajpace said:


> Carbon based compounds such as acetone and ammonia were not exempted from the VOC regs because there is no suitable replacement. They were exempted because the paint and coatings industry lobbyists (accurately) argued that these compounds do not react to create smog the way that most carbon based compounds do. Once again, this proves that the VOC regulations have nothing to do with human health. Pine trees and active volcanos release 1000X more VOC's into the air than the paint industry does, but the EPA can't regulate them...yet
> 
> There are excellent replacement formulations that do not require these chemicals, but the prices reflect the technology. High quality zero VOC paints will be much more expensive than low quality zero VOC formulations. Keep in mind that the paint industry is one of the few where you almost always get what you pay for. A paint that is $40-60 per gallon will normally have better ingredients...higher solids content, less "fillers", etc. There are some exceptions, especially when a well-known designer's name is on the can.


awesome points!


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

mblosik said:


> ummmmm....you called beck and limbaugh "clowns". is that considered political?:whistling2:


Hope so


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

In my experience no one likes to come home and smell curing paint, so you could market low voc healthy for you and your family instead of green. Its also nice to not smell those harsher paints all day as a painter.

The whole green movement is losing steam imo.


----------

