Friday, April 28, 2006
There's little not to like about a charity gig. If you are a music lover you end up getting a load of great entertainment, often at a fraction of the cost. If you are a performer, you get a load of publicity, often at a fraction of the cost. And if you are the beneficiary, you get a load of coverage and money (assuming it does not all get consumed in expenses, no matter how generous the contributors' time).
So I cheerfully endorse all behind 'The Big Ask' gig.
After Thom's little spat courtesy of the Times a while ago, when his last tour's carbon costs were lobbed back at him, I'm sure this one will be a truly no-waste, no eco-cost deal at all. All turning up in Priuses and drinking tap water rather than bottled, and only snorting coke grown in Penge rather than flown in from Columbia. And definitely every effort to maximise the public access and financial contribution without tons of freeloading media luvvies and celebs hogging backstage going for a ratings/career-boosting soundbite about how they make sure their tour jets use biodiesel.
It reminded me of a 'green' (there's that word) event we attended, and at which First Lady PJ was to sing, where I read in the blurb that the sound system was to be powered by solar. As it was a night gig that was going to be a feat, and when I arrived sure enough about 3 40' artics had disgorged a lot of very big black boxes that had dirty great big cables running off diesel transformers. It would have been a very quiet gig without them, so I think one can get a bit carried away when you start worrying too much about 'cons e-quences'.
Not so sure about the 3% 'target' it's all about, as you know what I feel about targets by now, and it all still seems a bit vague to me, but as awareness building it's a BTN (better than nothing). I guess I'd just like to see more energy and effort going into motivating and educating folk with realistic tangibles.
Me, I'll keep on with looking for more end-benefits for the individual consumer with our gig: 'the small, but often, DO'.
Posted by Peter at 11:48 am
I feel sorry for the Green party. They bagged the colour (oddly left lying around by those who got first dibs on the others - though I do recall that in marketing focus groups it's not a good one for branding purposes), and have been banging on faithfully for years on pretty much the exact thing all the others have woken up to in about the last... er... week... it seems.
So now we have 'Vote Blue. Go Green' from the Tories! What's next? 'Let's not go into the Red' (as in 'consumed by ball of flame', though with Labour the more traditional fiscal allusion may not see this being taken up currently), and 'The Future's Bright, The Future's Green' (with due deference to the jumble of the Lib Dems and Orange in terms of colours, slogans, etc). What ever happened to Go Green. Vote... er... Green?
Frankly, I am worried that the trusty colour, and indeed term, may be losing its appeal and hence power.
We certainly vetoed it for the Junkk.com website and branding, along with any swirly re-arrows, as we felt it was all too associated with actions and views that were not reflective of where we wanted to be (how ad-speak is that?) and what we thought the public we seek to attract and serve were thinking any more.
But with green being the new black in all but name, what the heck can we use as a colourful rallying call?
Posted by Peter at 10:25 am