Karma is a funny thing.
With the 'brimming with vindication' consumer market research burning a hole in my filing cabinet, yesterday was supposed to be the day of a big meeting with a PR whiz to get the media, at least (hopefully followed by consumers, groups and government) to sit up and take note of RE:tie as a green, disability PR, CSR and sales dream come true.
Sadly, snow stopped (well, postponed, possibly until next year) play.
Suitably snookered, I was licking my wounds when I happened across this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100008829/grey-pounds-100bn-christmas-warning-to-retailers/
Bearing in mind that equal to RE:tie's 'green' cred is its contribution to enablement, this was not unfortuitous.
Of course I have weighed in:
'Retailers risk repelling some of their wealthiest customers with excessive and poorly-designed packaging which older people find difficult to open or use...
+
...Nearly half of more than 2,000 people questioned said they are sometimes unable to take lids or caps off products such as plastic milk bottles or jars because of the packaging
As one with more than a passing interest in PR & marketing, what surprises me is how resistant many brands are to initiatives designed not only to boost their CSR, but which may also confer more than a slight USP/sales advantage too, which one has to presume is the holy grail.
With luck it is but a matter of time before design initiatives such as http://www.retie.co.uk/ or http://www.squeezeopen.com/ get noticed, embraced and appreciated as much by those marketing whizzes (and their bosses forever on the TV claiming to be in support of 'innovation') as much as they may be by consumers.
I have also contacted the professional bodies cited, and downloaded a useful research aid:
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/
http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/
http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/record.jsp?type=publication&ID=80
http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/files/pdf_pdf_155.pdf
Showing posts with label MARKETING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MARKETING. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
What the guys who sell you stuff think...
Will consumers pay more to buy green?
So... who can think of a way to go green without asking anyoen to pay more?
Anyone?
Thrift usurps green at top of the new consumer agenda
So... who can think of a way to go green without asking anyoen to pay more?
Anyone?
Thrift usurps green at top of the new consumer agenda
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Buddy, can you spare a lime?
Crunch-hit consumers restricted by price of green products, report says
Well, there's a thing.
After my initial 'Well, d'uh!', there are a few interesting aspects to note.
'.... widespread dissatisfaction over the variety of green products offered by retailers,' is one I was not aware of.
'...shoppers on average paid 45% more for environmentally friendly and fair trade goods.' is one that amazed me.
'Shoppers said they are only willing to pay a premium of about 20% for greener products.' made me think there are a lot of folk with a lot of money.
"Consumers want to make sustainable choices, but are hampered by unclear messages. Confusion, coupled with high prices, leads to a lack of trust...'' comes as no surprise.
While 'More than 6 in 10 consumers questioned said reducing the amount of packaging on products was the most important action retailers and consumer goods companies could take to help the environment' makes me wonder why Junkk.com and RE:tie are proving real challenges to get across with the business community.
I really am starting to think the marketers and business brains in this country would would miss an opportunity even if it folded itself in neat notes in their wallets.
Well, there's a thing.
After my initial 'Well, d'uh!', there are a few interesting aspects to note.
'.... widespread dissatisfaction over the variety of green products offered by retailers,' is one I was not aware of.
'...shoppers on average paid 45% more for environmentally friendly and fair trade goods.' is one that amazed me.
'Shoppers said they are only willing to pay a premium of about 20% for greener products.' made me think there are a lot of folk with a lot of money.
"Consumers want to make sustainable choices, but are hampered by unclear messages. Confusion, coupled with high prices, leads to a lack of trust...'' comes as no surprise.
While 'More than 6 in 10 consumers questioned said reducing the amount of packaging on products was the most important action retailers and consumer goods companies could take to help the environment' makes me wonder why Junkk.com and RE:tie are proving real challenges to get across with the business community.
I really am starting to think the marketers and business brains in this country would would miss an opportunity even if it folded itself in neat notes in their wallets.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Well, they did ask.
Green bling - Can luxury mean more than excess consumption?
It's all a matter of what your definitions are, and where you set the bars (and the link to the article didn't work for me so I can't reflect the detail).
That said, it is hard to reconcile the words with consequent actions, especially 'environmental and ethical messages' followed, almost inevitably, with 'excess consumption' in the next sentence.
It's why I find a Sunday supp special on 'recycled fashion' hilarious when by the following Friday it's all 'so early this week' and they've all scooted off in the Lear to Tokyo to gush on making barstool covers out of Willy's, er... well...
Take that as a no. And all trying to jump on board the bandwagon should feel deep shame. Well, if they had any shame. Or the ability to feel.
It's all a matter of what your definitions are, and where you set the bars (and the link to the article didn't work for me so I can't reflect the detail).
That said, it is hard to reconcile the words with consequent actions, especially 'environmental and ethical messages' followed, almost inevitably, with 'excess consumption' in the next sentence.
It's why I find a Sunday supp special on 'recycled fashion' hilarious when by the following Friday it's all 'so early this week' and they've all scooted off in the Lear to Tokyo to gush on making barstool covers out of Willy's, er... well...
Take that as a no. And all trying to jump on board the bandwagon should feel deep shame. Well, if they had any shame. Or the ability to feel.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Clueing Up
More happy Friday stuff. This time a book via a group.
Yesterday I was with a group of nice folk in Bristol at a networking event hosted by an equally nice outfit I'd met by virtue of being not first in a recent award: The Hub.
In a most relaxed style over a (BYO) lunch we were treated to a talk on web-based social networking by one of their members, Ed, who works with these guys, amongst others. Quick off the mark with his uploads, too. You might notice the Vac:Sac at left in one pic.
While he didn't really tell me much I didn't know, and depressingly reminded me just how much I'd paid for over the years that was now free and open source, he did focus my mind on the various Web 2.0 opportunities for self-promo that Junkk.com needs to engage with.
FaceBook, MySpace, BeBp
Wikis (lost of potential here)
Fikr (if only for image storage)
YouTube (ditto)
Blog (Looking at it!)
He also mentioned a good book to read for those trying to grasp and exploit the etherlike world of the net, which I in turn pass on here. It's called the ClueTrain Manifesto. It's free, so what's not to like?
Sadly, even though Bristol is but 1 hr away (on a good day), it just eats into a day getting there and back, so I don't know if I can afford to pop up and down too often. But there are also some useful guys there who may be able to help me take Junkk.com to some higher levels, so fingers crossed.
Telegraph - BBC plans social networking site for children - Don't feel (quite) so bad about the considerably less (but still a lot) I spent to do considerably more, with more folk, than those who have access to our apparently limitless pockets.
Or, for that matter (though you will need to delve a bit).... here:
London Standard - Whistle-blower to sue Mayor over 'bullying' claims - 'LDA's Diversity Dividend, an interactive website allowing companies to assess their diversity performance. ...the £295,000 contract for the website... The website never operated properly.
Yesterday I was with a group of nice folk in Bristol at a networking event hosted by an equally nice outfit I'd met by virtue of being not first in a recent award: The Hub.
In a most relaxed style over a (BYO) lunch we were treated to a talk on web-based social networking by one of their members, Ed, who works with these guys, amongst others. Quick off the mark with his uploads, too. You might notice the Vac:Sac at left in one pic.
While he didn't really tell me much I didn't know, and depressingly reminded me just how much I'd paid for over the years that was now free and open source, he did focus my mind on the various Web 2.0 opportunities for self-promo that Junkk.com needs to engage with.
FaceBook, MySpace, BeBp
Wikis (lost of potential here)
Fikr (if only for image storage)
YouTube (ditto)
Blog (Looking at it!)
He also mentioned a good book to read for those trying to grasp and exploit the etherlike world of the net, which I in turn pass on here. It's called the ClueTrain Manifesto. It's free, so what's not to like?
Sadly, even though Bristol is but 1 hr away (on a good day), it just eats into a day getting there and back, so I don't know if I can afford to pop up and down too often. But there are also some useful guys there who may be able to help me take Junkk.com to some higher levels, so fingers crossed.
Telegraph - BBC plans social networking site for children - Don't feel (quite) so bad about the considerably less (but still a lot) I spent to do considerably more, with more folk, than those who have access to our apparently limitless pockets.
Or, for that matter (though you will need to delve a bit).... here:
London Standard - Whistle-blower to sue Mayor over 'bullying' claims - 'LDA's Diversity Dividend, an interactive website allowing companies to assess their diversity performance. ...the £295,000 contract for the website... The website never operated properly.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
To win battles, use those who know how to fight... with the right weapons
Prodded, I suspect, by a post from a new 'green agency' selling their wares (I certainly had a look, but could find no portfolio of work, which was a worry - lots on the boxes they had ticked, though), the moderator on eco-innovation network asked for some thoughts on green marketing:
Having been through the 2nd green consumer wave in the late 80's and
90s - when i did my 1st greener marketing book - i am keen not to see
the re-emergence of the Friends of the Earth 'Green Con of the Year'
award in the 3rd 'green' consumer wave we are now in (certainly in the
uk)
My observation is there are many marketing services companies, ad
agencies, etc - suddenly claiming to be 'green' - my concern is that
advise may not be up to standard e.g. the green comms part of
the 'mix' is much more information-based and is not copywriting based -
failure to pick-up complexities and nuances can be disasterous
What needs to be done in terms of developing a 'code of conduct'? - is
there need? and what should be done?
Struck a chord:
As with the many carbon offsetters, traders, footprinters, soakers and all others popping up to feed off the need/desire to be ‘greener’, between the various disciplines in the marketing, advertising, promotions and media firmament there now seem to be almost as many official bodies as there are practitioners. Along with a burgeoning collection of monitoring schemes and labelers (of questionable use, having just read recently five e-performance ‘surveys’ in a week that managed shuffle Tesco and M&S from top to bottom), such that a pack of Smarties will soon need to have a CDR attached just to accommodate the various competing info charts and bars.
And most seem to have a code of practice, all about as much use as they are compulsory.
Overseeing industry there are various well-staffed quangos with, it seems, few if any teeth to effect more than a nasty wrist slap usually once the horse has well and truly bolted, run the 3.15 at Chepstow, been put out to stud and is now the principal ingredient in your tube of Thixofix.
I also assume above these guys are government, who make laws and enforce them, but that any such effective entity exists beyond hype, spin, self-interest and covering up the next Panorama exposé is really the stuff of legend.
Sadly, I rather fear the FoE will have plenty of material already for its next edition. In fact I believe Greenpeace and others have also jumped on the name and shame bandwagon too. So soon we can will be having competing hit lists to contend with: ‘When Greens Go Bad’, or, ‘Now that’s what I call a dodgy offset #66!’ (I have to confess I have been toying with my own, but for now have contented myself with a growing collection of ads that have ‘...but won’t cost the Earth’ in the headline.)
At least thanks to the efficiency of PR dissemination these days, whatever the ASA publishes each week will, if suitably entertaining or compromising, hit the major media within hours. I do believe ‘green-minded’ (or at least aspiring) brands from Innocent Drinks to Lexus to - most recently - Shell, have all found out this to their cost. Sadly sticking a flower in an exhaust pipe isn’t quite making the cut for the authorities, if not some consumers, if not backed up with some substantive justifications. Trouble is the job is usually done by the time they get pulled.
As a creative practitioner over a few decades I still keep my hand in, though I do now focus more on the karmic correction of trying to use the dark arts of persuasion to steer folk to a greener direction. I do so in the hope of offsetting the consequences of my being a tad too good at getting them to buy stuff they didn't really need and/or go places they didn't really need to travel to.
But frankly it has amazed me not that there are so many jumping on this bandwagon to 'sell' expertise in this arena, but that there are still so few. How long before Ego, Driven and Entitled (and yes, my agency boasted my name in its partner string) can boast a 'Head of Green Marketing' (please don't tell me they do already!) which will doubtless be a big box-ticker to some quango numpty looking for a 'green' agency, and with all sorts of ethical requirements to clear with the Minister and triple-bottom-line committee before s/he gets taken out to the bars of SoHo.
In a capitalist/consumerist society, ‘marketing’ in all its forms will in most cases struggle to be truly green. With a few exceptions of real mitigation/reduction, the aim is usually to compete and dominate by selling more ‘stuff’. And, to be fair, I'd go further and try to separate the agency side from the marketing a bit more, though accepting that most agencies have a philosophy of know the clients' business as well as they do themselves. It’s just a sensible practice to stay ahead of the curve (and competition) by being just so darn useful and proactive the client really wouldn't dare risk succumbing to another's entreaties... or fee reductions.
At the end of the day ad guys may well be trusted advisors, but are also mercenaries, if highly professional ones. And business is business. The brief is all, and the signature on the contact report more so. Given a task one comes up with a campaign, from creative ideas to media plans, that delivers the best ROI for the budget. It’s all about getting the most persuasive message in front of the highest number of relevant audience members, for the least money.
My agency had a simple philosophy that the client got presented with: Quick. Cheap. Good.... Pick any two (and one must always be Good).
It was up to the client to choose those that would take that fight out into the marketplace, and win it on their behalf through hard work and skill. All we asked was that they knew what they were doing. And because they choose us that meant they usually did.
We had specializations, and that allowed us to excel with various niches. It's not mandatory, but to create a message an audience will empathize with it certainly helps to have those on board who know the subject backwards (not something I see in many major media environment reporters/editors these days, who serve up some rampant dross to feed the MWCC cynics, like electric cars ‘that don’t pollute’) to find the USPs and opportunities... but also what will tickle the fancy of the person on the receiving end.
But one cannot hope to have quite the same level of insight into, or product knowledge of the person whose every waking moment is (or should be) devoted to their industry and developing their brand/product service (mind you, long-termism in these careers is not prevalent, and hence rarely reflected in strategy, resulting in quick wins that can often be damaging after the commissioner is long gone).
So I do cock an eye at who is failing whom, and the motivations of those who seem prepared to risk the bad PR of an ASA carpeting and Daily Mail inside spread, all for a few grams of carbon more or less in their claims.
The facts are indeed the facts. But unless it has moved on a bit, they still need to be legal, decent, honest and truthful (sadly ‘relevant and ‘beneficial’ are not always included in complement, often along with ethical or moral). I don't see the need for a code of conduct much beyond that. And even if there was how it would be any more enforceable than it is already under current legislation. Just ask Mr. O'Leary. We don’t need more bodies feeding off the system, just more effective ones.
At the end of the day it's down to all those within the process to ask themselves why they are doing what they do. And if they cannot come up with an honest answer, if they are still proud to stand behind their actions then that’s between them and their future generations.
I fully agree with you that it is a major worry just how much venal rubbish is being issued currently in the name of green, with more being shoveled in constantly. I had felt the only saving grace was that all of it was so creatively dire (I am hard-pressed to think of a single green marketing effort that has appealed, much less persuaded me) that at least no one was paying a blind bit of notice. But that is not the case. Thanks to less than innocently-motivated tabloids and others, some egregious examples of greenwashing are going out, being outed and getting noticed, but for all the wrong reasons. And about the only consequence I can see is that it makes the efforts of those with good, genuine products/services and messages, and those working to help promote them properly (ie: with persuasion and argument and end-benefit, not fear, guilt, nanny-nag, etc. Or all too prevalent green-tinted distractions of little actual enviROI+ value) that more difficult.
But until pros who have more in mind than profits, targets or ratings come together from all sides of the mix to make sure that the best enviROI is delivered to the consumer at the same time as ROI in the marketing process, we will see what we are seeing daily now: chancers buying bamboo couches and claiming to be a green agency because they recycle their coffee cups, and marketing commissioners with budgets in the millions and sustainability forms more designed to meet CSR objectives, getting seduced by this aspect of the process at the expense of the thing they are actually meant to be achieving: a clear objective with a good brief to develop a well-targeted execution.
I think only the market will decide what will prevail. Which, with luck, it still can. You can only sell so many cars that don’t prove to do the mileage or emit the claimed green benefits (even if the exhaust pipe is on a power station) before something catches up with you. And overtakes.
But, to be sure, what would be a real help is a single, trusted measure of what is accurate, ruthlessly enforced by a body with teeth, such the consumer can believe what they see or hear is at least accurate enough to make an informed decision upon.
However, even if all could agree on what makes for a fair ‘green’ claim, between carbon footprints, food miles, organic impacts, etc, etc, so that any such thing does become meaningful to a bewildered consumer base (and not just the jargonistic target-setters at their Bali conferences), on current evidence I don’t see most believing that the International, EU or national governments of the day are doing it for the right reasons, and not just to get out of a landfill hole, a missed target fine or to pump some subsidy dosh into an offshore engineering company with a really good lobbying consultant.
PR Watch - Falsies Awards
Having been through the 2nd green consumer wave in the late 80's and
90s - when i did my 1st greener marketing book - i am keen not to see
the re-emergence of the Friends of the Earth 'Green Con of the Year'
award in the 3rd 'green' consumer wave we are now in (certainly in the
uk)
My observation is there are many marketing services companies, ad
agencies, etc - suddenly claiming to be 'green' - my concern is that
advise may not be up to standard e.g. the green comms part of
the 'mix' is much more information-based and is not copywriting based -
failure to pick-up complexities and nuances can be disasterous
What needs to be done in terms of developing a 'code of conduct'? - is
there need? and what should be done?
Struck a chord:
As with the many carbon offsetters, traders, footprinters, soakers and all others popping up to feed off the need/desire to be ‘greener’, between the various disciplines in the marketing, advertising, promotions and media firmament there now seem to be almost as many official bodies as there are practitioners. Along with a burgeoning collection of monitoring schemes and labelers (of questionable use, having just read recently five e-performance ‘surveys’ in a week that managed shuffle Tesco and M&S from top to bottom), such that a pack of Smarties will soon need to have a CDR attached just to accommodate the various competing info charts and bars.
And most seem to have a code of practice, all about as much use as they are compulsory.
Overseeing industry there are various well-staffed quangos with, it seems, few if any teeth to effect more than a nasty wrist slap usually once the horse has well and truly bolted, run the 3.15 at Chepstow, been put out to stud and is now the principal ingredient in your tube of Thixofix.
I also assume above these guys are government, who make laws and enforce them, but that any such effective entity exists beyond hype, spin, self-interest and covering up the next Panorama exposé is really the stuff of legend.
Sadly, I rather fear the FoE will have plenty of material already for its next edition. In fact I believe Greenpeace and others have also jumped on the name and shame bandwagon too. So soon we can will be having competing hit lists to contend with: ‘When Greens Go Bad’, or, ‘Now that’s what I call a dodgy offset #66!’ (I have to confess I have been toying with my own, but for now have contented myself with a growing collection of ads that have ‘...but won’t cost the Earth’ in the headline.)
At least thanks to the efficiency of PR dissemination these days, whatever the ASA publishes each week will, if suitably entertaining or compromising, hit the major media within hours. I do believe ‘green-minded’ (or at least aspiring) brands from Innocent Drinks to Lexus to - most recently - Shell, have all found out this to their cost. Sadly sticking a flower in an exhaust pipe isn’t quite making the cut for the authorities, if not some consumers, if not backed up with some substantive justifications. Trouble is the job is usually done by the time they get pulled.
As a creative practitioner over a few decades I still keep my hand in, though I do now focus more on the karmic correction of trying to use the dark arts of persuasion to steer folk to a greener direction. I do so in the hope of offsetting the consequences of my being a tad too good at getting them to buy stuff they didn't really need and/or go places they didn't really need to travel to.
But frankly it has amazed me not that there are so many jumping on this bandwagon to 'sell' expertise in this arena, but that there are still so few. How long before Ego, Driven and Entitled (and yes, my agency boasted my name in its partner string) can boast a 'Head of Green Marketing' (please don't tell me they do already!) which will doubtless be a big box-ticker to some quango numpty looking for a 'green' agency, and with all sorts of ethical requirements to clear with the Minister and triple-bottom-line committee before s/he gets taken out to the bars of SoHo.
In a capitalist/consumerist society, ‘marketing’ in all its forms will in most cases struggle to be truly green. With a few exceptions of real mitigation/reduction, the aim is usually to compete and dominate by selling more ‘stuff’. And, to be fair, I'd go further and try to separate the agency side from the marketing a bit more, though accepting that most agencies have a philosophy of know the clients' business as well as they do themselves. It’s just a sensible practice to stay ahead of the curve (and competition) by being just so darn useful and proactive the client really wouldn't dare risk succumbing to another's entreaties... or fee reductions.
At the end of the day ad guys may well be trusted advisors, but are also mercenaries, if highly professional ones. And business is business. The brief is all, and the signature on the contact report more so. Given a task one comes up with a campaign, from creative ideas to media plans, that delivers the best ROI for the budget. It’s all about getting the most persuasive message in front of the highest number of relevant audience members, for the least money.
My agency had a simple philosophy that the client got presented with: Quick. Cheap. Good.... Pick any two (and one must always be Good).
It was up to the client to choose those that would take that fight out into the marketplace, and win it on their behalf through hard work and skill. All we asked was that they knew what they were doing. And because they choose us that meant they usually did.
We had specializations, and that allowed us to excel with various niches. It's not mandatory, but to create a message an audience will empathize with it certainly helps to have those on board who know the subject backwards (not something I see in many major media environment reporters/editors these days, who serve up some rampant dross to feed the MWCC cynics, like electric cars ‘that don’t pollute’) to find the USPs and opportunities... but also what will tickle the fancy of the person on the receiving end.
But one cannot hope to have quite the same level of insight into, or product knowledge of the person whose every waking moment is (or should be) devoted to their industry and developing their brand/product service (mind you, long-termism in these careers is not prevalent, and hence rarely reflected in strategy, resulting in quick wins that can often be damaging after the commissioner is long gone).
So I do cock an eye at who is failing whom, and the motivations of those who seem prepared to risk the bad PR of an ASA carpeting and Daily Mail inside spread, all for a few grams of carbon more or less in their claims.
The facts are indeed the facts. But unless it has moved on a bit, they still need to be legal, decent, honest and truthful (sadly ‘relevant and ‘beneficial’ are not always included in complement, often along with ethical or moral). I don't see the need for a code of conduct much beyond that. And even if there was how it would be any more enforceable than it is already under current legislation. Just ask Mr. O'Leary. We don’t need more bodies feeding off the system, just more effective ones.
At the end of the day it's down to all those within the process to ask themselves why they are doing what they do. And if they cannot come up with an honest answer, if they are still proud to stand behind their actions then that’s between them and their future generations.
I fully agree with you that it is a major worry just how much venal rubbish is being issued currently in the name of green, with more being shoveled in constantly. I had felt the only saving grace was that all of it was so creatively dire (I am hard-pressed to think of a single green marketing effort that has appealed, much less persuaded me) that at least no one was paying a blind bit of notice. But that is not the case. Thanks to less than innocently-motivated tabloids and others, some egregious examples of greenwashing are going out, being outed and getting noticed, but for all the wrong reasons. And about the only consequence I can see is that it makes the efforts of those with good, genuine products/services and messages, and those working to help promote them properly (ie: with persuasion and argument and end-benefit, not fear, guilt, nanny-nag, etc. Or all too prevalent green-tinted distractions of little actual enviROI+ value) that more difficult.
But until pros who have more in mind than profits, targets or ratings come together from all sides of the mix to make sure that the best enviROI is delivered to the consumer at the same time as ROI in the marketing process, we will see what we are seeing daily now: chancers buying bamboo couches and claiming to be a green agency because they recycle their coffee cups, and marketing commissioners with budgets in the millions and sustainability forms more designed to meet CSR objectives, getting seduced by this aspect of the process at the expense of the thing they are actually meant to be achieving: a clear objective with a good brief to develop a well-targeted execution.
I think only the market will decide what will prevail. Which, with luck, it still can. You can only sell so many cars that don’t prove to do the mileage or emit the claimed green benefits (even if the exhaust pipe is on a power station) before something catches up with you. And overtakes.
But, to be sure, what would be a real help is a single, trusted measure of what is accurate, ruthlessly enforced by a body with teeth, such the consumer can believe what they see or hear is at least accurate enough to make an informed decision upon.
However, even if all could agree on what makes for a fair ‘green’ claim, between carbon footprints, food miles, organic impacts, etc, etc, so that any such thing does become meaningful to a bewildered consumer base (and not just the jargonistic target-setters at their Bali conferences), on current evidence I don’t see most believing that the International, EU or national governments of the day are doing it for the right reasons, and not just to get out of a landfill hole, a missed target fine or to pump some subsidy dosh into an offshore engineering company with a really good lobbying consultant.
PR Watch - Falsies Awards
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Is there anything dumber than really simple?
'Cos I have... er... this freind.
And he...ok... I am trying to get a handle on, amongst many other IT things, RSS.
Because I know I am missing more tricks than a lady of easy virtue leaning against the Vatican walls.
I'm hoping this (which seems very helpful, which is why I URL it your way) may help... if I can understand it any batter than what I know already.
I already have an APB out for a teenager to help with MySpace, etc. I think I need another. If I can say that in public still. I'm not sure I can wait for my two to get that old.
Bloglines
The Ultimate RSS Toolbox
RSS Field Descriptions
The RSS Blog
Digital Point XML/RSS Discussion Forum
RSS Specifications Submit RSS Feeds
The MillionRSS Project
RSS Compendium RSS Resources
RSS Advertising - Pheedo
Feedburner
And he...ok... I am trying to get a handle on, amongst many other IT things, RSS.
Because I know I am missing more tricks than a lady of easy virtue leaning against the Vatican walls.
I'm hoping this (which seems very helpful, which is why I URL it your way) may help... if I can understand it any batter than what I know already.
I already have an APB out for a teenager to help with MySpace, etc. I think I need another. If I can say that in public still. I'm not sure I can wait for my two to get that old.
Bloglines
The Ultimate RSS Toolbox
RSS Field Descriptions
The RSS Blog
Digital Point XML/RSS Discussion Forum
RSS Specifications Submit RSS Feeds
The MillionRSS Project
RSS Compendium RSS Resources
RSS Advertising - Pheedo
Feedburner
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Free. Useful. Planet saving. And uncontroversial
With all the current fun & games surrounding what gets sent our kids with what baggage in terms of press furore and 'teacher's guides', I'm happy to share one that just makes sense.
Yesterday my boys came back with a free copy of our area's O/S map.
We had a gander together, and I am sure many walks will ensue. Obesity offset and a bit of planet appreciated, even saved, too.
And a nifty bit of marketing inspired as well. Now, with twins I have two, so we can either do a swappsies or make a bit of munny.
Were it that others could be so straightforward
'Going green's divine, but, forgive me, just green...er' is less fine.'
LESS IS NOT GREEN
Amen.
However, and I take a deep breathe as I write this, we need to walk the line between what is just plain 'wrong' (I mean ethically and morally if not factually) and allowing what's necessary to encourage better (and, one hopes, better and better...) behaviour towards a practical ideal.
If one accepts (as I do) the current necessity in a consumer driven ('scuse pun) world (with time poor demands on income earners and/or social pressures) for, say, a car, I need to know whose 'pollute' less so I may either applaud or make a purchase.
As you say, how that gets conveyed adequately, especially in a competitive framework, is key.
A shame that so few in 'marketing' seem to see it as anything other than a quick fix, at least in how it all gets conveyed to squeeze the silliest extra pantone shade of green out of any claim.
'To go green is divine, but, forgive me, just green...'er's less fine.'
ps: For now at least, you get a very irritating pop-up form Conqueror that has a rather fun doodle mouse thing, which in turn leads to a competition. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort as there seems to be no money, but then profile can be worth more.
Also I do note a lot is on carbon offsetting, and in light of the main piece that is... interesting.
Amen.
However, and I take a deep breathe as I write this, we need to walk the line between what is just plain 'wrong' (I mean ethically and morally if not factually) and allowing what's necessary to encourage better (and, one hopes, better and better...) behaviour towards a practical ideal.
If one accepts (as I do) the current necessity in a consumer driven ('scuse pun) world (with time poor demands on income earners and/or social pressures) for, say, a car, I need to know whose 'pollute' less so I may either applaud or make a purchase.
As you say, how that gets conveyed adequately, especially in a competitive framework, is key.
A shame that so few in 'marketing' seem to see it as anything other than a quick fix, at least in how it all gets conveyed to squeeze the silliest extra pantone shade of green out of any claim.
'To go green is divine, but, forgive me, just green...'er's less fine.'
ps: For now at least, you get a very irritating pop-up form Conqueror that has a rather fun doodle mouse thing, which in turn leads to a competition. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort as there seems to be no money, but then profile can be worth more.
Also I do note a lot is on carbon offsetting, and in light of the main piece that is... interesting.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Don't have a cow, man
Go back to your roots
Personally I'd do a little bit less predatory award-prowling via cheap and easy negative (which is what I think most 'Charity' ads are grasping for in blowing budgets) executions and try and earn one's keep (and maybe make a difference) by selling the positives.
The PETA ad is on the way, but personally I'd need to be persuaded that not succumbing to the exhortations of Beefy and Lamby did not involve a cow's exhaust (I believe it's their burps that are the culprit) when thinking of food, eating nut cutlets and being a shrew. Being married to a Chinese wok-mistress I know it can work when the option is served up in a way to make me actually want to bite.
There's also the small recognition that nature made most of us omnivores. So one needs to work with the design constraint rather than ignoring it.
ps: reuse and not cutting down forests in the first place are much better than recycling or planting trees if you're not into the reduction thing, in which case also try insulation, insulation, insulation. Trust me, I work with Junkk.com, and they know all about waste and rubbish ideas when they see 'em.
Personally I'd do a little bit less predatory award-prowling via cheap and easy negative (which is what I think most 'Charity' ads are grasping for in blowing budgets) executions and try and earn one's keep (and maybe make a difference) by selling the positives.
The PETA ad is on the way, but personally I'd need to be persuaded that not succumbing to the exhortations of Beefy and Lamby did not involve a cow's exhaust (I believe it's their burps that are the culprit) when thinking of food, eating nut cutlets and being a shrew. Being married to a Chinese wok-mistress I know it can work when the option is served up in a way to make me actually want to bite.
There's also the small recognition that nature made most of us omnivores. So one needs to work with the design constraint rather than ignoring it.
ps: reuse and not cutting down forests in the first place are much better than recycling or planting trees if you're not into the reduction thing, in which case also try insulation, insulation, insulation. Trust me, I work with Junkk.com, and they know all about waste and rubbish ideas when they see 'em.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
You don't love me? You really don't love me?
According to this - The demand for expert generated content - research showed that less than 1 per cent trusted blogs as a reliable source of information.
Say it ain't so!
Especially when... if... 'This trend is further supported by research into the information sources web users consider trustworthy. The BBC is the UK’s most reliable source of information, according to 58 per cent of people who have faith in Auntie to provide accurate news.
If you say so, Bub.
What did and didn't surprise is that Wikipedia is only trusted by 2 per cent of the people surveyed, and recently had to remove swathes of content found to be written by prejudiced individuals. Unlike....?
Well, you know what I think of research. Until I see who asked what of whom, pinches of salt all round. Where's the Tequila?
Say it ain't so!
Especially when... if... 'This trend is further supported by research into the information sources web users consider trustworthy. The BBC is the UK’s most reliable source of information, according to 58 per cent of people who have faith in Auntie to provide accurate news.
If you say so, Bub.
What did and didn't surprise is that Wikipedia is only trusted by 2 per cent of the people surveyed, and recently had to remove swathes of content found to be written by prejudiced individuals. Unlike....?
Well, you know what I think of research. Until I see who asked what of whom, pinches of salt all round. Where's the Tequila?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Claiming neutrality
I happened across this bit of ad-world navel gazing: Green meanz beanz and couldn't resist a few thoughts...
Well the water cooler vote should be interesting!
Hijacked??? The green agenda seems to have been kidnapped, the hostages killed immediately and then a never ending series of ever more outrageous videos pumped out to substantiate even more outrageous ransom demands.
Ok. Make that a qualified yes.
You are right to be suspicious. And Mr. Whitehouse has every reason to be outraged.
However, I would advocate some caution in how the discomfort 'we' are feeling gets manifested, especially as the core key to making a difference in the fight to mitigate man (PC-alert! Person...) made factors in creating negative climate change (For what it's worth I'm one of those who is not sure, but I simply hate waste and, in any case, for my kids' sake I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. So if the majority of climate experts say it's big and needs addressing now, I figure saying 'Are you sure?' will be a poor legacy. Make a great headstone, though: 'Yup. I guess they were right about global warming after all!. Sorry')
And almost everyone is playing silly b*ggers with the agenda for various selfish, self-promoting reasons, and not just most politicians. Though they are pretty top of a stinking pile. As with the recent floods. A bunch of Chicken Little's pointing at the sky and blaming climate change (which for sure may not have helped much) for creating an 'unprecedented situation that could not be predicted', when it wasn't and it was, respectively.
Which all gets the average Joe's trust factor on the first train straight back to Clarksonville.
You are so right that almost everything is twiddling about at the wrong end of the supply chain, throwing the onus on poorly informed, woefully supported and ill-equipped consumers to deal with all manner of things that is really nothing to do with them. If it's legal to manufacture and sell, why on earth does it end up with the punter to deal with the consequences of a 4x4 purchase, a bottle of Evian (those seeking to ban those two not living in a flood zone I'd hazard) or the packaging of a box of chox?
And I'm afraid that you have rather hit the nail with 'employ lots of people'. How many bazillions are being spent on government departments and unaccountable quangos to assess, research, monitor, and otherwise fiddle about with all this? And with comms budgets squandering amounts that could fund soooo many actual, tangible, plants, initiatives and programmes to really DO something and make a real difference. How many more TVCs pointing at Flash-enabled sites to 'raise' awareness of things people patently can't engage with even if they can be bothered. Forget my favourite measure of all things 'eco', the enviROI... what about simple ROIs? I've seen public websites getting excited at monthly hits in the tens of thousands. My granny's blog gets more than that! And if my agency had ever toddled along to a client and tried to make out 'improved awareness' that hadn't even made double digits was a success having blown several millions (and ignoring massive complementary PR), I'd be shown the door. Who accounts for all this waste of resource?
I'm sure hordes of boxes are being ticked as we speak, but are my kids' futures being protected here? Or a bunch of folks' pensions' plans and bonus structures?
I applaud any corporate who is getting on board and actually doing something here and now that's real and going to make a difference. But I dread the total horse manure that we will also end up being fed in A&P as a consequence. One more car ad with a leaf sticking out of its exhaust and I'm buying a Hummer. And as for going carbon neutral... great. Do it. Just don't shove it down my throat in such a crass way. The definition hasn't even been properly established yet. What's it mean? Are they reducing output? Simply being more efficient? Or trading a carbon credit to make more stuff elsewhere? Is it simply going to help the books internally, or will it a) help the consumer and b) the planet in any way? How many 'green ads' are getting booted out by the ASA at the moment to a tabloid fanfare? Think of the damage to consumer trust and the credibility of brands... and the genuine message.
As co-inhabitants of this planet of course 'we' should take responsibility for green becoming more about wealth generation than the planet.
But I'll leave you with a thought. Maybe, just maybe, with a bit of creativity, a dash of honesty and a smidge of ethics, some things can be done that not only help the planet, but also could lead to genuine marketing opportunities too. And if you'll allow a plug I'll mention in closing one that's dear to my heart that's doing all it can in this regard: Junkk.com
ps: Not all that's green can be viewed in black and white. That avocado? It may well be it's mostly marketing. But food waste accounts for waaaay more than packaging, so which would your prefer? A pile of bruised veg in the dumpster, or a bit of protection to help it through the distribution chain to Mr & Mrs Fussy-Yuppy? And in any case, do they even grow here? Yowser! Food miles! Carbon labels! Another debate for another time....
Well the water cooler vote should be interesting!
Hijacked??? The green agenda seems to have been kidnapped, the hostages killed immediately and then a never ending series of ever more outrageous videos pumped out to substantiate even more outrageous ransom demands.
Ok. Make that a qualified yes.
You are right to be suspicious. And Mr. Whitehouse has every reason to be outraged.
However, I would advocate some caution in how the discomfort 'we' are feeling gets manifested, especially as the core key to making a difference in the fight to mitigate man (PC-alert! Person...) made factors in creating negative climate change (For what it's worth I'm one of those who is not sure, but I simply hate waste and, in any case, for my kids' sake I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. So if the majority of climate experts say it's big and needs addressing now, I figure saying 'Are you sure?' will be a poor legacy. Make a great headstone, though: 'Yup. I guess they were right about global warming after all!. Sorry')
And almost everyone is playing silly b*ggers with the agenda for various selfish, self-promoting reasons, and not just most politicians. Though they are pretty top of a stinking pile. As with the recent floods. A bunch of Chicken Little's pointing at the sky and blaming climate change (which for sure may not have helped much) for creating an 'unprecedented situation that could not be predicted', when it wasn't and it was, respectively.
Which all gets the average Joe's trust factor on the first train straight back to Clarksonville.
You are so right that almost everything is twiddling about at the wrong end of the supply chain, throwing the onus on poorly informed, woefully supported and ill-equipped consumers to deal with all manner of things that is really nothing to do with them. If it's legal to manufacture and sell, why on earth does it end up with the punter to deal with the consequences of a 4x4 purchase, a bottle of Evian (those seeking to ban those two not living in a flood zone I'd hazard) or the packaging of a box of chox?
And I'm afraid that you have rather hit the nail with 'employ lots of people'. How many bazillions are being spent on government departments and unaccountable quangos to assess, research, monitor, and otherwise fiddle about with all this? And with comms budgets squandering amounts that could fund soooo many actual, tangible, plants, initiatives and programmes to really DO something and make a real difference. How many more TVCs pointing at Flash-enabled sites to 'raise' awareness of things people patently can't engage with even if they can be bothered. Forget my favourite measure of all things 'eco', the enviROI... what about simple ROIs? I've seen public websites getting excited at monthly hits in the tens of thousands. My granny's blog gets more than that! And if my agency had ever toddled along to a client and tried to make out 'improved awareness' that hadn't even made double digits was a success having blown several millions (and ignoring massive complementary PR), I'd be shown the door. Who accounts for all this waste of resource?
I'm sure hordes of boxes are being ticked as we speak, but are my kids' futures being protected here? Or a bunch of folks' pensions' plans and bonus structures?
I applaud any corporate who is getting on board and actually doing something here and now that's real and going to make a difference. But I dread the total horse manure that we will also end up being fed in A&P as a consequence. One more car ad with a leaf sticking out of its exhaust and I'm buying a Hummer. And as for going carbon neutral... great. Do it. Just don't shove it down my throat in such a crass way. The definition hasn't even been properly established yet. What's it mean? Are they reducing output? Simply being more efficient? Or trading a carbon credit to make more stuff elsewhere? Is it simply going to help the books internally, or will it a) help the consumer and b) the planet in any way? How many 'green ads' are getting booted out by the ASA at the moment to a tabloid fanfare? Think of the damage to consumer trust and the credibility of brands... and the genuine message.
As co-inhabitants of this planet of course 'we' should take responsibility for green becoming more about wealth generation than the planet.
But I'll leave you with a thought. Maybe, just maybe, with a bit of creativity, a dash of honesty and a smidge of ethics, some things can be done that not only help the planet, but also could lead to genuine marketing opportunities too. And if you'll allow a plug I'll mention in closing one that's dear to my heart that's doing all it can in this regard: Junkk.com
ps: Not all that's green can be viewed in black and white. That avocado? It may well be it's mostly marketing. But food waste accounts for waaaay more than packaging, so which would your prefer? A pile of bruised veg in the dumpster, or a bit of protection to help it through the distribution chain to Mr & Mrs Fussy-Yuppy? And in any case, do they even grow here? Yowser! Food miles! Carbon labels! Another debate for another time....
Friday, July 13, 2007
Packaging & Marketing 5 – Consumer & Environment 0
"What’s that you’re doing Walt?"
"It’s a new idea I’m working on for marketing products that are waaaaaay too cheap."
"Really? So how’s it gonna work?"
"Well, you take a dirt cheap product, like a really cheap shower gel, and you put it into sexy bottles that cost three times the product it contains. It’s a real winner."
"Come on Walt! Get real! So just how do you plan to make people buy it then?"
"Easy, you spend huge wadges on neat advertising, like loads of telly time; price it at five or six times what the entire package is worth, and people will rush to buy it like lemmings."
"But that makes no sense at all Walt!"
"Maybe not to you, but I reckon I’ll make a fortune out of it."
"Sorry Walt, I’m not really with you on this one ……. I just can’t see how it can possibly work, people just aren’t that stupid. And just what do they do with the sexy bottles when they’ve used up the shower gel? Oh ...... I’m with it now ....... they’re paying for the sexy plastic bottle so they can use it for something else, aren’t they?"
"No! They just chuck ‘em away!"
_________________________________
It all sounds absolutely crazy, doesn’t it, but that’s exactly what’s happening with many health and beauty products on the market today. Another little expose from the Daily Mail which neatly demonstrates the massively over-inflated cost to the consumer of some products, and even touches on the downstream cost (to the environment) of throwing the container (that cost three times more than the contained product, and will take more than 400 years to decompose) into landfill sites.
"It's crazy. You pay more for the packaging than the ingredients and then you have to pay again to chuck the wretched stuff away."
Quite! I couldn’t have put it better myself. We live in a mad, mad world.
"It’s a new idea I’m working on for marketing products that are waaaaaay too cheap."
"Really? So how’s it gonna work?"
"Well, you take a dirt cheap product, like a really cheap shower gel, and you put it into sexy bottles that cost three times the product it contains. It’s a real winner."
"Come on Walt! Get real! So just how do you plan to make people buy it then?"
"Easy, you spend huge wadges on neat advertising, like loads of telly time; price it at five or six times what the entire package is worth, and people will rush to buy it like lemmings."
"But that makes no sense at all Walt!"
"Maybe not to you, but I reckon I’ll make a fortune out of it."
"Sorry Walt, I’m not really with you on this one ……. I just can’t see how it can possibly work, people just aren’t that stupid. And just what do they do with the sexy bottles when they’ve used up the shower gel? Oh ...... I’m with it now ....... they’re paying for the sexy plastic bottle so they can use it for something else, aren’t they?"
"No! They just chuck ‘em away!"
_________________________________
It all sounds absolutely crazy, doesn’t it, but that’s exactly what’s happening with many health and beauty products on the market today. Another little expose from the Daily Mail which neatly demonstrates the massively over-inflated cost to the consumer of some products, and even touches on the downstream cost (to the environment) of throwing the container (that cost three times more than the contained product, and will take more than 400 years to decompose) into landfill sites.
"It's crazy. You pay more for the packaging than the ingredients and then you have to pay again to chuck the wretched stuff away."
Quite! I couldn’t have put it better myself. We live in a mad, mad world.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Ad in£initum
Good question: Will PM Brown cut Labour’s adspend?
Me, the guy with a public service medium: "Gord, I hope not!"
Me, the poor taxpayer: "Gord, I hope so."
Me, the adman/publisher/parent who believes that persuasion is a great thing to invest in... if done well: "Gord. Whatever you do, just make sure the ROI's add up!"
I stand in awe of the sheer amount of guff being funded, by 'us', to persuade 'us' to do stuff. Most makes a lot of sense, though one could argue 'til the cows come home about the ethics of using public money to further certain agendas that may or may not be as in in the public interest as they might.
But where I get very concerned is when the vast amounts splurged seem to be placed with quangos to dispense, and the actual numbers all get a little lost in the wash, along with who is responsible, accountable, etc.
Take my pet area, the environment. We now have literally scores of NGOs, often it seems with overlapping remits, who first of all establish empires of offices, officers and... comms budgets.
Then they blow them. And, speaking personally as a strategist and creative, they blow them on some pretty odd or poor messages.
And even if there is measurement, the measures sometimes don't add up. If I had £20M to spend, I should reckon on a 7% 'increase in awareness', as I think I saw one such quango crow recently, as being pretty average. I only just put down a PR from another, with a vast online budget and lord alone knows how many staff, bigging up a site that has had 7,000 hits! Er... my aunty's has had more.
And then, to add insult to injury, one gets the odd tabloid expose of the sheer number of board members of said quangos whose already multi hundred thou salaries are further boosted by meeting and exceeding targets.
So let me get this straight. Our money is used to punt out endless comms to get us to do more (which may or may not actually help the real issue) to boost rates that help us fork out more in bonuses?
So... let's make that a qualified no to your question.
At least, not until the accountability is improved.
Me, the guy with a public service medium: "Gord, I hope not!"
Me, the poor taxpayer: "Gord, I hope so."
Me, the adman/publisher/parent who believes that persuasion is a great thing to invest in... if done well: "Gord. Whatever you do, just make sure the ROI's add up!"
I stand in awe of the sheer amount of guff being funded, by 'us', to persuade 'us' to do stuff. Most makes a lot of sense, though one could argue 'til the cows come home about the ethics of using public money to further certain agendas that may or may not be as in in the public interest as they might.
But where I get very concerned is when the vast amounts splurged seem to be placed with quangos to dispense, and the actual numbers all get a little lost in the wash, along with who is responsible, accountable, etc.
Take my pet area, the environment. We now have literally scores of NGOs, often it seems with overlapping remits, who first of all establish empires of offices, officers and... comms budgets.
Then they blow them. And, speaking personally as a strategist and creative, they blow them on some pretty odd or poor messages.
And even if there is measurement, the measures sometimes don't add up. If I had £20M to spend, I should reckon on a 7% 'increase in awareness', as I think I saw one such quango crow recently, as being pretty average. I only just put down a PR from another, with a vast online budget and lord alone knows how many staff, bigging up a site that has had 7,000 hits! Er... my aunty's has had more.
And then, to add insult to injury, one gets the odd tabloid expose of the sheer number of board members of said quangos whose already multi hundred thou salaries are further boosted by meeting and exceeding targets.
So let me get this straight. Our money is used to punt out endless comms to get us to do more (which may or may not actually help the real issue) to boost rates that help us fork out more in bonuses?
So... let's make that a qualified no to your question.
At least, not until the accountability is improved.
Green Rush
Jumping on the big ‘green’ bandwagon - quite.
We are just at the start of a flood ('scuse the tasteless pun) of 'look how green we are' ads. Most, so far, fill me with dread, simply by the sheer crassness of the message, bolted on top of a usually pretty thin actual initiative.
And it's got me to wondering just how much longer it will... can continue. Because if in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then if all in the land have gone green, to stand out from the crowd (which, let's face it, is pretty much what A&P is) those in charge of the purse strings may either tire or seek to differentiate. And much as it may seem attractive, I can only see Mutually Assured Greenification as being taken so far.
As one whose philosophy is pretty much predicated on the value of persuasion and seeing good environmental practice as an opportunity to embrace rather than a problem to 'deal with', I nonetheless cannot also help but think what could be DONE to help make this a better planet for future generations with £7.5M, rather than blowing it on a campaign to blow green smoke up various orifices.
No wonder the majority of the consuming public think it's all a bit of a lark.
We are just at the start of a flood ('scuse the tasteless pun) of 'look how green we are' ads. Most, so far, fill me with dread, simply by the sheer crassness of the message, bolted on top of a usually pretty thin actual initiative.
And it's got me to wondering just how much longer it will... can continue. Because if in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then if all in the land have gone green, to stand out from the crowd (which, let's face it, is pretty much what A&P is) those in charge of the purse strings may either tire or seek to differentiate. And much as it may seem attractive, I can only see Mutually Assured Greenification as being taken so far.
As one whose philosophy is pretty much predicated on the value of persuasion and seeing good environmental practice as an opportunity to embrace rather than a problem to 'deal with', I nonetheless cannot also help but think what could be DONE to help make this a better planet for future generations with £7.5M, rather than blowing it on a campaign to blow green smoke up various orifices.
No wonder the majority of the consuming public think it's all a bit of a lark.
Monday, July 02, 2007
My bank's greener than yours!
So just how green is your bank?
An interesting question and one which we might increasingly ask as nearly all of them have jumped onto one of the green bandwagons somewhere along the line.
Following the recent launches of the American Express Red, and the Co-operative Bank charity card, today we have the launch of the 'Green' Barclaycard - story from The Guardian. This promises to donate half of the profits to PURE, a UK charity that invests in low energy projects.
As the authors put it .....
"Many of these initiatives have been greeted with scepticism by critics who accuse the banks of jumping on the climate change bandwagon to get more publicity."
.... Quite! It seems a peculiar way to donate to charity if you ask me!
And on the same day, HSBC appoint Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the government report on climate change, as a 'special advisor'. From TimesOnline.
"His appointment further demonstrates that sustainability issues are at the forefront of HSBC’s agenda.”
OK ...... I think I'm with the general idea so far .....
It [HSBC] said that his role would include "providing direct advice on specific strategic issues in emerging markets where the bank has aspirations to grow its business; advising on the socioeconomic implications of climate change and representing HSBC on these issues; contributing to management development programmes ... and providing advice to major clients of the group who seek to develop sustainable business strategies or other programmes relating to climate change and to economic development issues".
.... A nice, clear, concise remit that means ....... just what, exactly?
ADDENDUM (form Junkk Male):
Mad - Green backs…I mean banks
Or, worse, if not done with genuine intent, long term commitment and tangible follow-through, does it just add to the level of 'green noise' that is already saturating the airwaves, and further contribute to the public tuning out?
My little site gets a press release every few days from some bank or other saying how they have gone carbon neutral, or some supermarket to say they are switching to green energy.
Good on them! But as a consumer, other than meeting a legislative obligation or reducing running costs this impacts me how, exactly?
I have always written back to applaud their moves, but go on to suggest that to get my little online resource to publish their PR it would need to be a tad more tangible in the area of actual savings to planet and said consumer.
In the case of banks, this could take the form of low or at-cost loans to put in insulation. A loss-leader to get custom at a later stage. If they end up saving money on energy, once they go into profit then they may wish to buy into something else that requires finance... hopefully something equally responsible.
Some have moved in that direction, but most, sadly, seem more keen to bank the money and invest more on spun veneer than actual substance.
Which seems quite a waste.
An interesting question and one which we might increasingly ask as nearly all of them have jumped onto one of the green bandwagons somewhere along the line.
Following the recent launches of the American Express Red, and the Co-operative Bank charity card, today we have the launch of the 'Green' Barclaycard - story from The Guardian. This promises to donate half of the profits to PURE, a UK charity that invests in low energy projects.
As the authors put it .....
"Many of these initiatives have been greeted with scepticism by critics who accuse the banks of jumping on the climate change bandwagon to get more publicity."
.... Quite! It seems a peculiar way to donate to charity if you ask me!
And on the same day, HSBC appoint Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the government report on climate change, as a 'special advisor'. From TimesOnline.
"His appointment further demonstrates that sustainability issues are at the forefront of HSBC’s agenda.”
OK ...... I think I'm with the general idea so far .....
It [HSBC] said that his role would include "providing direct advice on specific strategic issues in emerging markets where the bank has aspirations to grow its business; advising on the socioeconomic implications of climate change and representing HSBC on these issues; contributing to management development programmes ... and providing advice to major clients of the group who seek to develop sustainable business strategies or other programmes relating to climate change and to economic development issues".
.... A nice, clear, concise remit that means ....... just what, exactly?
ADDENDUM (form Junkk Male):
Mad - Green backs…I mean banks
Or, worse, if not done with genuine intent, long term commitment and tangible follow-through, does it just add to the level of 'green noise' that is already saturating the airwaves, and further contribute to the public tuning out?
My little site gets a press release every few days from some bank or other saying how they have gone carbon neutral, or some supermarket to say they are switching to green energy.
Good on them! But as a consumer, other than meeting a legislative obligation or reducing running costs this impacts me how, exactly?
I have always written back to applaud their moves, but go on to suggest that to get my little online resource to publish their PR it would need to be a tad more tangible in the area of actual savings to planet and said consumer.
In the case of banks, this could take the form of low or at-cost loans to put in insulation. A loss-leader to get custom at a later stage. If they end up saving money on energy, once they go into profit then they may wish to buy into something else that requires finance... hopefully something equally responsible.
Some have moved in that direction, but most, sadly, seem more keen to bank the money and invest more on spun veneer than actual substance.
Which seems quite a waste.
Friday, June 22, 2007
The future's a wind-up
I wanted to end the week on a positive note so, despite the title, here it is: Why just a logo is now a no-no
It's an awful lot of journo/marketo guff for what is, in essence a nice simple, relevant bit of eco-A&P.
You're stuck in the middle of nowhere, in the mud, and your only mechanism of survival (seemingly) at a music festival is a device that enables you to spend all your time calling out, listening in or playing Tetris. Go figure.
And because all such activities suck the heart from it in a day (mine lasts a week between charges, and I'm rigging up the solar panel to do the job anyway) you need a juice injection.
So thanks to those nice folk at Orange, you can spend all day further not listening to any music (or at least seeing where it comes from) queuing up for a free handcrank of fresh minutes.
Not sure it's my cup of tea, but then, even though (or because) I'm a customer, I'm not their audience.
Altogether now, children: 'Make sarm noise!'
It's an awful lot of journo/marketo guff for what is, in essence a nice simple, relevant bit of eco-A&P.
You're stuck in the middle of nowhere, in the mud, and your only mechanism of survival (seemingly) at a music festival is a device that enables you to spend all your time calling out, listening in or playing Tetris. Go figure.
And because all such activities suck the heart from it in a day (mine lasts a week between charges, and I'm rigging up the solar panel to do the job anyway) you need a juice injection.
So thanks to those nice folk at Orange, you can spend all day further not listening to any music (or at least seeing where it comes from) queuing up for a free handcrank of fresh minutes.
Not sure it's my cup of tea, but then, even though (or because) I'm a customer, I'm not their audience.
Altogether now, children: 'Make sarm noise!'
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Today, I will be mostly staying at home...
...and, in so doing, I will help the environment a bit. Plus saving a fair wadge of wonga by not paying for travel. Now, while that is all very laudable, it is not perhaps the most relevant thing to any reader's day, nor indeed very interesting.
Hence, I am trying to figure out why ads like the one at the top, and all the press releases I still keep getting about banks now recycling their paper, are any different.
While super-dooper and all, the fact is that they are doing something that is only reasonable, and in the case of energy may even end up saving them money (will those eventual operational profits go back to the consumers?).
So, while I am happy to say 'good on ya!', I can't for the life of me see what is being served by blowing vast amounts of dosh on ads such as this, when they could be using the money to actually, oh, I don't know... DO something worth sharing, with the consumer in mind and not soem fuzzy green agenda.
Who gains? A box ticked on the CSR chart. The creative guys, ad agency and media are pretty chuffed (hey, I await the brief... or space booking). But am I going to hang a U-ee as we head for our weekly shop at the local supermarket and go to M&S because 'some' (the weasel of choice - as it's all down the same pipe, I can't also quite figure why it all can't be. You just switch tariff surely? Or is this another turbine on the roof job, as already advertised by a competitor?) of their expenditure on energy doesn't go to to npower any more?
I guess we'll be subjected to several months of these from competing sources - 'Buy your airflown spring water from ASDA because our loos are flushed with the grey variety!' - until they run out of ways to spout green, and /or all have parity with each other.
This is not just pointless advertising, it's... pretty... wasteful advertising.
So, speaking as a consumer, I'd be much more interested in ads like the one I mocked up a loooong while to show Tesco a potentially more valuable green communications route, and repeat the original and adapt here.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Musings from a mall
Time for a picture I feel. And as the new Olympic logo seems to need a health warning to view, let's go with one I made before the blog.I just felt like pondering a few bits of advertising and promotion, starting with the Toyota Prius ad: Toyota ordered to drop TV commercial for hybrid vehicle
Why do 'they' do this? It's a perfectly reasonable car, with a pretty fair story to support its USP (hybrid), but they just have to go and blow the trust factor by trying to squeeze a silly set of stats out to look like it will solve climate change just by driving around all day, emitting away.
Then there's the new Tesco ad. I like it (shock horror). Makes the point, which I hope is a good one. I refer to their new local milk initiative. Now, there are some questions I'd like reassuring on (please let it be that there is a genuine enviROI to the food miles story, and it's not just a bit of natty marketing smoke and mirrors), but in addition to a nice bit of comedy theatre I now know (well, to the best of my knowledge), that I can buy milk in a local store that is produced locally. I just hope the consumer is not going to get stung too badly for going greener, and the farmers get a fair price, too. On balance a step in the right direction, with win-wins all round if done with genuine intent. With an ad like this I can't see the consumers not responding.
And finally, I come to the example pictured above. One of my local clothing outlets has some kind of a thing where you support trees by buying stuff. I haven't looked at it too carefully and perhaps should not comment without doing so. But to this consumer, I can't see it as being that big an incentive, and the fact the place was festooned with flyers and posters and cards blathering on about it all, seemed a tad contradictory at best. Actually, I have a certain view that the whole waste paper thing is not as chronic as made out, but symbolically this came across as more of a bit of excess CSR promo window-dressing (geddit?) than a serious attempt to go green.
Guardian - Easyjet attack on green Virgin Train ads fails - kinda speaks for itself
Monday, June 04, 2007
Nothing like a good conference
I've never heard of PSFK until this: Green Marketing: Mind the Gap
Sorry I missed it. Sounds interesting, what with all the insights.
I'd have to say that aviation probably is the most unfriendly brand right now, and is unlikely to improve much with people like Richard Branson of Virgin talking about new planes and fuels and trying to look "less bad"... whilst announcing all Business Class services (see my earlier post - why won't the Times print mine?).
The rest reads like a list (Google did throw up a link to Ariel's effort, which didn't work too well on my streaming. Looks a hoot). Maybe you had to be there.
FUTURE POST 4/July:
Here I am pondering how posts to old blog topics get archived and notified, and someone has helpfully added to the archive.
I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.
The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.
Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.
As blogger replies can't, or complicate posting HTML links, let me repost it here.
As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.
Sorry I missed it. Sounds interesting, what with all the insights.
I'd have to say that aviation probably is the most unfriendly brand right now, and is unlikely to improve much with people like Richard Branson of Virgin talking about new planes and fuels and trying to look "less bad"... whilst announcing all Business Class services (see my earlier post - why won't the Times print mine?).
The rest reads like a list (Google did throw up a link to Ariel's effort, which didn't work too well on my streaming. Looks a hoot). Maybe you had to be there.
FUTURE POST 4/July:
Here I am pondering how posts to old blog topics get archived and notified, and someone has helpfully added to the archive.
I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.
The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.
Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.
As blogger replies can't, or complicate posting HTML links, let me repost it here.
As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)