I understand The Waste Paper Magazine for members of the Community Recycling Network (CRN UK) is no longer available in print format, only online. It was only 24-pages published 6 times a year but every little counts. [Thanks to Mark at Newspress for the update!!]
I love the Greenpeace site ”A Greener Apple” - it uses the brand iconography and feel of Apple to challenge the company over its corporate social responsibility. It
wants those who identify with the cool brand to campaign for the company to be a Green Apple. Its focus on iPoison and iWaste urges Steve Job to prioritise environmental concerns.
There are easy steps to m.Act and show support - and creative types are invited to show their support in designing posters and t-shirts.
The site also champions social media with lots of ideas of how to promote the campaign.
Not all Apple fans support the efforts of Greenpeace - with some giving a robust defence. Apple does have its environmental policy on its site although you have to search for it. This has a very corporate tone with little reflection of any emotional engagement with the topic. The company’s public relations response to the Greenpeace campaign is dry and defensive - claiming:
“Apple has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium, hexavelent chromium, as well as many brominated flame retardants. We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line. Apple desktops, notebooks, and displays, each score best in class in the new EPA ranking system EPEAT, which uses new international standards set by IEEE.”
Brands like Apple appeal to a young trendy audience, and regardless of whether or not the company is worse than any of its competitors, I would love to see it embrace the challenge of being iconic and green.
The Guardian reviews the resulting “storm” from the story, released after the Oscar win for Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, that his household energy consumption is 20 times the national US average - that is around $30,000 a year.
What’s interesting for public relations practitioners here is all the rhetoric - and attempts to denounce the positions of those “on the other side”.
I happen to think it is important to walk the talk, and the louder you talk, the more you’d better walk it. Otherwise, you cannot be surprised when people question why they should listen to you.
Why isn’t the Ettinger crafted leather key holder for Bentley owners raising my hackles like the Saab “little white bag” from last week?
I do think public relations people working for car companies should have better things to promote than ways of pampering a car key - but pandering to the wishes of the ridiculous rich doesn’t offend me as much as appealing to fashion-obessed young women.
But why does it seem like patronising when directed to women and not when targeting rich Bentley owners? Do you think it says something more about me, than the car key cases?
I always enjoy the posts from Bournemouth PR Girl as it is refreshing to read the thoughts of someone starting out on their career in public relations.
As well as the emotional angst experienced in the “final countdown” of her last year at University, Louise has a great thought on the value of studying for her degree:
Because the life experience that I have received in and out of university and the PR industry in the last four years is immeasurable. I have changed, for the better, I have learnt more than I could ever put down here and I have had a lot of fun doing it. It would be wrong to assume it has all been amazing, at times far from it, but it has been a brilliant experience and for the most part the best thing I’ve done so far.
I always tell those setting out on their studies for the CIPR Advanced Certificate and Diploma about the “valley of despair” that we all experience from time to time - but also that the other side is the “slope of hope” (yes, I know it is cheesy). Louise sums that up brilliantly.
Tonight the CIPR Wessex group has its annual “Meet the Professionals” event at Bournemouth University where we get to share our thoughts on PR with the undergraduates, who are starting out on the journey that Louise relates.
According to the Guardian, Mayor Livingstone intends to ”slash London’s carbon emissions by 60% within 20 years and place the city at the forefront of the battle against climate change.”
The target is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 4% a year to 18m tonnes by 2025. The focus will be on marketing and “awareness-raising” public relations to encourage reduced energy by the public and businesses. A budget of £47m will be set aside next year for initiatives such as ”green gurus” helping people to make their lifestyles “more environmentally friendly”, alongside other strategies. Those behind the new plan claim:
half the required carbon savings can be made through simple changes in behaviour.
Needless to say, Livingstone can’t resist the stereotype of a “gas-guzzling 4×4 vehicle” as part of this behaviour change, aiming that this “individual choice” should “be no more socially acceptable than to claim the right to dump rubbish in the street“. The plan includes charging drivers of “the most polluting cars” £25 to enter the ever-increasing congestion zone.
But of course, the mayor is unable to address emissions from aviation and the Guardian reports increase in flights will equate to half the emissions (13 m tonnes) that the individual Londoners are being ordered to save.
There is a genuine focus here to draw together a number of ideas to address environmental impact of pollution on London. Many of these involve communications - such as promotion and recognition of those “doing the most” and “green consultants” to encourage cycling and use of public transport and encouragement of combined heat and power schemes.
And London is not alone in its plans - the Energy Savings Trust reports over 100 local authorities have committed to the Nottingham Declaration, pledging to cut emissions in their area.
I don’t want to decry those with genuine intentions, but why does this all seem to be directed at people, telling them how to lead their lives, enforcing behaviour change? I would like to see a lot more “putting their house in order”, with the public sector itself leading rather than just preaching to others about going green.
I also question whether it really is the job of local government to make us go green - rather than providing services that demonstrate, encourage and support positive environmental action. Who made them the “green” team leader?
The focus on enforcing a personal commitment to take action also feels somewhat futile if aspects that are outside the control of an individual or local authority, such as aviation and international development, are not tackled.
Is advertising really evil? Should we just ban it? All of it? In many countries, advertising of products such as tobacco or alcohol is heavily regulated or banned. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Association (ASA), has been operating a self-regulatory code since 1961 to ensure advertising is ‘legal, decent, honest and truthful.’ Over the years, this has added in plenty of restrictions on advertising in relation to violence or pornography, and particularly to protect young children. Indeed, Ofcom has just announced restrictions on advertising of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods to young children in the UK.
Now the Wall Street Journal (subscription) reports that ”a group representing Europe’s leading advertising agencies has drafted guidelines covering issues such as safety and the environment that — if adopted — would establish basic principles for ad agencies to follow when promoting cars.” In attempts to self-regulate rather than face legal restrictions.
The “ban it” attitude assumes considerable power for advertising, implying it operates according to the “hypodermic” or “magic bullet” theory where the mass media persuades people against their will. Indeed, Jos Dings of the environmental lobby European Federation for Transport and Environment accuses the car industry of “seducing consumers toward more powerful cars.” through advertising.
Is advertising really that powerful? The argument against is that advertising can bring things to our attention, interest us, create positive or negative associations - but persuasion is a cognitive process, meaning ultimately we have to make a conscious decision to be influenced. Working in the motor industry, I know it really isn’t easy to influence a car buying decision where there are many complex psychological and social factors involved.
Companies are increasingly questioning the value of advertising - particularly in traditional print and broadcast media. An increasingly-sophisticated public is able to block out or doesn’t pay attention to most advertising - and there’s an old adage (accredited to US retail magnate, John Wanamaker) that “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”
The belief in the power of advertising dates to the 1950s - when Vance Packard’s book, The Hidden Persuaders, revealed techniques used to influence the public by marketers - notably the big US advertising agencies which (like Bernays before them) used psychologists to understand how to motivate American consumers. This lead to a fear of subliminal advertising - which falsly purported people can be subconscioulsy influenced to buy more products.
If advertising is that powerful, how come it doesn’t work to stop people smoking, make them eat 5 fruit/veg a day, stop binge drinking etc. Despite the Central Office of Intelligence producing hundreds of high profile public information campaigns, spending millions on advertising for over 60 years, it has not managed to readily alter public behaviour.
So is advertising an evil force that needs to be constrained? Would it hurt to ban the whole lot - not because of its power, but because most of it is rubbish, ineffective, annoying and not the cause or the answer to change for the increasingly complicated issues facing society.
I can’t get too excited about the headline selected by PR Week to report the ethics debate it held involving Max Clifford amongst others. The motion was apparently “does PR have a duty to tell the truth” which was defeated 53% to 47% (out of 262 votes).
Ethics is a complex topic and neither truth nor honesty are absolutes. I cannot argue with the view from Clifford that lying is sometimes necessary to achieve the greatest good. But surely it depends what you are lying about and who determines what the greatest good might be.
I’ve heard that Clifford feels lying to the media about whether a footballer is gay is okay - but in that case, surely the greatest good is that the media stop viewing “outing” as a big deal and that football stops being prejudiced against homosexuality in the game.
That’s entirely different to expecting military PR to be honest and transparent about the exact location and duties of Prince Harry when he is deployed in Iraq. That doesn’t necessariily involve lying, but is different to having a duty to tell the truth.
If we are going to have the necessary debate about ethics in public relations - and public communications in general - then it deserves better than a straw poll on the front page of PR Week.
Back in November, I posted on carbon offsetting as corporate confession and this is a topic that I’ve written about quite a lot. In fact, following the PR Week article that stimulated my original post, I emailed the publication with my views.
So I was pleasantly surprised last week to get a call from journalist Alex Black who was working on a piece “Is CO2 offsetting a smokescreen?” (subscription required).
The published article presents a range of views, but highlights importantly the dangers of “greenwashing” and a pay-but-carry-on-polluting attitude amongst businessess and the public. Great to see a considered viewpoint communicated to public relations practitioners.
The piece also cautions that green strategies must be integral to an organisation’s operations not just something “led by the PR department”. My view is that environmentalism should be championed by the PR department as a core value, but quite rightly the belief and behaviour needs to be part of the fabric of any organisation if it is serious about being seen to be green.
As the article concludes, at present no companies have been viewed by the public as misleading over green credentials (although Wikipedia has a list of greenwashers). But surely, ecopornography is an issue for public relations to manage now, rather than as a crisis when the mud could stick to anyone who has communicated a green message.
One of the stages in launching a new car that I discussed with the Cardiff University automotive journalism students earlier this week was “tease and reveal”.
Here is a great example of the “art” from Vauxhall via the Autocar website. Readers are teased the contents of the box will be revealed on Monday at 8.00am.
Great adaptation of an old technique for new media - with both Vauxhall and the Autocar website keen to attract back readers for the reveal. Let’s hope they manage to make this interesting as a video too. Top marks!
Recent Comments