Sorrell advises agencies to help people consume less
Hey, works for me (well, Junkk.com...RE:tie...)
'...keep the wheels of the industry turning in the coming tough times by investigating communications strategies that will persuade consumers to change their behaviours or even to consume less, which led to mutterings...'
Interesting. Was anything shared on how this would work in practice?
I'm keen to learn how and hence share it. Sadly, to date, economy seldom goes hand in hand with environment... at least, when it comes to using, and hence consuming less. Salaries to pay; budgets to fund.
Making things that still get bought and impact less... now that I can see as quelling the mutterings a tad. I have a few ideas on this... if anyone is interested.
Showing posts with label CONSUMERISM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CONSUMERISM. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Cache as cache can
And another acronym: CACA.
An interesting take on global politics and reporting of same, courtesy of a chap evidently with no life, a worrying grasp of IT and too much time on his hands (but thank heavens for such folk):
BBC - Capitalism harms planet - Morales
Seems to have become (as no trace of the former can be found):
BBC - Leaders warn on biofuels and food
Thing is... why so coy? It's a debate worth having. I'll need to look up the definitions and hence difference between capitalism and consumerism, but it's pretty clear that economic growth almost inevitable equates to wanting, making, using and disposing of ever more stuff, and a limit might well be nigh. Then what?
Not a debate I'd fancy being within collateral damage range of, mind. I can see why they bottled... er... robustly handled it.
An interesting take on global politics and reporting of same, courtesy of a chap evidently with no life, a worrying grasp of IT and too much time on his hands (but thank heavens for such folk):
BBC - Capitalism harms planet - Morales
Seems to have become (as no trace of the former can be found):
BBC - Leaders warn on biofuels and food
Thing is... why so coy? It's a debate worth having. I'll need to look up the definitions and hence difference between capitalism and consumerism, but it's pretty clear that economic growth almost inevitable equates to wanting, making, using and disposing of ever more stuff, and a limit might well be nigh. Then what?
Not a debate I'd fancy being within collateral damage range of, mind. I can see why they bottled... er... robustly handled it.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Stop, you're killing me... us
No sooner do I crawl back to my desk after Dave's gorgeous bit of optimism as to our 'leadership's' intentions and/or competence rendered me incapable, I now read this: Can shopping save the planet?
Er, no, Mark, and I know you're just asking a rhetorical question. It's reduce, reuse/repair... recycle. Not consume, waste and consume something new - (I wrote that first off, and then weighed into the meat of his piece to critique it indetail. So apologies, it is there... at the end. I just think it needs to be up front).
But the rest of the piece is fair enough. Shame most media are trying to promote two mutually exclusive sets of practice. And that they have a vested interest in one... now... a lot more than the other. Let me sample a lot of good stuff from a long piece:
However, you don't have to dig very deeply to start coming across some glaring contradictions in this new corporate crusade to save the world. If News Corporation really wants to inspire low-carbon behaviour among its audience, will it stop running car adverts and other enticements to carbon profligacy? The Sky Travel section of the company's website is stuffed with low-cost holiday and city-break offers, featuring destinations as far afield as the Dominican Republic and Egypt, with nary a mention of global warming.
Indeed, the deeper you look, the more absurd this all gets. If O2 wants us to keep the same mobile phone handset for longer, why do they sell phones that have such an incredibly short lifetime? With new designs and handset functionality appearing all the time - and being heavily marketed by companies such as Nokia and Motorola - ask any kid in the playground how they feel about having an out-of-date phone, even to help the environment. Or take DIY energy-efficiency superstore B&Q. Is B&Q really helping us all to save carbon when the company still sells patio heaters in virtually all of its stores? On the high street, Marks & Sparks may be leading the pack in flogging T-shirts made from organic, fairtrade cotton, but isn't the whole idea of fashion the antithesis of a sustainable approach?
Perhaps the best example of the knots that companies are tying themselves into on climate comes from the supermarket sector. Here Tesco has been a pioneer to develop a system for putting carbon labels on all its products. But the move has been complicated, to say the least.
Moreover, some purportedly "green" products may be even worse than those they are intended to replace. Tesco is positioning itself as the UK market leader in selling biofuels. However, evidence suggests that biodiesel made from palm oil feedstock may be many times more carbon intensive than even fossil fuels.
Another controversial attempt to try to resolve the contradiction between consumption and sustainability is carbon offsetting. Most of the big firms that trumpet their green credentials use offsetting to some extent. But offsetting has come under fire as being little more than a conscience-salve, somewhat akin to the purchasing of papal indulgences in the middle ages.
At least we each got a blog out of it.
Er, no, Mark, and I know you're just asking a rhetorical question. It's reduce, reuse/repair... recycle. Not consume, waste and consume something new - (I wrote that first off, and then weighed into the meat of his piece to critique it indetail. So apologies, it is there... at the end. I just think it needs to be up front).
But the rest of the piece is fair enough. Shame most media are trying to promote two mutually exclusive sets of practice. And that they have a vested interest in one... now... a lot more than the other. Let me sample a lot of good stuff from a long piece:
However, you don't have to dig very deeply to start coming across some glaring contradictions in this new corporate crusade to save the world. If News Corporation really wants to inspire low-carbon behaviour among its audience, will it stop running car adverts and other enticements to carbon profligacy? The Sky Travel section of the company's website is stuffed with low-cost holiday and city-break offers, featuring destinations as far afield as the Dominican Republic and Egypt, with nary a mention of global warming.
Indeed, the deeper you look, the more absurd this all gets. If O2 wants us to keep the same mobile phone handset for longer, why do they sell phones that have such an incredibly short lifetime? With new designs and handset functionality appearing all the time - and being heavily marketed by companies such as Nokia and Motorola - ask any kid in the playground how they feel about having an out-of-date phone, even to help the environment. Or take DIY energy-efficiency superstore B&Q. Is B&Q really helping us all to save carbon when the company still sells patio heaters in virtually all of its stores? On the high street, Marks & Sparks may be leading the pack in flogging T-shirts made from organic, fairtrade cotton, but isn't the whole idea of fashion the antithesis of a sustainable approach?
Perhaps the best example of the knots that companies are tying themselves into on climate comes from the supermarket sector. Here Tesco has been a pioneer to develop a system for putting carbon labels on all its products. But the move has been complicated, to say the least.
Moreover, some purportedly "green" products may be even worse than those they are intended to replace. Tesco is positioning itself as the UK market leader in selling biofuels. However, evidence suggests that biodiesel made from palm oil feedstock may be many times more carbon intensive than even fossil fuels.
Another controversial attempt to try to resolve the contradiction between consumption and sustainability is carbon offsetting. Most of the big firms that trumpet their green credentials use offsetting to some extent. But offsetting has come under fire as being little more than a conscience-salve, somewhat akin to the purchasing of papal indulgences in the middle ages.
At least we each got a blog out of it.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
When, well, IF in London
It's how I like my conferences. So long as they end up as billed, that is: Relevant, topical, hopefully balanced (you have to look at provenance - COMPASS has a 'leaning') informative... and free.
The title looks fair. Wish I could go. Hope it moves things on.
Can a consumer society stop climate change?
Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge we face, however can it be stopped in an increasingly consumer society? Some have suggested if we continue to consume at the present rate we'd need 4 planets to sustain our current consumption levels.
With the main parties facing growing pressure to live up to their rhetoric on climate change and in the run-up to the climate change bill, Compass has convened a special debate to discuss these issues at: 6pm on Thursday 4 October in Central London (exact venue tbc).
Our high-profile international speaker Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank. He's best known for his work on climate change policy, consumerism and the problems of economic growth. In 2004 the Australia Institute teamed up with the IPPR in London and the Center for American Progress in Washington to form the International Climate Change Taskforce. Clive has published extensively, including the best-selling books Growth Fetish and Affluenza (co-authored with Richard Denniss) and What's Left: The death of social democracy. His most recent book is Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.
At the debate he'll be joined by Compass chair Neal Lawson who's currently writing a book called All Consuming (www.allconsuming.org.uk) for publication in Spring 2008. More speakers are to be announced and the event will be chaired by Green Alliance Director Stephen Hale.
The event is free to attend, but early registration is essential to guarantee your place. Please email gavin@compassonline.org.uk to register.
The title looks fair. Wish I could go. Hope it moves things on.
Can a consumer society stop climate change?
Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge we face, however can it be stopped in an increasingly consumer society? Some have suggested if we continue to consume at the present rate we'd need 4 planets to sustain our current consumption levels.
With the main parties facing growing pressure to live up to their rhetoric on climate change and in the run-up to the climate change bill, Compass has convened a special debate to discuss these issues at: 6pm on Thursday 4 October in Central London (exact venue tbc).
Our high-profile international speaker Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank. He's best known for his work on climate change policy, consumerism and the problems of economic growth. In 2004 the Australia Institute teamed up with the IPPR in London and the Center for American Progress in Washington to form the International Climate Change Taskforce. Clive has published extensively, including the best-selling books Growth Fetish and Affluenza (co-authored with Richard Denniss) and What's Left: The death of social democracy. His most recent book is Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.
At the debate he'll be joined by Compass chair Neal Lawson who's currently writing a book called All Consuming (www.allconsuming.org.uk) for publication in Spring 2008. More speakers are to be announced and the event will be chaired by Green Alliance Director Stephen Hale.
The event is free to attend, but early registration is essential to guarantee your place. Please email gavin@compassonline.org.uk to register.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
When the best choice is less choice?
The title is taken from an interview with Jonathan Porritt - full detail from NewConsumer.com.
As ever with Porritt, the article is well worth a read, making lots of very salient points on our full blown consumerism and how we may have to change our ways.
"But the truth is that in the rich world very large numbers of us need to get used to consuming less. That’s just inevitable, we will either have to do so because our carbon budgets won’t be big enough to sustain our patterns of consumption – and everything has a carbon price tag attached to it – or because more and more people will recognise that that’s part of the responsibility of living on a shared earth – we have to make the limited resources available to all, not just the lucky ones living in rich countries like ours."
Anybody want to argue with that?
As ever with Porritt, the article is well worth a read, making lots of very salient points on our full blown consumerism and how we may have to change our ways.
"But the truth is that in the rich world very large numbers of us need to get used to consuming less. That’s just inevitable, we will either have to do so because our carbon budgets won’t be big enough to sustain our patterns of consumption – and everything has a carbon price tag attached to it – or because more and more people will recognise that that’s part of the responsibility of living on a shared earth – we have to make the limited resources available to all, not just the lucky ones living in rich countries like ours."
Anybody want to argue with that?
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Wonder if Al has an iPod?
OK, cheap (ish) shot. But in a way it's symptomatic of what 'we' are facing: Gadget boom to drive up energy demand
From Live Earth to events like the one I just attended (review still coming), I am getting more and more convinced that the wrong things are being fussed over by the wrong people for the wrong reasons... possibly to the great glee of those with vested interests in just such things happening (cripes, I'm sounding almost as Conspiracy Theorist as Dave!).
We have all this effort on the consumer end of packaging disposal when so much more can, and should be done at the point it is created. We have vast campaigns on switching off when the things are still being made... and with no easy way to operate as others would require. Flights are to be taxed, yet airports created. Quango after quango created and funded to spend bazillions telling us to do things we either don't 'get', can't do or don't believe, yet meanwhile some truly effective big hits are left ignored.
Not. Joined. Up.
From Live Earth to events like the one I just attended (review still coming), I am getting more and more convinced that the wrong things are being fussed over by the wrong people for the wrong reasons... possibly to the great glee of those with vested interests in just such things happening (cripes, I'm sounding almost as Conspiracy Theorist as Dave!).
We have all this effort on the consumer end of packaging disposal when so much more can, and should be done at the point it is created. We have vast campaigns on switching off when the things are still being made... and with no easy way to operate as others would require. Flights are to be taxed, yet airports created. Quango after quango created and funded to spend bazillions telling us to do things we either don't 'get', can't do or don't believe, yet meanwhile some truly effective big hits are left ignored.
Not. Joined. Up.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
"Any colour, so long as it's green"?
This certainly twitched my eyebrows somewhat. From The Times.
BMW "makes cars that are much more fuel-efficient than the likes of the hybrids built by Japanese manufacturers"
Well, that statement made my eyebrows reach the top of my forehead! If that's true, why the German consumer rush for the Pious et al?
They reckon that its down to a "colossal failure of marketing by the German auto industry".
The consumer survey final point is a real WOW:-
Within ten years ...."more than a quarter of people say that they will not have a car at all and 50 per cent say that they will have some kind of environmentally friendly vehicle: a hybrid, an electric car, a hydrogen-fuelled car or an LPG-powered car."
So its all about consumer perception then. The big question is just how much that perception is driven by marketing? Or, perhaps, how much is marketing driven by consumer perception?
Who's greenwashing who? If the Advert says it's green, then is it always so? EnviROI answers on a postcard please.
Addendum:
And on the same day that this story appears, BMW announce plans to radically reduce the CO2 emissions across their vehicle range. Details on Motoring Reuters. And other additional gizmos to reduce fuel consumption - details at What Car.
Maybe the first salvos in a new marketing effort to overcome their previous 'colossal failure'?
BMW "makes cars that are much more fuel-efficient than the likes of the hybrids built by Japanese manufacturers"
Well, that statement made my eyebrows reach the top of my forehead! If that's true, why the German consumer rush for the Pious et al?
They reckon that its down to a "colossal failure of marketing by the German auto industry".
The consumer survey final point is a real WOW:-
Within ten years ...."more than a quarter of people say that they will not have a car at all and 50 per cent say that they will have some kind of environmentally friendly vehicle: a hybrid, an electric car, a hydrogen-fuelled car or an LPG-powered car."
So its all about consumer perception then. The big question is just how much that perception is driven by marketing? Or, perhaps, how much is marketing driven by consumer perception?
Who's greenwashing who? If the Advert says it's green, then is it always so? EnviROI answers on a postcard please.
Addendum:
And on the same day that this story appears, BMW announce plans to radically reduce the CO2 emissions across their vehicle range. Details on Motoring Reuters. And other additional gizmos to reduce fuel consumption - details at What Car.
Maybe the first salvos in a new marketing effort to overcome their previous 'colossal failure'?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
From the country that put the US in useless
Colbert on consumerism
I wonder at what the cut-off point is where the media stop finding people engaging in planetary-saving personal endeavours 'interesting' and 'different' enough to feature? What % of population actively engaged in low-impact lifestyles before it is no longer news, and you're kinda on your own because you just believe it's a good thing to do rather than as an exercise in ratings gathering?
It's a line of thought I embarked upon when I saw a programme advocating home composting toilets by a London-based guru. What would the social hygiene consequences be if 10 million folk got inspired to follow suit?
Anyhoo, while having every admiration for such efforts, and sympathy for the financially compensatory effects of publicity (though perhaps wondering how the interviewee got to the studio - maybe it's OK if someone else provides the transport. I tried pitching a video feed to one interested media outlet here. They didn't bite. But at least I persuaded them to send just one reporter with a tripod ) to plug the book (how many times does that little number rather put the whole deal in context? I'm guessing it's another, new, extra book on the topic? And will require buying, for money, and making, and distributing, etc) on an as yet unspecified non-impacting stock, I again feel a certain unease that the messenger may not be serving the message as well as he might.
Was pretty funny though.
At least Mr. Colbert will not be joining hordes of irony-free Americans making many extra journeys to congregate together at an event that is raising awareness about... what exactly?
As IPCC 2, the sequel, is now pointing out, it's the kids who will suffer first. Enjoy the party.
I wonder at what the cut-off point is where the media stop finding people engaging in planetary-saving personal endeavours 'interesting' and 'different' enough to feature? What % of population actively engaged in low-impact lifestyles before it is no longer news, and you're kinda on your own because you just believe it's a good thing to do rather than as an exercise in ratings gathering?
It's a line of thought I embarked upon when I saw a programme advocating home composting toilets by a London-based guru. What would the social hygiene consequences be if 10 million folk got inspired to follow suit?
Anyhoo, while having every admiration for such efforts, and sympathy for the financially compensatory effects of publicity (though perhaps wondering how the interviewee got to the studio - maybe it's OK if someone else provides the transport. I tried pitching a video feed to one interested media outlet here. They didn't bite. But at least I persuaded them to send just one reporter with a tripod ) to plug the book (how many times does that little number rather put the whole deal in context? I'm guessing it's another, new, extra book on the topic? And will require buying, for money, and making, and distributing, etc) on an as yet unspecified non-impacting stock, I again feel a certain unease that the messenger may not be serving the message as well as he might.
Was pretty funny though.
At least Mr. Colbert will not be joining hordes of irony-free Americans making many extra journeys to congregate together at an event that is raising awareness about... what exactly?
As IPCC 2, the sequel, is now pointing out, it's the kids who will suffer first. Enjoy the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)