An ad campaign on climate needs spokespeople who believe what they’re saying 18

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 4:56 am
   04 Jun 2008

   In April, WorldChanging had an article......criticizing the ad campaign, and I found myself in the weird position of having Andrew Sullivan mention my blog post about the campaign on his blog -- apparently, as part of his conservative-but-not-really thing, he support Obama but bashes Gore.
   But besides worrying about giving ammuniton to anti-Gore-ites, I still think it's necessary to criticize this campaign -- Grist also lately had a post about Gingrich pushing for more oil drilling, he being part of another recent "celebrity" pairing, with Nancy Pelosi.
   I hope the "we" campaign gets to specifics, even just something basic about wind and solar, to educate the public, instead of just appealing to the over-celebrity-zation (sorry, won't do it again) of the society.

   Permalink

2. 

   AmToo Posted 7:48 am
   04 Jun 2008

   As to the duo cited in the article...I think this can fall under the "anything is better than nothing" adage.  Sure, Robertson & Sharpton may not be die-hard greenies, but (a) that shouldn't be held against them necessarily, and (b) their selection has the effect of showing just how important the campaign deems the issue.  I mean, aside from a Church pew, where else would we see these two public figures together?

   Permalink

3. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:55 am
   05 Jun 2008

   Robertson makes my skin crawlHe is the biggest liar on the face of this planet.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   christophersj Posted 5:27 am
   05 Jun 2008

   Missing the point
   
   I think you guys might be missing the point of the strategy here.  Its not about Robertson, its about his followers.
   Convince more people faster.  Period.  Save perfection for another life.  Leave purity for Mother Earth magazine articles that you and I can read in our spare time.
   -Christopher S. Johnson
   http://web.mac.com/cjohnsonla

   Permalink

5. 

   christophersj Posted 6:20 am
   05 Jun 2008

   Additionally
   
   Additionally,  the lack of environmental concern from the African American community in general, with some shining exceptions, is staggering.  So it goes much deeper than Sharpton.
   It might be explained by Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, but I still see the situation with a sense of missed opportunity and tragedy.  
   Having Sharpton in the video, inspite of himself, is a godsend.
   -Christopher S. Johnson

   Permalink

6. 

   David Roberts Posted 6:34 am
   05 Jun 2008

   Chris,What makes you think this video will convince Sharpton's or Robertson's supporters that climate change is worthy of their urgent attention?
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

7. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 7:34 am
   05 Jun 2008

   Fad-istsWhat makes you think this video will convince Sharpton's or Robertson's supporters that climate change is worthy of their urgent attention?
   Because they're in it.
   These people are fad-ists.  It's like when a pop-star endorses a new can of soda.  If the pop-star endorses it, that's all they'll drink, despite the taste or high cost, they'll still drink it.
   It's the same thing with kid's meals.  If the Power Heroes on television say eat at the Orange Arches burger joint, then the kids go eat at the Orange Arches burger joint.
   Yes, we would like 'em to be more informed and intelligent in their decision makin', but let's face it, they're not.
   If they were, then they'd already know that this is a serious concern.
   
   

   Permalink

8. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 8:00 am
   05 Jun 2008

   Tasermons, I don't buy it(no pun intended)  The point of this campaign, if I understand it correctly, is to bring the mass public to the point were they think that it's a serious issue.  If it just stays superficial, then they haven't reached their objective.  From listening to the head of wecansolveit, it sounded like pairing Sharpton-Robertson, etc., was supposed to create a buzz, like, "Wow, if those two can get together on this, it must be serious!".  I mean, it should have been up to both Sharpton and Robertson to independently convince their minions that global warming is a serious problem -- then, the commercials work to bring in even more people.
   Personally, looking at adds by Conoco-Phillips, for instance, I think educational commercials would be better.

   Permalink

9. 

   christophersj Posted 12:29 pm
   05 Jun 2008

   No, there is a placeNo, there is a place for superficial buzz.  Its important just because they are sitting there together.
   This campaign is not "An Inconvenient Truth".  Let other campaigns fill in the info.  This is a simple message.  Don't cuck it up.
   The message is:  "This is not a tree-hugger issue.  This is not a Liberal issue.  This is about ALL of us.  Like in WWII.  See?  Even your icon says so."
   Period.  End of story.  Other sources can pick up the ball from there.  But FIRST it has to transcend the sheen of Ivory Tower Liberals like you and me.
   :-)
   -Christopher S. Johnson

   Permalink

10. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:22 pm
    05 Jun 2008

    Weeeelllll Chris, if you say so......but I assume that the whole 300 million dollars won't be devoted to that message alone...because there really needs to be quite a bit of followup, like, what does the society do -- again, look at oil company commercials, I hate to say -- or else people just throw up their hands in frustration.  First, you identify a problem (body odor), then you identify a solution (Chemco's deodorant, to use a ridiculous example), in which, at the end,  everybody in the commercial is smiling and acting like heaven just descended on Earth.

    Permalink

11. 

    christophersj Posted 7:11 am
    07 Jun 2008

    What WE isHi Jon I just happened across your reply.  Is there any way to have an email notice in my account when a reply comes in?
    My question to you is:  why put all of the responsibility on this one camping.  Why not have 100 campaigns.  Each with a different role.  WE, for now, is just trying to get across the concept of "We".  That WE are all in this together.   Clearly this has not sunk in enough amongst much of the population.  The moment a message tries to do everything it is going to turn off many with its complexity.
    Why does WE need to be a swiss army knife?  Is this really the only game in town?
    Let campaign number 2 or 3 or 4 give out clever ideas for helping (like "Big Ideas for a Small Planet TV show).  And maybe the funding will come from that same 300 million.  But for now WE needs to show more conservative icons just saying, "This is about all of us and not just a Liberal granola crunching issue".  Period.  That one single idea has to succeed.
    Different jobs at different times with different tools, or I think it overwhelms a skeptical public.
    -Christopher S. Johnson

    Permalink

12. 

    christophersj Posted 7:14 am
    07 Jun 2008

    camping campaign, yeah...
    
    Camping, campaign, yeah, I don't have to spell correctly when I'm having a margarita.
    :-)
    -Christopher

    Permalink

13. 

    Ken Ward Posted 1:53 am
    09 Jun 2008

    RE: string aboveJust to clarify, I don't believe in "one big campaign," nor do I think there is anything wrong with mass communication aimed at where folks are at.
    I was making these points. Any mass media should take into account the affect it has on our own troops. This is a lesson every large corporation has to learn periodically, but I'm sure never crossed the minds of the designers of this campaign. This ad in particular makes activists queasy, for all the reasons I note, and that ought to be enough to axe it. Second, I don't buy the argument (and think it's a bit patronizing) that followers - whether they be right wing fundamentalists or low income African Americans - will buy into something their putative leader endorses when it is obvious that he or she could care less, and is merely pandering. If you don't think it is obvious to the followers, then take a look at their web sites, as I suggested. Climate is zippo on the agenda. Third, as to the argument that the strange bedfellows will somehow influence the vast middle, who are we kidding? The vast middle things these two guys are dangerous lunatics, not leaders.
    Ken
    
    Ken Ward
    
    ken[at]brightlines.org

    Permalink

14. 

    christophersj Posted 5:45 am
    10 Jun 2008

    My cynical approachAt this stage in things I am completely comfortable with pandering, trickery (sexy energy efficient products), and even emphasis on self interest and greed for profits, if it moves along the Great Energy Transition.  
    It sounds cynical but I dont think anymore about getting everyone on board the understanding of Gia and our interdependence with nature.  I dont think thats going to happen in time.  I see the general American public as too dense and set in its ways.  Do you travel the country and have friends and family spread out?  Or do you only take the temperature of your educated peers?  Speed is a factor here, is it not?
    And the activist are FINE.  I couldn't care less about the emotional needs of the activists and what they think of the WE campaign.  They already get the whole ball of wax just fine.  We are just fine.
    Bring on the the superficial pop movement!  It just needs to be around long enough to get the right caps and taxes through US Congress and the right market demand for cheap solar panels and such.  When 1kw of alternative energy costs less than 1 kw of coal, the dense masses will move the right way.
    When its both cheaper and sexier to have a carbon neutral footprint, then the country will move that way.
    Its a cynical approach but I dont see any evidence that middle America will get real authentic religion on this in time.  I am confident about this.
    -Christopher

    Permalink

15. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 6:07 am
    10 Jun 2008

    Well, I didn't get an email either, Chris.....and no, as far as I can tell, there is no email mechanism -- maybe something when Grist upgrades in the not too distant future? (and also let people edit their comments).
    Anyway, the whole "art" of advertising is by its nature rather difficult to measure -- who's been affected, how, how much, etc.  That's why advertisers love click-through advertising, at least they know what works.
    I don't know what the Gore team has found out yet about the effectiveness of these ads -- of course, that kind of market research would take yet more money.  So it's sort of a shot in the dark.  And as I've said, it may be that the ad concepts came first, then the donors gave, in which case, pretty much nothing lost, at least.
    But I really don't think Al Gore should put his Nobel Peace Prize and Inconvenient Truth money into this, as I believe he has said he would.  That kind of money could go for all kinds of different organizing and research, it doesn't have to go for these ads.  The real question, in other words, is the opportunity costs.
    This is pretty much terra incognita for marketing, as far as I know.  And you're not going to get 300 million for this kind of thing very often, because 300 million fed into the big environmental groups would be a huge boost, much less for grassroots organizing.  It's big money, and we should all be presumptious enough to tell Gore were to spend his money (politely, of course).

    Permalink

16. 

    noblefuse Posted 8:15 pm
    13 Jun 2008

    energy crisis- what a jokeToday on june 9th 2008-I was deleted by wecansolveit.org-
    the organization looking for alternative energy for america has deleted me- the man who solved the energy crisis-
    why- because i say I am a messenger of god
    you want your cake and eat it too- you want life exactly the way you want it and not told by another
    you dont pick your messengers- they are chosen-
    i had enough- i have now endured 13 months on this net being deleted by every arrogant organization run by humans and just regular folk like you who have always ignored my messages since my time upon the net-
    well i am done with your stupidity-
    let your oil prices go up- let your food prices go up- watch your economies crumble- see your jobs lost- get rid of all your pet animals as you cannot feed your family and pet dog as so many are giving them to the pound-
    I have come openly with a solution 13 months ago only to be ignored-
    now a gluttonous world playing on the internet shall all learn how primitive man is and must be civil to one another- instead of shunning someone bringing forth a solution- in the months to follow- you will learn there is no alternative fuel- panic mode will set in very soon-
    when you understand clearly how important energy is- i guess your arragance will stop and just implement my scientific deeds - as for my messenger duties- it will make sense in time- all is well- but it will only get better after your destruction- i am sorry i have to say this- but it is I who has now watched you completely ignore and ridicule a man of god- as always you will learn the hard way-
    time will tell
    solomon azar
    
    solomon azar

    Permalink

17. 

    noblefuse Posted 8:16 pm
    13 Jun 2008

    13 months i say i solved the energy crisis-Today on june 9th 2008-I was deleted by wecansolveit.org-
    the organization looking for alternative energy for america has deleted me- the man who solved the energy crisis-
    why- because i say I am a messenger of god
    you want your cake and eat it too- you want life exactly the way you want it and not told by another
    you dont pick your messengers- they are chosen-
    i had enough- i have now endured 13 months on this net being deleted by every arrogant organization run by humans and just regular folk like you who have always ignored my messages since my time upon the net-
    well i am done with your stupidity-
    let your oil prices go up- let your food prices go up- watch your economies crumble- see your jobs lost- get rid of all your pet animals as you cannot feed your family and pet dog as so many are giving them to the pound-
    I have come openly with a solution 13 months ago only to be ignored-
    now a gluttonous world playing on the internet shall all learn how primitive man is and must be civil to one another- instead of shunning someone bringing forth a solution- in the months to follow- you will learn there is no alternative fuel- panic mode will set in very soon-
    when you understand clearly how important energy is- i guess your arragance will stop and just implement my scientific deeds - as for my messenger duties- it will make sense in time- all is well- but it will only get better after your destruction- i am sorry i have to say this- but it is I who has now watched you completely ignore and ridicule a man of god- as always you will learn the hard way-
    time will tell
    solomon azar
    
    noblefuse.org
    
    solomon azar

    Permalink

18. 

    snedunuri Posted 9:39 am
    14 Jun 2008

    Re: [new] My cynical approachWell said. I myself came to this conclusion quite a while ago. Its not that we don't need to produce a change in American thinking - we eventually do - but there simply isn't time for that right now. All we have is 10 years to turn the ship around and there's just appalling apathy and ignorance out there - even among my "liberal" leaning generally knowledgeable friends. Somehow this opposition from the Right and apathy from the Left seems deeply ingrained in American thinking. Does the idea the earth is an endless resource perhaps date back to the American "pioneer" days? I dont know. In any case, getting at that root is going to take a long time, its not something that will be acomplished in a short span like a decade. So in the meantime I'm quite happy to take a leaf from the dirty tricks book of the Right and say lets get people chanting the same thing even if the deeper meaning eludes them for now.

    Permalink