Late last week Planet 100 covered their top-5 “eco-shock campaigns”. It’s somewhat disturbing that these videos (some produced as long ago as 2008) are handed kudos in such a crass fashion. There’s enough debate around shock advertising, but in the case of climate change, I’m not convinced that this is the right way to go.
Yes, you can argue that they “raise awareness”, that they generate buzz and cut through your advertising-clogged media experience (pick any). Yes, it’s great that Greenpeace’s “Have a break” video induced a response from Nestlé. But perhaps it shouldn’t escape us that this kind of advertising works best when we have something concrete to lose — such as potential revenue loss in the face of bad publicity — as in the case of Nestlé. Other than that, it’s not proven that shock effects lead to active, positive actions. In particular, we need to tread carefully for an issue as sensitive as climate change — just look back at the kind of news we’ve been hearing for the better part of the last two months: scientists are being accused of over-exaggerating the scale of the issue.
If we are having trouble swallowing that the nature of science includes uncertainty, how is shock advertising going to help? What we are likely to get are more people crying foul at how we’re tugging at their heartstrings. This is one issue we cannot afford to create a desensitized public with our actions; the eco movement should really know better and rise above short-sighted advertising tactics that are rapidly becoming old. Can we, instead, look at championing outreach methods are culturally sustainable?
No Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://robotic-rodents.com/2010/03/31/sustainability-advertising-for-sustainability/trackback/
One Comment
Here here! I agree completely. It reminds me a bit of people who defend film makers like Michael Moore and their very plastic ways of dealing with “truth” because doing it that way has “more impact” than if it were handled with more professionalism and adherence to proper journalistic methods. The argument is that Moore’s (etc.) methods may be bad and somewhat misleading, but they are done in the pursuit of a higher goal and a greater truth.
Well, that might work in the short term, but ultimately if you use sketchy methods and flawed truthfulness to tell your story, you open it to criticism that will end up looking more legitimate than your story is.
(OK, Michael Moore in particular pisses me off. He wants his messages to be take very seriously, but when you catch him in a lie or gross exaggeration he laughs it off by saying “but I’m just a comedian!” If someone on the right were to try that cop-out we’d slay him mercilessly.)