The media and the message

Brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green

Thank you for an interesting and inspiring piece in Media Week (though if the comments about Eastbourne in MediaBitch are anything to go by, we are facing a tough crowd with the message), and for introducing me to John Grant, who seems a like-minded soul, and hence to buylesscrap... ditto. I've written to ask them if RED has replied to their letter.

You rightly raise the issue of greenwashing which, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, is in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.

One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.

Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard.

But I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.

You mention Andy Bond facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html

But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.

The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green. As an example, I would point at the RE:tie design that we just did rather well with: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/04/whos-clever-boy-then.html &
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/couldnt-express-it-better.html

You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.

Rgds,

Peter Martin
JunkkMale/Big 'Ed

ps: I look forward very much to next week's issue on the big corporates' green cred. Having lived with what they say, but often do differently, (with good and bad experiences on both counts to share - in many cases I think the media is unfair in its reporting of some measures) I will be interested to see how it pans out.

No sense

I just have one question to this:

Consumers in the dark over 'greenest' gadgets

In the name of all that is green and profitable to promote, why are they not making it the easiest thing in the world to make the best eco-decisions?

Told you so. Sorry.

I take no pleasure from it, but...

Public ‘feel powerless’ over green issues

I find the explanation '..mixed messages about the environment are putting people off' a bit vague, and while accepting solutions are not easy would wish the media stopped just reporting the problems and leaving it at that.

Helping others... do what, exactly?

I'd like to think, mainly because I asked and paid folk who said/say they know and know how, that our site is a good as it gets for being legal and looking after people's rights and protections, etc. We certainly try, not just for derriere-covering self-interest, but simple good marketing reasons. Trust us and you will use and stay with us.

So, although we don't yet, if you opt in you may get told of various things by 'suitably vetted partners' of offers that may be of interest to you'. Click or delete at will. We are a commercial, ad-based medium after all. Free, mind you... don't forget, all for free.

Now I don't wish to become all Charity-bashing here, but I just got this:

**** supporters revealed

****, the international **** project, is offering its list of more than 15,000 supporters for rental through ****. The organisation is a charity dedicated to providing ****. Their programmes have helped rebuild lives. The list comprises people who have made a donation to the charity. They majority are aged 50 and above and have donated via a mailshot.

Now I'm not sure how these things work, and maybe the folk on the list have opted in, but does this mean I could decide that **** supporters are just my kind of folk and buy in? Not quite the way I'd like to think it is.

Firefighting with pound notes?

OK, so there are no more £ notes. Bear with me.

Bearing in mind that we are starting to hear the first glimmers of printed carbon footprints on things we buy (my initial thoughts: great in theory, probably necessary, but on present evidence the practice will simply make things worse, expect for those involved who will make a killing consulting and administering it) I found these two pieces worth pondering as the health aspects of what we consumer are further ahead in the whole politico/legislato/lobbyo/mediaballyhoo mix than environment:

Food agency takes on industry over junk labels
&
Why Kellogg's saw red over labelling scheme

Those tasked with looking after us seem to have an addiction to 'communication'. To someone whose careers, past, present and future, revolve around this, that would seem a good thing. But I do see a rather unhealthy trend to taking an easy option, namely an 'ad campaign', which may be visible, may well cause a blip in target measurement, but costs a heck of a lot to a poor ROI.

Much as I'd blooming well hope the multi-millions of our money 'invested' in improving recycling rates (and champagne toasts in agencies, government departments, quango, recycling company and council offices to the profits (and returned?) made a careers forged) did manage a few %, I still question if that was/is the best use of such vast amounts.

So now we have directors and departments scooting off to SoHo and shoots to create an air something that the very industry it's targeted at won't wear and can swamp in a weekend's ad spend.

Hmnn.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the 'industry' in any way. But isn't it amazing commerce, authorities and even the media can compartmentalise?

I know the issue du jour here is health, but with greenwashing so last month, but doubtless back 'in' the next, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at this:

"Early last year Kellogg's flew a handful of journalists in a private jet to its Old Trafford cornflakes factory."

Nice work if you can get it. I guess they may have felt it rude to ask why a train ride would not have sufficed.