Another 48 hrs, and another, and...

I don't know, but I really can't equate this button link (on an eco-page) with front pages on the evils of plastic bags - 48 hrs in Fez

I know such things are what fund them, but how many 48 hour multiples can 'we' afford before 'they' see such as this as being more part of the problem...

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

What comes after the Prius?

According to this from today's Times, Toyota is planning a seriously greener future. As one of the few vehicle manufacturers actually making any real money, they have a substantial pot to invest, and a good chunk of that pot is going into a greener future.

"Toyota will spend its fortune developing single-seat hybrid vehicles, fuel cells, next-generation batteries, bio-fuels and the commercialisation of humanoid helper robots."

Ooooh. I wonder if they're planning to let the robot drive for you?

O, how 'tis the end for words to compare thee to

In light of my predilection for acronyms, I thought it was funny: Today's Britain: dipso, fatso, bingo, asbo, Tesco

Actually it also reminds me of Snow White.

Which Lighbulb?

Having been attacked just now by my local Mrs. SME from the 'leccy shop, brandishing here copy, I just signed up (Lord help me - I dread the avalanche of DM that I know will ensue, plus the equally no fun procedures to get out of my sub if it's no longer of interest) fro a Which? trial sub.

Because they have done a big number on bulbs, rendering my ongoing and as yet unpublished efforts pretty meagre, I am sure.

However, it's all good extra grist t'mill, so I look forward to having a scope and reporting back any insights.

I do have many concerns, especially when it comes to reliability issues. Low energy does not always mean long life.

She was a bit more concerned with the Mercury issue, which apparently has all sorts of WEEE & H&S consequences currently lurking under various carpets in some quarters.

Wathc this space.

Incentives for renewables?

Not according to eGov Monitor, who reckon that rather than reward businesses for going green, Ol' Golden's policies imply that businesses who reduce their energy bills by installing solar panels, wind turbines and the like, are going to be hit with bigger tax bills!

"The Valuation Office Agency, an arm of Inland Revenue, is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation technology with higher business rates and council tax bills."

"a solar panel 'will never achieve a payback, but would be a continual financial drain on the company'. A typical wind turbine for commercial premises will increase the business rates bill by £1,350 a year, while a solar (photovoltaic) installation will mean an extra £2,700 a year in rates."

What the hell is going on? This is turning into an utter shambles! I despair at the inept capabilities and crass stupidity of our esteemed government. We are supposed to be encouraging the uptake of renewables, not bloody well penalising them!

And this on the day when a top UN official states that it would be criminally irresponsible not to tackle global warming!

'Peak Oil' plus 'Climate change' equals what?

Well, some quite frightening trends, and some scary scenarios, according to this piece from Saturday's Irish Times.

"Energy and climate change are now directly affecting the world's peace and prosperity. We have only a short time to cut oil dependence and slash carbon emissions."

Time for mankind to get its act together? Or too late to do so?

Could do better?

Despite recent improvements in the amount of waste that we recycle and compost here in the UK, and an actual reduction in what goes to landfill, we are still the dustbin of Europe.

The UK is still "throwing more waste into landfill than any other country in the EU."

It reminds me of the sort of comments you got in old school reports......... 'U.K. is making progress but needs to work harder to master the subject'.

BBC - You can never have enough dustbin headlines (Junkk Male addendum)

A Going Overboard Government

Yes, it's an acronym. AGOG. I think it is deserved: Motorists risk £60 fines for smoking behind the wheel

I don't smoke. But I do drive. And I do like to know what I can and can't do, so I can avoid doing the latter. This simply seems designed to create confusion enough to ensure a steady stream of revenue.

Because I am trying to grasp how these sentences, I presume provided by this country’s legislators and law enforcers, can sit together in a viable manner:

‘... inclusion of smoking ... as a potential hazard.’
“... the smoking reference in the code was an advisory one and it was down to the discretion of police forces...’
‘Transgressors could face criminal charges “if someone was deemed ...’

Is it or is it not LEGAL to smoke whilst driving? If it still is, then this seems to be a fundamental assault (and not the first) on the chances of any law-abiding person being able to understand the law enough to obey it, much less those in theory tasked to enforce it.

How can you face criminal charges on something that is advisory????

This is clear institutional anarchy.

Hot air. Spinning. Big bores.

Handed it to me a bit on a plate. Shame about the cliches.... mine), though: Wind turbine and tidal power in £20m green plan for Westminster

All I ask is that this is for real and not just for show. I am unsure if a 35m high wind turbine will work that well in Central London, no matter how bold a statement it may be, though along the river it just might. Tidal seems a lot more promising.

"It's a plant' - Or, how not to serve the cause of enviro-persuasion

Planted question damages Clinton in key primary state

It's not so much that it was done (I'd guess it is almost standard practice, at least between No 10 and the BBC) but, like Nixon, the getting caught. And being so clunky. And for such a god-awful question... but mostly for such a sad answer if it was 'prepared'.

Gaurdian - I'm glad you asked

All these messages. And where to stick them.

I was watching the Breakfast News this morning, and in an hour counted about three 'campaigns' for awareness.

One that struck home was something to do with disability, but mainly because it involves Aardman and its awesome animations. But mainly I sat there thinking just how much money had already been consumed rather than actually going where it might help. Especially as I listened to the dapper Director of Communications articulating his 'vision', doubtless outside a several storey Belgravia Office.

Beyond the amount of money going into sticking these in front of us at every turn, as a copywriter I frankly despair at the creative strategies and executions I witness.

See that pear ad? It was in the Sunday Times magazine today (guess how much that costs). It now has copy. Guess what it says: 'Sadder still, it could still be eaten'. Then a bunch of waffle about what food waste costs and a 'tip' (at last) about how to prolong its life: stick it in the fridge. Well, D'uh. Unless it's a banana, as that doesn't seem to work. Or bread. Which seems to go mouldy quicker.

I'm sure these exceptions are on the site, which I will of course share. Through gritted lack of funding.

The next was from the Grauniad. Some eco-energy effort that they have hooked up with. Ignoring the actuality of what they may be selling in competition to others, which seems not to trouble the 'supporting' (er, getting paid) medium, does that line have you, Mr/s. business person, rushing to sign up? Me, either.

And finally, a poster from my supermarket carpark. Inspired? Was I... heck. How much could this spend be better applied where it can DO some GOOD!

A week is a long time in plastic bags

It's a matter of almost biblical proportion. And so I read this: Sunday Times - Stores face ban on free carrier bags*

Last week, of course, was one 'in focus', so it was wall to wall. And, to be fair, tucked away in my magazine was a wall chart. Interestingly it highlighted a quote that stated the rather obvious point that was happening at present was more to do with making money before worrying about planet.

But we're all still at it. Government. Newspapers. Me.

See that first picture? That's today's mail. Half a dozen plastic bags containing stuff I subscribe to. (I also realised there are duplicates and am on the cancellation trail... assuming they will let me - often targets mean they are not keen on reduced numbers).

See the second picture? That yesterday's shopping and the week's plastic from mailings. Depending on whether I remember or not to bring my climate summit hessian tote, I now acquire about 3-4 carriers a week. Which get used as bin liners.

Against that there is a BINFUL of publication wrappers. All useless (though I have an idea on how to make them useful). Now I don't pretend to know the details of why they may or may not be needed, enviROI vs. ROI, but that looks to me like an awful lot of plastic bags I have seen not one squawk about from government or liberal media, with all their campaigning and protest and names and shames.

And just for fun, I have been sent a screed of stuff on a major consultation (it's in here somewhere) on it all by the London Assembly. How many people spending how much time on something of how much relevance at the expense of what else?

Shopping bag levy or ban in London?

Should there be a London-wide ban on the use of shopping bags? Or are Londoners prepared to pay for the bags they get with their shopping? What action are Londoners taking to reduce the number of plastic bags they use? And how can retailers minimise the impact their bags have on the environment?

These and other questions will be considered at a meeting of the London Assembly’s Environment Committee on Thursday 15 November 2007 at City Hall.

Committee Members will question representatives from the following organisations on how to reduce the number of shopping bags issued in London in light of proposals from London Councils to impose a ban or levy on all single use shopping bags in the capital:

· Friends of the Earth
· London Councils
· British Retail Consortium
· Carrier Bag Consortium
· Marks and Spencer
· Sainsbury’s

I know it's An issue, but is it really as big a one as this lot would make out?

* ps - small note on surveys. When I read this 'The move follows a six-week public consultation in which 60% of the 1,752 people who took part supported a ban', my eyebrow goes into orbit. What on earth does 'took part' mean? If it is 'could be bothered to reply', well, what did they think they'd say?

Stale Cream

I have a saying: 'Cream rises to the top; you can't push it'. I may have to rethink that: Quango fat cats reap the price

Recently our local prospective parliamentary candidate wrote in our local paper about DEFRA. He reveals it has spent £1.1 billion on consultants. And yet has managed to acheive almost sod all.

I still mind forking out, but wouldn't so much if the result(s) were any damn good!!! And there seems to be no effective way to get rid of them, leaving them clear to squander more and more, again and again.

Fat cat row over public sector pay

Some great, telling comments in feedback.

Slim down the fat cats

Peers help themselves to £300 a day tax-free

Indy - Pay for public sector bosses rises by 12.8 per cent

Indy - Gordon Brown's efforts to enlarge Blair's 'big tent' are beginning to backfire spectacularly - As much a Friend of..' as those he critiques, by enough smoke to indicate the presence of fire... only with no bright sparks. Just smouldering members.

Reader's Digest - November - Feeding Time in Quango Land - Sadly no link. I will write to them and post here.

Apparently, these things are set up 'to be the most effective and efficient method of conducting government business, and are closed down when no longer required'. Really? How many have been pensioned off? I use that word on purpose, because from the jobs ads I see in the papers, an awful lot look to be in it for a very long haul, golden parachutes included. Once folk are in public service jobs, they seem to be impossible to dislodge, no matter how unproductive or inept.

I also note 'Ministers are accountable'. Well, great. But how does one get a hold of the accounts to see how good they are at overseeing all this? How does one measure the ROIs on the bazzillions these guys spend? Especially when the order of priority seems to be self, bonuses, staff, offices and empires, before we get to comms budgets to drive up 'rates' that in turn are tied to bonuses, which just has to be a major conflict of interest at best. And that's before any money actually gets to doing something where it is meant to go.

My area of interest, the environment, is riven with such waste and squandering. And with no sign of a let-up. In just the last few weeks I have seen at least two 'new' campaigns doing roughly the same thing as each other, with different target-rewarded quangos at their hearts. They just seem to exist as highly expensive, rewarding (for those in them) game-playing entities with no sensible measures of value. And I can't see for the life of me see why, other than to create yet more layers of fat beholden to political masters come voting time, and perhaps a nifty unelected layer of protection for when the sh*t hits the fan and some compliant sacrificial goats are required to fall on swords for a huge payoff.

Only even this doesn't seem to apply as they all are hanging on for extremely dear life.

Pathetic!

BBC - Quango pays director's firm £2m - 'Nice work if you can get, if you can get it..'

Satisfying Sunday... so far

Though it serves to remind me to get in my shed more often and find new ones, this is still worth a share.

A long time ago our sink tap broke. And I managed to fix it, Junkk-style.

Since then I have also done the same for my Mum's, which had the same problem. Well, now the other 'side' of mine has gone. It took me about 5 minutes to repair. No longer do I have the MacD bottle, but I soon found another that had the same component.

RE:sult!

Enough's enough?

As one who has had two, I was attracted to this piece: Three's a crowd

I have to say we didn't stop at the twins through any great enviro commitment; in fact it was only their arrival that got me to embark on this journey. But even so, it was so wonderfully typical to see how an Observer chatterer could get one to being a 'modern Malthusian'. I am thinking of swapping Jedi for this on the next census or 18-page grant application 'we need to know ALL about you' section.

Actually I rather liked the simple mathematical logic described in the intro.

And, within the rest there is the odd interesting fact, such as this (if true): 'On your acre, can you grow all your food, absorb all the waste your lifestyle creates, have space for your home, recreational space, travelling space, provide the other resources you need and leave space for public services? Obviously not.' As I look at our half acre (mostly uncultivatable), that doesn't look too good when there's five (granny inc.) of us to sustain when the revolution comes or the bomb drops. I wonder what one does require? There's an attraction in having that land area (suitably stocked - including surrounding Claymores to discourage 'visitors') to hand as a fall-back.

In fact the whole piece is a fairly elegant roam around 'the issue', but really dips in, and then out, as do many of those who seem pretty active in stirring furiously in other, related e-areas the rest of the time, especially when it comes to the 'don't do that' invocations.

It all rather makes me think there are those who like flying about getting parachuted into high-profile local conflicts and winning medals for battles, but have no interest in winning a world war.

The future's bright, the future will be subject to change

I found this interesting on several levels - And you thought that the age of spin was no more

There's the fact that the media can be easily seduced, with checking, into publishing a story on something before it happens.

There's the fact that few, if any, seem worried it didn't happen after all.

There's the fact that those in senior PR at government level know this. Including the 'boss'.

The fact they don't really care what this all means.

And there's the fact that I only found it tucked away as a comment piece based on what seems an already forgotten opposition MP's campaign.

We're get what we deserve, I guess.

Look... no exhaust pipe. So it doesn't pollute!

I saw this today in the newsagent rack and headed straight here to blog: Green tax puts extra £1,000 on family cars

At the same time, manufacturers will be given incentives to accelerate... those that run entirely on electricity.

I have been beaten to it. Though only one has so far mildy enquired as to where and how the 'leccy gets made. If this is the quality of official thought and media reporting we have today... god help our future.

Gooey mess in aisle 3!

What's your environmental "eureka" moment?

Well, he asked:

Looking down at a hospital crib at two innocents who I had had a hand in bringing into a world that to that point I had had a hand in being a little less than I'd wish it to be, as handed down to me by my parents.

If I can raise my children comfortably whilst still passing on to them a planet better than I inherited (or at least headed in a better direction), I will deem that a fair legacy for my time on Earth.

It's not what you know. It's how you choose to share it.

The climate change 'debate' rumbles on, not always productively. I think this is a worthwhile exchange to share in this regard: Find the error

Journalistic errors, no matter how minor, need to be corrected. But I must say that as I read this, I found myself wondering what the heck was going on (whilst admitting that the error, and its explanations, really stretched this science graduate. Well we are talking over 30 years ago). What the residents of Ely made of it gawd knows.

However, I did note the conclusion, which seemed an epitome of civilised behaviour on all sides.

To me there is a lesson, and that is in addressing the issue of CC it is best to maintain a calm, dignified and factual approach, free of smug 'we know stuff' and relentless, complex links.

Help those seeking knowledge to understand and they will appreciate it. They may even err on acting more proactively on what you have shared.

Guardian - Free energy? It doesn't measure up - By coincidence.

I found this a good reply: "science is fun when you're making people look stupid"
Oh dear. No - science is fun when you're making people - including yourself - less stupid.

I will add it to another I use to inspire my own actions and, where I can those around me: 'A great man (it was a pre-PC era) makes others feel small. A truly great man makes others feel great'

Guardian - A balanced contribution - It's related.. sort of.

Guardian - Cry wolf, but gently - Now who else has been saying something like that (I think I may have phrased it differently though - Don't cry wolf, just persuade via honesty and reason!) Interesting to see the author that inspired my original post coming into the frame. I have used this to add a new search label that is a growing cause for concern - Climate Fatigue. I fear it will crop up again.