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?
Showing posts with label MAD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MAD. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Trust me, I'm in (green) advertising
'False' green ad complaints rise
I cannot for the life of me understand why it gets done or what is in the heads of those who think they can get away with it.,
Do they not realise that by creating a near automatic aura of doubt on anything conveying a green message by such actions, far from leading us (the public, authorities and commercial world) towards a mutually rewarding era of environmentally (and financially) rewarding relationships, these cynical efforts are simply making it more difficult and stealing time that is already precious to effect changes in public behaviour?
There are clear guidelines out there, but a weekly read of the ASA adjudications makes depressing reading as to the motives and/or competence of those involved.
I'm not big on negativity, but I'm seriously thinking of creating a 'wall of sLime' on Junkk.com where these examples get hung up for all to see, along with the names of those involved in their creation.
Joel Makover - The Greening of P.R.: Read All About It
'The world of public relations has discovered green with a vengeance, and the big global firms seem locked, loaded, and ready to fire up their drum beating.'
Consider a just-released survey by Ipsos Reid, which found that "Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being 'green', or environmentally friendly." The study found that seven in ten (70%) Americans either "strongly" (12%) or "somewhat" agree (58%) that "when companies call a product 'green' (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a marketing tactic."
These P.R. firms will have their work cut out for them.
I'm not the only one with a watching brief, it seems.
ASA
Indy - Innocent found guilty of making false health claims - Why on earth would they do it? Great product. Great brand. Great reputation. But then they have grown to a size where there are scores of levels of munchkins vying for their place in the corporate pie. I had high hopes of getting something meaningful going with both Junkk.com and RE:tie vis a vis their commitment to re-everything, but hit a wall of trendy young things in the 'marketing' dept. who seemed unable to take a message let alone pass it on. Sad.
Brand republic - Smoothies ad pulled up over detox claims
Guardian - Innocent found guilty over smoothie health claims - well, there's no such thing as ...
Indy - Can you not know that you are using forced labour? - Not really my usual cuppa this guy, but he kinda nails it. And OK, it isn't really right for this post, either.
Mad - Lost innocence
I think all it does is show how size can create all sorts of problems.
It is hard to imagine that in leaner times those running the show would not be on top of such things. But now there will be layer upon layer of departmental munchkins (just try getting past the bananaphone to talk to a sensible decision maker without getting all sorts of folk running turf interference these days) jockeying to make their mark, so such things creep in.
As to the McDonalds hook up... what is the problem? Surely getting something healthy...ier in there is better than nothing? And if one is of a campaigning bent, better to work from within than standing outside shouting all or nothing impracticalities. And who, beyond the media, are these excitable folk who can get so turned off by such commercial decisions? I felt the same way over the hoo-haa that Anita Roddick had flogged off Body Shop. It was hers to do with as she felt. And if feeling generous (if change was her aim) was the risk of comprising the Body Shop brand not worth elevated the aspirations of the parent ?
Mind you, it can create some fun. I suspect those who bought out Ben & Jerry's haven't a clue what is going on sometimes: link
Brand Republic - NOT SO INNOCENT
I was going to post but it was more question so forgive me taking the more direct route.
Having had a rather frustrating time of late with innocent (there are aspects of our businesses that suggest(ed) synergy), which I have pretty much identified with their growth curve out-stripping their original (and, I believe, sincerely held) stated desire to not be like the rest, your comment resonated.
However, as I blogged (link above), I laid this more at the door corporate B*****cks and gatekeeper culture. But you seem to be suggesting that there is something more predictable than even this. You would not have written what you did had you not believed it, but I must say I am surprised that marketing gurus, much less those whose hunger has pushed them to darker places, could simply feel the risk of such a strategy could be worth it.
Look how much damage this one small thing has created for the brand, versus what minute % increase they may have generated overstated the benefits of this product.
I truly hope you are wrong. But fear you may be right.
Guardian - Hot air
I'm holding my breath.
Just as a precaution, mind.
I cannot for the life of me understand why it gets done or what is in the heads of those who think they can get away with it.,
Do they not realise that by creating a near automatic aura of doubt on anything conveying a green message by such actions, far from leading us (the public, authorities and commercial world) towards a mutually rewarding era of environmentally (and financially) rewarding relationships, these cynical efforts are simply making it more difficult and stealing time that is already precious to effect changes in public behaviour?
There are clear guidelines out there, but a weekly read of the ASA adjudications makes depressing reading as to the motives and/or competence of those involved.
I'm not big on negativity, but I'm seriously thinking of creating a 'wall of sLime' on Junkk.com where these examples get hung up for all to see, along with the names of those involved in their creation.
Joel Makover - The Greening of P.R.: Read All About It
'The world of public relations has discovered green with a vengeance, and the big global firms seem locked, loaded, and ready to fire up their drum beating.'
Consider a just-released survey by Ipsos Reid, which found that "Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being 'green', or environmentally friendly." The study found that seven in ten (70%) Americans either "strongly" (12%) or "somewhat" agree (58%) that "when companies call a product 'green' (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a marketing tactic."
These P.R. firms will have their work cut out for them.
I'm not the only one with a watching brief, it seems.
ASA
Indy - Innocent found guilty of making false health claims - Why on earth would they do it? Great product. Great brand. Great reputation. But then they have grown to a size where there are scores of levels of munchkins vying for their place in the corporate pie. I had high hopes of getting something meaningful going with both Junkk.com and RE:tie vis a vis their commitment to re-everything, but hit a wall of trendy young things in the 'marketing' dept. who seemed unable to take a message let alone pass it on. Sad.
Brand republic - Smoothies ad pulled up over detox claims
Guardian - Innocent found guilty over smoothie health claims - well, there's no such thing as ...
Indy - Can you not know that you are using forced labour? - Not really my usual cuppa this guy, but he kinda nails it. And OK, it isn't really right for this post, either.
Mad - Lost innocence
I think all it does is show how size can create all sorts of problems.
It is hard to imagine that in leaner times those running the show would not be on top of such things. But now there will be layer upon layer of departmental munchkins (just try getting past the bananaphone to talk to a sensible decision maker without getting all sorts of folk running turf interference these days) jockeying to make their mark, so such things creep in.
As to the McDonalds hook up... what is the problem? Surely getting something healthy...ier in there is better than nothing? And if one is of a campaigning bent, better to work from within than standing outside shouting all or nothing impracticalities. And who, beyond the media, are these excitable folk who can get so turned off by such commercial decisions? I felt the same way over the hoo-haa that Anita Roddick had flogged off Body Shop. It was hers to do with as she felt. And if feeling generous (if change was her aim) was the risk of comprising the Body Shop brand not worth elevated the aspirations of the parent ?
Mind you, it can create some fun. I suspect those who bought out Ben & Jerry's haven't a clue what is going on sometimes: link
Brand Republic - NOT SO INNOCENT
I was going to post but it was more question so forgive me taking the more direct route.
Having had a rather frustrating time of late with innocent (there are aspects of our businesses that suggest(ed) synergy), which I have pretty much identified with their growth curve out-stripping their original (and, I believe, sincerely held) stated desire to not be like the rest, your comment resonated.
However, as I blogged (link above), I laid this more at the door corporate B*****cks and gatekeeper culture. But you seem to be suggesting that there is something more predictable than even this. You would not have written what you did had you not believed it, but I must say I am surprised that marketing gurus, much less those whose hunger has pushed them to darker places, could simply feel the risk of such a strategy could be worth it.
Look how much damage this one small thing has created for the brand, versus what minute % increase they may have generated overstated the benefits of this product.
I truly hope you are wrong. But fear you may be right.
Guardian - Hot air
I'm holding my breath.
Just as a precaution, mind.
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.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
London to get huge desalination plant
Its obviously a day for water stories......
I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.
London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.
In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)
On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.
Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)
(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])
That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)
Addendum:
Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."
Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"
I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.
London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.
In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)
On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.
Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)
(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])
That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)
Addendum:
Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."
Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"
Renewables Strategy Just Like Swiss Cheese?
Is the government's strategy to encourage the installation of renewable energy components on new build developements failing?
The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!
Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.
Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.
I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.
"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."
"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "
So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.
Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!
Addendum:
Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):
Saw this and thought of you:
Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.
Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom
The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!
Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.
Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.
I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.
"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."
"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "
So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.
Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!
Addendum:
Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):
Saw this and thought of you:
Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.
Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
All in the best possible taste
As it says: Finally some common sense
Couldn't agree more. But I doubt it will make a gosh-darn bit of difference.
There are vast industries feeding off (sorry) anything like this, from government to quango to the media, where stirring it up, talking about it in excited ways and then taking steps can lead to lots of lovely jobs and lucre researching, assessing, running campaigns and getting Shocked on a Sunday.
I am beginning to wonder if everything we buy will have so much that we 'need' to know it will come with its own CDR that will need viewing pre-consumption. Which is about as likely as me figuring out what all the guff on there already means.
Mind you, I just saw a news item where it seems that parents have not figured that letting their kids eat all the pies may explain why they look like the DPM.
But I'm sure they are not the kind plonked in front of the telly 24/7, so maybe another COI-budget hike may be the answer? Adland awaits the siren call. There's almost as much to be made saying don't as promoting the culprit in the first place.
How sweet is that?
Couldn't agree more. But I doubt it will make a gosh-darn bit of difference.
There are vast industries feeding off (sorry) anything like this, from government to quango to the media, where stirring it up, talking about it in excited ways and then taking steps can lead to lots of lovely jobs and lucre researching, assessing, running campaigns and getting Shocked on a Sunday.
I am beginning to wonder if everything we buy will have so much that we 'need' to know it will come with its own CDR that will need viewing pre-consumption. Which is about as likely as me figuring out what all the guff on there already means.
Mind you, I just saw a news item where it seems that parents have not figured that letting their kids eat all the pies may explain why they look like the DPM.
But I'm sure they are not the kind plonked in front of the telly 24/7, so maybe another COI-budget hike may be the answer? Adland awaits the siren call. There's almost as much to be made saying don't as promoting the culprit in the first place.
How sweet is that?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
And a side order of soap with your shampoo, sir?
Only organic for me darling
I have no problem with folk blowing their hard-earned any way they like, especially saving the planet in the process, even if it doesn't make much sense financially.
Where I do draw the line is if the enviROI doesn't add up. This is the cost to my kids by a fad actually suckering the totality of the system for a short term marketing gain.
Sadly, it is almost impossible to assess fairly, or in a way consumers will be able to grasp, especially with packaging having to accommodate about a page of A4 with all the pointless, contradictory, a**s-covering, target-meeting, box-ticking guides we already have and are going to find joining them.
And then all we get is those brands we thought we could trust to guide us, like Fairtrade and the Soil Association (plus a few pro-Bono charities), having a spat on which ethical aspect is more important, and it all dissolves into farce.
Still, while there are those who are sincere, some will simply make more quick green-dosh as the planet bleeds.
Yours, with an airflown cherry on top...
I have no problem with folk blowing their hard-earned any way they like, especially saving the planet in the process, even if it doesn't make much sense financially.
Where I do draw the line is if the enviROI doesn't add up. This is the cost to my kids by a fad actually suckering the totality of the system for a short term marketing gain.
Sadly, it is almost impossible to assess fairly, or in a way consumers will be able to grasp, especially with packaging having to accommodate about a page of A4 with all the pointless, contradictory, a**s-covering, target-meeting, box-ticking guides we already have and are going to find joining them.
And then all we get is those brands we thought we could trust to guide us, like Fairtrade and the Soil Association (plus a few pro-Bono charities), having a spat on which ethical aspect is more important, and it all dissolves into farce.
Still, while there are those who are sincere, some will simply make more quick green-dosh as the planet bleeds.
Yours, with an airflown cherry on top...
Many publicities can these days be stirred up with bad publicity.
Nice to drift over to the world of ads once in a while.
Dr Martens sticks boot in
This commentator (never been called that before, so I'm climbing aboard the bandwagon) could care less about the ad (though asking the relatives might have been polite), but is fascinated by the process surrounding the apparent 'furore'. Was that the term in the original release used to kick-start it?
When I first read about this it seemed to be some kind of student competition that got taken too far, and without the knowledge of senior agency or client. So far, so tee-hee...whoopsie: 'They didn't die with our boots on?"
Now it seems it is/was a commissioned piece, using a high-profile photographer, for a one-off 'authorised' insertion in some medium I've never heard of, like that would render it in better taste than being seen anywhere else. As most awards hounds will tell you, it's quite easy to get a dodgy bit of 'edginess' mainstream with a complicit agency/client/minor-medium cabal, a little bit of MySpace or YouTube to 'find' it has been spread around, with a nudge from the PR division to kickstart the Daily Mail, and...ta-daa: a bit more than was 'intended'.
So... what next? It was all actually a big hoot to get a bunch more PR value than the original, rather average concept warranted. Surely not?
Bless.
Crap ads don't hurt people. Being complicit in helping sell them for a few cheap ratings points does.
BRAND REPUBLIC
Dr Martens sticks boot in
This commentator (never been called that before, so I'm climbing aboard the bandwagon) could care less about the ad (though asking the relatives might have been polite), but is fascinated by the process surrounding the apparent 'furore'. Was that the term in the original release used to kick-start it?
When I first read about this it seemed to be some kind of student competition that got taken too far, and without the knowledge of senior agency or client. So far, so tee-hee...whoopsie: 'They didn't die with our boots on?"
Now it seems it is/was a commissioned piece, using a high-profile photographer, for a one-off 'authorised' insertion in some medium I've never heard of, like that would render it in better taste than being seen anywhere else. As most awards hounds will tell you, it's quite easy to get a dodgy bit of 'edginess' mainstream with a complicit agency/client/minor-medium cabal, a little bit of MySpace or YouTube to 'find' it has been spread around, with a nudge from the PR division to kickstart the Daily Mail, and...ta-daa: a bit more than was 'intended'.
So... what next? It was all actually a big hoot to get a bunch more PR value than the original, rather average concept warranted. Surely not?
Bless.
Crap ads don't hurt people. Being complicit in helping sell them for a few cheap ratings points does.
BRAND REPUBLIC
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Only logical, it is.
This is interesting as I had almost given up on Innocent, who seem a darn good fit in more ways than one, but there may yet be a way (he said, mysteriously, and Yoda-like), of which more another time.
Lament for lost Innocence
Such alliances/deals always seem to spark the same commentary. I find it interesting the higher standard that some are held to just because they have a product that is healthier/more ethical, etc. Like Anita Roddick and Body Shop. It is theirs, and business is business. It's not like they are going to the Dark Side.
A powerful riposte to such critiques would be to simply stand one's ground and point out it is a lot more effective to get 'in' and cause change from that side, than being outside ranting... so long as one is firm on one's principles and takes all chances to let them spread.
I was once asked if I'd ever put an Esso ad on my site, and caused much feather ruffling by saying 'of course'. Thing is, my local station has an LPG pump, and I will for sure let them advertise THAT, but certainly not 4* . You never know, if they start seeing enough revenue coming in they may ditch a petrol pump for another more eco-option.
Use the market forces, Luke...
Lament for lost Innocence
Such alliances/deals always seem to spark the same commentary. I find it interesting the higher standard that some are held to just because they have a product that is healthier/more ethical, etc. Like Anita Roddick and Body Shop. It is theirs, and business is business. It's not like they are going to the Dark Side.
A powerful riposte to such critiques would be to simply stand one's ground and point out it is a lot more effective to get 'in' and cause change from that side, than being outside ranting... so long as one is firm on one's principles and takes all chances to let them spread.
I was once asked if I'd ever put an Esso ad on my site, and caused much feather ruffling by saying 'of course'. Thing is, my local station has an LPG pump, and I will for sure let them advertise THAT, but certainly not 4* . You never know, if they start seeing enough revenue coming in they may ditch a petrol pump for another more eco-option.
Use the market forces, Luke...
Friday, March 30, 2007
Are you a money-grubbing, career-obsessed coprorate toady?
If you work in marketing, apparently not, at least when it comes to saving the planet:
Marketers switch on to carbon neutral
Sadly it's a paid for sub, by a magazine by and for, well, marketers, so infer away.
I simply ponder out loud that when it comes to recycling, about 90% of people say they do it, and 20% actually do.
And it's not like the Beemer upgrade to full leatherette at next fiscal hinges on it, hmnn?
Marketers switch on to carbon neutral
Sadly it's a paid for sub, by a magazine by and for, well, marketers, so infer away.
I simply ponder out loud that when it comes to recycling, about 90% of people say they do it, and 20% actually do.
And it's not like the Beemer upgrade to full leatherette at next fiscal hinges on it, hmnn?
Thursday, March 01, 2007
And the losers are...
The truth, any semblance of journalistic skill, er...?
When broadcasting turns bad: Sky / Virgin negotiations left in bloody tatters
I have followed this spat on the various news media these last few days.
What got me was that at no point did a reporter pin either down to what was and was not said. I'm sure that both at one stage were accusing the other of mendacity (no Mr. Arsenal comments from me!).
It might have helped if one was caught in a porkie.
Other wise the only losers are the viewers as a bunch of testosterone gets redirected elsewhere.
Telegraph - Why must I be divorced from The Simpsons?
When broadcasting turns bad: Sky / Virgin negotiations left in bloody tatters
I have followed this spat on the various news media these last few days.
What got me was that at no point did a reporter pin either down to what was and was not said. I'm sure that both at one stage were accusing the other of mendacity (no Mr. Arsenal comments from me!).
It might have helped if one was caught in a porkie.
Other wise the only losers are the viewers as a bunch of testosterone gets redirected elsewhere.
Telegraph - Why must I be divorced from The Simpsons?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)