Filed under: Advertising, Climate Change, Mother | Tags: Advertising, Climate Change, Mother, Plane Stupid
The phrase “viral video”, I think, is a bit dated – alongside “dial-up” and “millennium bug”. That is, unless you’ve been nominated for the Viral Video Award 2010. Apparently out of 500 submissions, 20 were selected for the public vote – including our Polar Bear ad for Plane Stupid. Liking viral.
The film got over a million views on YouTube – more than any of the other nominees, as far as I can tell (doesn’t this mean we already won the public vote?!). The truth is, this success has nothing much to do with “viral”. It has more to do with the press storm that started in The Telegraph and ended in a Fox News rant by Glenn Beck. A proud moment. He said:
“This is despicable and obviously designed to frighten you and your children”
Now, if that isn’t a reason to click here and vote then what is? Seriously, all support would be much appreciated. The winner gets screened at the prestigious International Short Film Festival Berlin. Which will, of course, be a great excuse not to take a short-haul flight… Voting ends on November 18th.
Filed under: Activism, Climate Change, Crowdfunding | Tags: Activism, Climate Change, film
So this blog is a year old. The most-read post to date is why the Plane Stupid ad works, which quickly clocked up about 4,000 views – mainly because of the controversy the ad generated (complaints to the ASA, death threats to the agency, an irate Glenn Beck, etc). It picked up over a million views on YouTube.
I caught up Plane Stupid last week. It’s been a good year: they won the fight against airport expansion in Heathrow and Stanstead, and now have a profile in the USA. At home, the battle has shifted to the regions. As Leo Murray puts it:
The big beast is dead. While Heathrow and Stansted show we can win, we haven’t won yet. The fight now is going to be messier and more regional.
Plane Stupid are featured in Just Do It, a film about the UK climate activists, including Climate Rush and Climate Camp. I spent a couple of enjoyable hours last week with the production team, talking about messaging and fundraising. They’re going down the crowd-funding route, and have a target of 1 million views in 2011, which they’ll aim to get using a community-based distribution model:
The film will be released under a Creative Commons, non-commercial license. We will distribute the film via free internet downloads, free-ish DVDs, film festivals and guerrilla screenings … This is filmmaking as politics, as well as a film about politics.
It’s good to watch some activism in action. A while ago, somebody dumped on my desk a weighty essay called On The Duty of Civil Disobedience by American thinker Henry David Thoreau – a piece of writing that apparently inspired Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It’s nice to see the spirit of non-compliance is alive and well.
Here’s another example. My sister Mary sent me this little piece of activism – a bit too long (these things always are) but made me laugh:
Filed under: Climate Change, Economics, Ethical Consumerism, Happiness, Innovation, Mother, Public Opinion, Uncategorized | Tags: Advertising, Climate Change, Environment, Happiness, health, Innovation, Mother, New Economics Foundation, Public Opinion
Yesterday Nic Marks from the New Economics Foundation came in to Mother and talked to the strategists. Nic works on well-being and how to measure it, and he started by telling us that he thought people like us – advertising types – fuel the false belief that stuff can make us happy. In fact, Nic wasn’t initially at all keen to come and talk to us – a reminder that to many people, we’re the problem.
I was digging around on their website and found this, in a report called A Bit Rich, which calculates the “Social Return On Investment” of different jobs:
The impact of the [advertising] industry has always been a point of controversy. It encourages high consumer spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. In our economic model we estimate the share of social and environmental damage caused by overconsumption that is attributable to advertising. For a salary of between £50,000 and £12 million, top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate.
Reminds me of the famous Bill Hicks line, “by the way, if anyone here tonight is in advertising or marketing… kill yourselves. Just a little thought”. In fact, I just watched it again. It’s really old now, but great to see again:
Yeah, well. It’s not like we sell arms to children or anything. Of course there’s nothing intrinsically evil about marketing, but the collective indifference of our industry is impressive. Still, I’m convinced this is changing for the better. A few people yesterday pointed out NEF’s slogan, “Economics As If People and the Planet Mattered” – something to think about for us.
So there was a bit of a cultural tension going on. Despite this (or maybe because of it), it was a great talk. Plenty of good nerdy discussion on indices, measurement, systems theory, psychology – finishing with the beautifully practical Five Ways To Wellbeing: Connect, Be Active (physically), Take Notice (smelling coffee, etc), Keep Learning, and Give (compassion, Dalai Lama style). If this all sounds a bit “self-help”, there’s some solid evidence behind this stuff. And some good heart too. It would be nice to figure out some ways we can do some projects with these guys.
And if you’re interested, here’s the full presentation:
Filed under: Advertising, Climate Change, Coca-Cola, Corporate Citizenship, Ethical Consumerism, Uncategorized, WWF | Tags: Advertising, Climate Change, Coca-Cola, Corporate Citizenship, Ethical Consumerism, Mother, WWF
Will this be the year that social moves to the centre of corporate strategy? Corporate Social Opportunity, not just CSR window dressing? Coca-Cola is one of our biggest clients at Mother – and an example of the enlightened self-interest dawning in many boardrooms.
Above is an image of a defaced Mother ad for Coke – it sums up the ambivalent position that the brand occupies in our culture: the sunny optimistic pop icon, and the exploitative corporate. However, in a New York Times article called “WIll Big Business Save The Earth?”, Jarod Diamond argues that Coke is one of many corporates becoming increasingly interested in making a change:
The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.
He gives as an example Coke’s partnership with WWF on water sustainability, working on seven of the world’s river basins, including the Rio Grande, Yangtze, Mekong and Danube — all major environmental concerns. Why? Has Jonathan Mildenhall taken up fly-fishing?
Coke has bottling plants in around 200 countries – and water is the main ingredient. But water supplies are under pressure from growing populations, agriculture and climate change. No water, no Coke: the company’s new love affair with WWF isn’t just a PR position, it’s about protecting the business’ future.
Bruce Mau talks about his work with Coke in last month’s Wired UK. He says that “the potential for Coca-Cola to create a powerful social movement and to change the world is enormous”. But getting that to happen, he adds, is “like a turning around a very big ship”. It’s turning: in 2009 Coke launched plant-based recyclable bottles, and also committed to cut carbon emissions by 15% by 2020.
This isn’t just about neutralizing the negative effects of doing business: Coke has considerable reach, and this can be a force for good. Coke employs around 1 million people globally, and has a formidable distribution network: organizations like ColaLife are campaigning for the company to make more of this.
Ultimately, companies like Coke will only grow through a positive social agenda. Shareholder activism, citizen journalism, competition for talent, ethical consumerism – the pressures on corporates to be good citizens has never been greater.
As 2010 begins, the forward-thinking corporates will already be planning for the upturn: reassessing, regrouping, doing their wargaming and scenario planning. They’ll be busy looking for the threats and opportunities – and the smart ones will be having an important realization: their future is all about the societies they operate in, and the planet we live on.
Filed under: Climate Change, Economics, Environment | Tags: Bill Becker, Climate Change, Corporate Citizenship, economcs, Ecotopia, Environment, environmental, Fritjof Capra, John Elkington, triple bottom line
Yesterday I was at Ecotopia, an event intended to create a “shared strategic vision of a sustainable future”. In other words, an antidote to the “apocalypse fatigue” I talked about in an earlier post. Taking part was a mixture of economists, scientists, activists and businesspeople, including some personal heroes:
- Fritjof Capra, physicist, systems-theorist and author of the Tao of Physics.
- Bill Becker, director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.
- John Elkington, CSR pioneer and inventor of the “triple bottom line“.
- Hazel Henderson, developer of the Quality of Life indicators.
One of the big themes was measurement: if we want a new kind of future, we need a new way of measuring progress. Tony Manwaring set the tone by quoting a speech from Robert F. Kennedy criticizing the concept of GDP. It’s worth quoting:
Gross Domestic Product does not allow for the health of our children, nor the quality of their education, nor the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry nor the strength of our marriages; the quality of our public debate, nor the integrity of our public officials; it measures neither our wit, nor our courage; our wisdom, nor our learning; neither our compassion, nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worth while; and it can tell us everything about America, except why we are proud to be Americans.
In fact, it’s worth watching. I found it on YouTube:
Using GDP to measure a country’s wealth is a bit like trying to reduce a persons health to a single number. Economies, like persons, are complex. GDP doesn’t account for the social or environmental aspects of wealth. But the what’s the alternative?
Fritjof Capra and Hazel Henderson talked about qualitative growth: you can’t understand an economy in purely quantitative terms; you also need to map the relationships between the different parts of that economy: business, climate change, education, energy, health, leisure, etc. You need some systems thinking.
This sounds interesting, but it doesn’t sound simple. If we’re going to replace GDP growth as the goal of economic life, we need a simple new story to tell. Still, it was an optimistic day – some detailed, grounded discussion. Many of the attendees were in London on their way to Copenhagen. Travel well…
Filed under: Advertising, Climate Change, Environment, Mother, Plane Stupid | Tags: Advertising, Climate Change, Environment, environmental, Mother, Plane Stupid
The falling polar bears have upset a lot of people. Thousands of angry YouTube comments, death threats to Plane Stupid, complaints to the ASA, and the usual outrage brigade in the British press:
- The UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom told the Telegraph, “This is a graphic and hysterical advert which will cause unnecessary distress and alarm.”
- Climate change skeptic and “potty peer” Lord Monckton of Brenchley called the ad “a fraudulent piece of scaremongering”.
So far, so good: most climate change stuff slips by unnoticed – at least we don’t have that problem. More interesting, though not entirely unexpected, is the criticism we’ve had from environmentalists. This criticism runs along familiar lines – here are the main themes:
- SHOCK TACTICS DON’T WORK
Writing on Comment Is Free, Ed Gillespie was one of the first to question the ad. He argues that shock tactics don’t work: “the danger is that by pumping up the high octane drama of an ad, you increase the risk of viewers feeling manipulated and dismissing it as pure propaganda”. This is indeed a real risk – but what’s the alternative? A “medium-octane” ad would be easy to ignore; we needed to make an ad that would get noticed.Messages about the damaging impact of flying aren’t new, but UK passenger numbers continue to grow. Many of these flights are unnecessary: Paris is still the top destination from Heathrow, with up to 60 flights each day – despite the obvious Eurostar alternative. Who are these people? What planet have they been living on? They’ve developed immunity to the usual messages about climate change: a more hard-hitting message might just work.
- GUILT IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE
Tom Crumpton of IdentityCampaigning.org suggests that making people feel guilty about flying may be counter-productive, driving them “to deploy other psychological ‘coping mechanisms’, such as projecting their guilt onto others (e.g. the response that: ‘it’s not my fault, when China is building a new coal-fired powerstation every few days…’).”This ad doesn’t set out to make people feel guilty. Instead, it sets out to make people feel that unnecessary short-haul flying is socially unacceptable. Drink-driving is now socially unacceptable, thanks to years of government communications – including some pretty shocking executions. Flying from Heathrow to Edinburgh should be no less acceptable – no matter how many coal-fired powerstations there are in China.
There are 46 million domestic air passengers each year – and these numbers are increasing. Taking a domestic flight is sticking two fingers up at the environment: these are the people our ad is really aimed at. I hope they find it uncomfortable viewing.
- NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS DON’T WORK
This really is pretty negative stuff. Many people argue that negative campaigning isn’t helpful: people disengage with climate change unless there’s a positive vision set out: too much stick, not enough carrot. Undoubtedly more work needs to be done to bringing to life a positive vision of the future: see my earlier post on this. But our ad isn’t about positive or negative: it’s about confronting frequent flyers with the consequences of their actions. We’ve made a piece of film that we hope will make them feel differently about jumping on a short-haul flight. - THE “LUNATIC FRINGE” ARGUMENT
Plane Stupid are used to drawing criticism for their provocative style of activism: disrupting meetings, breaking into airports, custard throwing. Their actions have been described as irresponsible, childish publicity stunts. The graphic nature of this ad has been similarly criticized: writing on Do The Green Thing, Andy Hobsbawm says that the ad “reinforces [people’s] perceptions of environmentalists on the lunatic fringes raging against the system”.Far from being on the lunatic fringe, climate change is mainstream: politicians and brands queue up to pledge allegiance. And yet short-haul air travel continues to grow. Polite approaches aren’t working. That’s why we’re delighted to be supporting Plane Stupid.
One of the surprising things about the criticisms we’ve received is the certainty with which people argue their points, as if there were only one right answer here. Well, I don’t think you can ever be 100% sure that a strategy like this is right, but I’m 100% sure that existing approaches aren’t working: public attitudes are shifting in the wrong direction, and short-haul air travel continues to grow. It’s a difficult brief, but we hope that this disruptive ad will be more effective at getting people to think twice before taking unnecessary flights.
Filed under: Advertising, Climate Change, Environment, Mother, Plane Stupid | Tags: Climate Change, Environment, environmental, Plane Stupid
Mother’s ad for Plane Stupid launches today. I’ve played it a few times to a room full of people, and there’s always a slightly stunned silence afterwards: it’s not comfortable viewing.
Plane Stupid are entirely focused on ending “unnecessary and unsustainable” flights, and we wanted this film confront people with the impact that short-haul flying has on the climate. I spent a long time working with WWF in Geneva, persuading them that there’s more to Climate Change than polar bears – but we’ve used them in this film because they’re a well understood symbol of the effect that climate change is having on the natural world.
It’s been interesting working with Plane Stupid, they’re a great example of a new kind of campaign group – highly focused and uncompromising, whilst knowing how to play the game. Here’s a few interesting things about them:
- Plane Stupid isn’t an “organization” as such, but a loose association of autonomous local activist groups, with no formal structure, hierarchy or leadership.
- They use good old fashioned activism to get attention, but are able to follow through with sophisticated media engagement (see Joss Garman on Newsnight or Leo Murray on CNN)
- Their fight with BAA is truly a David & Goliath tale, reaching farcical proportions with this story that BAA hired a “security consultant” to infiltrate the group.
- They were described as ‘extremists’ by the Government’s National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit – and yet they share a platform with local conservative NIMBY’s and middle-England’s beloved National Trust.
Plane Stupid are sometimes criticized in the green movement for being unrealistic: people like flying, telling them that they can’t fly will only alienate them. Of course, the great British public like their summer holidays – but our film isn’t aimed at them. Our hope is to get people to think twice before jumping on a short flight, and to make the idea of domestic UK flights socially repugnant.
Filed under: Carbon, Climate Change, Environment, Politics, Public Opinion | Tags: Carbon, Climate Change, energy saving trust, Environment, environmental, Politics, Public Opinion
Will climate change be an issue in next years election? Unlikely. The green movement failed to make it an issue last time and this time looks like being even worse. Why?
Firstly, HSBC’s Carbon Confidence monitor shows a fall in concern about climate change in the UK – down from 26% last year to 15% this year. This figure is also much less than developing countries like Brazil, Mexico and India – prompting an excellent rant on Alistair Campbell’s blog:
Is that because [people in developing countries] are more used to weather driven destruction? Or because they have not fallen victim to the ‘not bovvered’ syndrome which says instant gratification belongs to the individual and any long-term problem belongs to somebody else?
Secondly, research we’ve seen by our clients at the Energy Saving Trust suggests people are increasingly confused about carbon – not surprising giving the confusing language: carbon offsets, carbon emissions, carbon calculators, carbon trading, carbon footprints, etc.
Thirdly, there’s no clear story for people to get behind. We’re lost in the din: all kinds of consumer brands are talking the talk; government messaging comes from the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, and Act On CO2; and in the run-up to Copenhagen, dozens of campaigns are competing for public engagement.
Fourthly, climate change cynics are on the increase. George Monbiot points to an explosion of books denying climate change: on Amazon.co.uk, anti-climate change books currently rank 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category. The British book-buying public clearly wants to be told that climate change is some kind of conspiracy.
Finally, Armageddon really doesn’t sell well. As climate change becomes a reality, we can expect some public antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Worse than this, we might even expect people to consumer more: an extraordinary piece of research called “Of Wealth & Death” finds that people often respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. They begin with a cheery quote form Tolkien:
But the fear of death grew ever darker upon them, and . . . those that lived turned the more eagerly to pleasure and revelry, desiring ever more goods and more riches. (from The Silmarillion)
I’m going to suggest a new acronym. Already we have SISO (shit in, shit out). Now we have DIDO (disaster in, disaster out): the more we talk about Armageddon, the close it gets. The green movement is good at disaster scenarios. Where are the gleaming possible new futures? If we want a positive response, don’t we need some positive inputs?
Filed under: Advertising, Climate Change, Environment, Google, Innovation, Mother | Tags: Advertising, Climate Change, energy saving trust, environmental, Google, Innovation, Mother, virgin
The first post on this blog talked about “Public Innovation Challenges” – such as the Virgin Earth Challenge, with its $25 million prize for anyone who can figure out a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
More recently, Google’s Project 10100 offered $10 million for “ideas to change the world”. They were overwhelmed with over 150,000 ideas in 25 different languages. Google says it took over 3,000 employees to read them – and they’ve left the decision to a public vote which closes this Friday.
Our clients at the Energy Saving Trust are joining the party, helping to launch the Low Carbon Communities Challenge, a £10 million fund to help communities such as transition towns to reduce their carbon output. This may not be a vast amount of money, but it’s a progressive approach: encouraging and enabling local communities to take action has to be a smart way forward.
In the meantime, Mother’s ad for the Energy Saving Trust went live last week with a different kind of challenge: stop wasting energy. Saving the planet may be important to many, but right now saving money is important to everyone. Even so, doing an ad about energy saving promised to be deadly dull, so we’ve tried to add a bit of charm to it, in the form of Dave. Recognize the voice?
