I usually keep ad commentary over on my other blog, Bordello Ivory Tales.
However this does seem worthy of note more here:
Honda block books 'green' ad space on Saturday Guardian
Not to sure the Guardian's rivals will be plugging it quite as much, but there scale of the event is worthy of note. If not the ridiculous ad speek straight out of the press release.
My main interest is in the 'Do good' theme; one we at Junkk.com plug long, hard... and often. And endorse.
Not so sure 'An Inconvenient Truth' is quite the best bit of science documentary for Ch4 to associate itself with, as things have moved on a fair bit since then. Maybe they see it as 'balance' to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I fear I view both more as 'Two wrongs make more ratings' . I am sure there are now later, better, ways to entertain and inform and persuade. Though, I still doubt any that don't fall down on one 'side' or other. And while saving the planet is a laudable aim, folk need to make money, so the new stuff needs to do the cinemas and DVDs for a few years, which is why we get the old stuff on TV now.
Let's see what the comments throw up. That's a lot of money, in one place, for, let's not forget, a car brand.
Showing posts with label GREENCLOAK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GREENCLOAK. Show all posts
Friday, April 03, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The THREE E's, again?
An interesting piece that at first blush is more concerned with my 'Two E' dilemma, namely economics 'vs.' environment.
However, a third is worked in, namely electricity. With a hue of greencloaking around too, perhaps.
Don’t let’s fall for all these ‘green’ credentials
What is interesting is how little is devoted to enviROI still. Even by the author. I have lost count of the number of puff pieces with some mic-toting moppet gushing that these things do not create emissions.
Personally I think there is great merit in pursuing electricity as a power option for vehicles. But it has to be done in concert with a realisation, and acceptance that until the method of electricity generation is developed in complement, they can hardly be deemed to be 'green'. 'Greener', perhaps, at least in some aspects, such as localised pollution (though it still ends up in the air elsewhere), hence the value even now in certain applications. Just... so long it is not just to tick a box somewhere that has little bearing on my kids' futures and more on meeting targets, propping up constituency votes, delivering to lobbyists or scoring a bonus.
Plus, as the comments show, there is also this rather unseemly, and uncritical rush to support anything that slaps a green sticker on it. I watch the BBC report on this, and came away thinking it a tad churlish to turn them down.
Now I read the fuller facts, and that there are already niche players well entrenched to tackle such markets as can be gained, there is different picture emerging. Especially to me as a taxpayer, and environmentally-concerned one at that.
However, a third is worked in, namely electricity. With a hue of greencloaking around too, perhaps.
Don’t let’s fall for all these ‘green’ credentials
What is interesting is how little is devoted to enviROI still. Even by the author. I have lost count of the number of puff pieces with some mic-toting moppet gushing that these things do not create emissions.
Personally I think there is great merit in pursuing electricity as a power option for vehicles. But it has to be done in concert with a realisation, and acceptance that until the method of electricity generation is developed in complement, they can hardly be deemed to be 'green'. 'Greener', perhaps, at least in some aspects, such as localised pollution (though it still ends up in the air elsewhere), hence the value even now in certain applications. Just... so long it is not just to tick a box somewhere that has little bearing on my kids' futures and more on meeting targets, propping up constituency votes, delivering to lobbyists or scoring a bonus.
Plus, as the comments show, there is also this rather unseemly, and uncritical rush to support anything that slaps a green sticker on it. I watch the BBC report on this, and came away thinking it a tad churlish to turn them down.
Now I read the fuller facts, and that there are already niche players well entrenched to tackle such markets as can be gained, there is different picture emerging. Especially to me as a taxpayer, and environmentally-concerned one at that.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
When switching off just won't do
7-Eleven Getting Big Gulp-Sized LED Upgrade
'in order to do its part to reduce GHG emissions'
I am glad that they have 'seen the light', but let us not get too carried away with echoing the PR.
'The savings will be worth it as the lights will use about 75% less energy than fluorescents.' '..after they see what kind of savings 7-11 reaps.'
Not to mention the kudos... oh... they can see that already.
Please, let there not be vast acres of print media issued to tell one and all about this measure.
Actually I'd be keen to know exactly how long the $1B investment will take to get to payback... and then accrue major operational savings; not really for the eco-cred but just to stamp on some beancounters' foreheads to show that green can make green.
It needn't be an 'either/or'.
'in order to do its part to reduce GHG emissions'
I am glad that they have 'seen the light', but let us not get too carried away with echoing the PR.
'The savings will be worth it as the lights will use about 75% less energy than fluorescents.' '..after they see what kind of savings 7-11 reaps.'
Not to mention the kudos... oh... they can see that already.
Please, let there not be vast acres of print media issued to tell one and all about this measure.
Actually I'd be keen to know exactly how long the $1B investment will take to get to payback... and then accrue major operational savings; not really for the eco-cred but just to stamp on some beancounters' foreheads to show that green can make green.
It needn't be an 'either/or'.
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, February 01, 2008
HSBC Bank is carbon neutral!
Add.. er (Pre?)endum/Prefix (by Junkk Male): I have reloaded this post, from its original origination date of 6/07/07 (why do Americans insist of flipping the dd/mm? It took some finding), for a few reasons:
1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.
I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!
Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.
1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.
I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!
Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.
"HSBC says it is the world's first major bank to become carbon neutral and has committed a further US$90 million over five years to reduce the bank's impact on the environment through a series of initiatives ...."
That's a hell of a claim, and seeing as there is no clearly agreed definition of carbon neutral - I'd love to see just how they attempt to justify it! Is every branch and office now generating its own renewable energy? Or does every branch and office now only use electricity from renewable sources? Does no-one travel? Are all new branches and offices built to be super energy efficient? Are all existing branches and offices being updated to be super energy efficient? Are all consumables and replacement equipment items that they purchase manufactured to zero carbon emission standards?
I'll bet they can't answer yes to any of them!
The only possible way they can justify this claim is by using considerable carbon offsetting, by paying someone else to recompense for their carbon emissions; which, as we have already pointed out on several occasion on this blog, is akin to ordering a diet coke alongside your double burger and claiming it to be part of your dieting program!
Greenwash, green-bullsh*t, green-veneer, green-smoke and green-mirrors. A veritable green smorgasbord of false, sickly green tosh. What's the betting that they are claiming to be carbon negative within a few years time?
ADDENDUM (via JunkkMale):
HSBC gives key marketer ‘golden handcuff’ offer - may explain something (or not), about the state of ads (especially 'green' ones) these days, if bankers are running the marketing.
ADDENDUM 2 (JunkkMale):
To add a hyperlinked URL to the comment posts
ADDENDUM 3
HSBC on climate change and Stern - well, they are devoting a lot of people and stuff to talking about it!
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Spice as nice
Tesco recruits Spice Girls for Christmas campaign
I read that what they really, really want is a Lear each in case of hissy fits en route.
If true, I'll be interested to see how that gets worked into the green agenda.
Every little bit helps!
Guardian - If you wanna be my grocer
Mad - Will Tesco be the first and last Spice sponsor?
Speaking of getting 'on board', for an entity keen on 'looking' green at least, the predilections of Squander Spices will make for an interesting sell.
Hers and hers Priuses to the Lears to see how ethically the sweatshops are run?
I read that what they really, really want is a Lear each in case of hissy fits en route.
If true, I'll be interested to see how that gets worked into the green agenda.
Every little bit helps!
Guardian - If you wanna be my grocer
Mad - Will Tesco be the first and last Spice sponsor?
Speaking of getting 'on board', for an entity keen on 'looking' green at least, the predilections of Squander Spices will make for an interesting sell.
Hers and hers Priuses to the Lears to see how ethically the sweatshops are run?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Or...
... a tad more natural not to fly at all.
But I guess if you really have to go to Australia (thanks Guardian), this is a better way to do it.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Green is so now, dah'ling.
I don't argue with the statement of the first line to this - Linda Loudermilk Blends Green and Gold - at all: Environmentalism and luxury are recurring themes appearing everywhere from mass fashion to designer brands to exclusive couture collections.
But reading the rest was hard to do without more than the twitch of an eyebrow at all involved in writing such tosh and repeating it without tongues very much in cheeks.
As far as I can assess, almost all to do with “eco-couture” is greencloaking of the highest order.
I, for one, have not before heard of the “Luxury Eco Stamp of Approval” which is “an accreditation given to the top echelon of certain products, services and business processes,” and “involves detailed review of a company’s product, manufacturing processes, energy uses, labor practices, and environmental impacts as well as a product’s aesthetic design and luxury-quality status.” And wonder what its provenance is.
ADDENDUM:
No sooner do I print this, but I get in this (and simply cut 'n paste - my eyebrow twitch above covers it, too, though this is more considered. Though 'looking into' doth not a great leap forward make:) from Her Maj's Govt PR: Starting on the road to sustainable clothing
Representatives from the fashion, clothing, and textile industry as
well as environmental and ethical groups are meeting today for the
first time to look at how they can work with government to improve
the sustainability of clothing throughout its life cycle.
Opening the event, Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change,
Biodiversity and Waste, said:
"Increasingly, consumers really care about the environment and the
social impacts associated with clothing. And clothes, almost more
than any other product, fill magazines and get column inches. Not
only are consumers really getting their teeth into this, but fashion
journalists are increasingly keeping pace with the green game.
"There are plenty of examples of people in the industry already
seeing sustainability as an opportunity, not a threat. There are
people taking an active role in ethical sourcing, designing and
producing clothing throughout the supply chain.
"That's why Defra is aiming to work collaboratively with the clothing
and fashion industry to improve the sustainability of clothing."
Speaking at the event, Katharine Hamnett, one of the industry's most
ethical and environmentally aware designers, said:
"Sustainable clothing doesn't have to be more expensive. It can be
more affordable and it should be more affordable."
Clothing, across its life cycle, generates a range of environmental,
social and economic impacts - with the growth in fast fashion and
consumption being a key factor in this.
In 2006, UK clothing and textiles produced up to two million tonnes
of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 and 70 million tonnes of waste
water. Clothing imports into the EU as a whole now account for 42
per cent of the global market. In the UK only 10 per cent of our
clothing is manufactured at home, the rest is imported.
Following this event, the clothing and fashion industry will be
invited to be involved in developing the sustainable clothing roadmap
coordinated by Defra. The roadmap examines all stages of clothing's
life cycle (from raw materials to end of life), charts the
environmental and social impacts arising at each stage, and proposes
ways of limiting those impacts where most effective.
Notes to Editors:
1. UK clothing consumption is high at approximately 2 million tonnes
(£23 billion) per annum. For the period 1996-2005, consumer
expenditure on clothing and textiles has grown 34%, with predicted
demand increases.
2. The fast/discount fashion/value clothing sector accounts for one
fifth of the UK market and has doubled its growth during 1999-2006.
3. In 2006, UK clothing and textile impacts included up to 1.5-2
million tonnes of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and 70
million tonnes of waste water generated.
4. In terms of its economic impact, clothing is a high value sector
globally worth over £500 billion. It contributes to 7% of world
exports and employs approximately 26 million people, supporting a
significant number of economies and individual incomes around the
world.
5. Just 10% of clothing consumed within the UK is manufactured here.
The UK textile and clothing industry is small in comparison to the
global industry, accounting for approximately 0.78% of UK GDP, 3.3%
of UK manufacturing (valued at £9.5 billion) and employing
approximately 170,000.(1)
6. Further information is available here
7. Katherine Hamnett's video address is available here
But reading the rest was hard to do without more than the twitch of an eyebrow at all involved in writing such tosh and repeating it without tongues very much in cheeks.
As far as I can assess, almost all to do with “eco-couture” is greencloaking of the highest order.
I, for one, have not before heard of the “Luxury Eco Stamp of Approval” which is “an accreditation given to the top echelon of certain products, services and business processes,” and “involves detailed review of a company’s product, manufacturing processes, energy uses, labor practices, and environmental impacts as well as a product’s aesthetic design and luxury-quality status.” And wonder what its provenance is.
ADDENDUM:
No sooner do I print this, but I get in this (and simply cut 'n paste - my eyebrow twitch above covers it, too, though this is more considered. Though 'looking into' doth not a great leap forward make:) from Her Maj's Govt PR: Starting on the road to sustainable clothing
Representatives from the fashion, clothing, and textile industry as
well as environmental and ethical groups are meeting today for the
first time to look at how they can work with government to improve
the sustainability of clothing throughout its life cycle.
Opening the event, Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change,
Biodiversity and Waste, said:
"Increasingly, consumers really care about the environment and the
social impacts associated with clothing. And clothes, almost more
than any other product, fill magazines and get column inches. Not
only are consumers really getting their teeth into this, but fashion
journalists are increasingly keeping pace with the green game.
"There are plenty of examples of people in the industry already
seeing sustainability as an opportunity, not a threat. There are
people taking an active role in ethical sourcing, designing and
producing clothing throughout the supply chain.
"That's why Defra is aiming to work collaboratively with the clothing
and fashion industry to improve the sustainability of clothing."
Speaking at the event, Katharine Hamnett, one of the industry's most
ethical and environmentally aware designers, said:
"Sustainable clothing doesn't have to be more expensive. It can be
more affordable and it should be more affordable."
Clothing, across its life cycle, generates a range of environmental,
social and economic impacts - with the growth in fast fashion and
consumption being a key factor in this.
In 2006, UK clothing and textiles produced up to two million tonnes
of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 and 70 million tonnes of waste
water. Clothing imports into the EU as a whole now account for 42
per cent of the global market. In the UK only 10 per cent of our
clothing is manufactured at home, the rest is imported.
Following this event, the clothing and fashion industry will be
invited to be involved in developing the sustainable clothing roadmap
coordinated by Defra. The roadmap examines all stages of clothing's
life cycle (from raw materials to end of life), charts the
environmental and social impacts arising at each stage, and proposes
ways of limiting those impacts where most effective.
Notes to Editors:
1. UK clothing consumption is high at approximately 2 million tonnes
(£23 billion) per annum. For the period 1996-2005, consumer
expenditure on clothing and textiles has grown 34%, with predicted
demand increases.
2. The fast/discount fashion/value clothing sector accounts for one
fifth of the UK market and has doubled its growth during 1999-2006.
3. In 2006, UK clothing and textile impacts included up to 1.5-2
million tonnes of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and 70
million tonnes of waste water generated.
4. In terms of its economic impact, clothing is a high value sector
globally worth over £500 billion. It contributes to 7% of world
exports and employs approximately 26 million people, supporting a
significant number of economies and individual incomes around the
world.
5. Just 10% of clothing consumed within the UK is manufactured here.
The UK textile and clothing industry is small in comparison to the
global industry, accounting for approximately 0.78% of UK GDP, 3.3%
of UK manufacturing (valued at £9.5 billion) and employing
approximately 170,000.(1)
6. Further information is available here
7. Katherine Hamnett's video address is available here
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Maybe the first, but it won't be the last!
Greenwashing and greencloaking seem to be all the rage at the moment, but businesses need to beware just what they claim; tell porkies and you WILL be outed.
This from PRWatch details one such case from the Australian Woolworths business, outed by an anonymous blogger, and creating a glorious own-goal. They even went so far as to invent an organisation! They have now had to withdraw the entire product range involved!
That's the first goal to the consumers that I've seen documented so far.
Greenwash Corporates 0 - Consumers United 1.
And we're only in the first minutes of the game yet!
_______________________
And now this from today's Indy - not greenwashing, but a case of deliberate corporate obfuscation (charge-cloaking?) from the HSBC where charges are, according to them, well, not charges!
This from PRWatch details one such case from the Australian Woolworths business, outed by an anonymous blogger, and creating a glorious own-goal. They even went so far as to invent an organisation! They have now had to withdraw the entire product range involved!
That's the first goal to the consumers that I've seen documented so far.
Greenwash Corporates 0 - Consumers United 1.
And we're only in the first minutes of the game yet!
_______________________
And now this from today's Indy - not greenwashing, but a case of deliberate corporate obfuscation (charge-cloaking?) from the HSBC where charges are, according to them, well, not charges!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Blue Oval. Greenwashing?
Try as I might, I am really struggling to see what the heck this ad... and this product... have to do with it at all!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Meanwhile, what comes down the pipe to your home is...
It's a better than nothing, I guess but I couldn't help but crank a slight eyebrow at this: NPower launches eco-friendly ads
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
Putting green in the shade
I recently read this - Who's the greenest of them all? , and decided to pursue it a bit further. The editor has kindly replied.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
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....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)