DECC in the dock

I see there have been a number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority over the government’s £6m climate change campaign, currently airing on TV.

The complainants are split between climate change deniers and people who say the ad frightens children.

I disagree with both sets of whingers. One point one, the overwhelming evidence indicates that climate change is man-made so I’ve little time for the denier squad.

The ASA has accepted this as policy so although it is investigating the ad due to the volume of complaints, hopefully the watchdog will stand firm on this point.

As for viewers saying it frightens their little angels, well sorry but climate change is pretty scary. If the campaign makes this known to a wider audience then surely that should be applauded not denigrated.

Public musings on Tesco's Bogof plan

It’s always interesting to find out what real people think of green marketing initiatives.

The London Lite dedicated a good chunk of its letters page to Tesco’s plan to run ‘buy one, get one free later’ promotions using vouchers to help cut food waste.

If the letters are a fair reflection of the Lite’s postbag then it seems to have received a resounding thumbs-up. Liz from Hendon says it is ‘more effective than some vague ideal of a virtuous carbon-free life’. Likewise David from Tufnell Park, said the move was a ‘brilliant idea’.

But then Suzie, from N18, (what is it about north-west London? Are they all serial Tesco watchers there?), takes a different view. Suzie reckons its ‘just PR’ and calls for the supermarket giant to half its prices instead before adding ‘obviously they would then receive less money’.

Probably true but surely every little helps, Suzie?

A changing climate for the ASA

So the Department of Energy and Climate Change has launched its first ad campaign. Here's my story on it. Opinion is mixed here at Haymarket, the publisher of Marketing. While it's not going to win any awards, I quite like the AMV-created ad. It's no easy task communicating the total annihilation of the human race but simultaneously offer the chance of possible salvation. 

However over at Marketing's sister website, brandrepublic, readers of its story on the same subject are told that:'Given global warming is not accepted as scientific fact by a large and usually silent part of the scientific community fearful of a backlash, the campaign could provoke anger that the government is broadcasting political messages with taxpayer's money.' This is not attributed to anyone, by the way.

If you can ignore the blantant editorialising and, in my opinion, inaccuracy inherent in the assertion, I think this story shows that the ad has the potential to give the Advertising Standards Authority a major headache with climate change deniers.

However the indications are that ASA gives these types short shrift and has taken the policy position of believing that climate change is happening. While the ASA doesn't always get things right, on this point I'm 100% behind them.
 

Tap water takes the fight to the capital

Evian, Vittel and Volvic beware. In an earlier blog I wrote about how Australian town Bundanoon had banned bottled water. Now London town has emerged as the next place that will challenge the dominance of the £1.5bn industry.

Hammersmith, my beloved workplace, and Tower Bridge are, according to yesterday's Observer, going to be the first sites to trial a new breed of water fountains called  ‘hydrachills’.

For a 20p charge which goes to Waste Watch, a charity working to change the way people use natural resources, users will be able to get up to 500ml of water from these fountains. If successful, the scheme will be extended across the capital and the south east. Thames Water is driving the initiative.

The Obs article has a really interesting stat that I’ve never seen before. Apparently when you add up the plastics and fuel for transport needed to get bottled water on shelves it uses more than 2,000 times the amount of energy required for tap.

With figures like these being bandied around and consumer awareness of carbon footprints growing day by day, the bottled water industry is really going to have to make a very good case for its existence.

One has already started although I’m not sure the tone is right. Posh water brand Hildon has run ads claiming that tap water is only good for showering and washing gym kit. It has also tried questioning its safety by highlighting the newspaper headline: ‘Cancer drugs found in tap water’.

The Natural Hydration Council has so far avoided attacks on tap, preferring instead to focus on the benefits of water over soft drinks. But is it now time for the gloves to come off and a lurch to hard-hitting but admittedly eye-catching communication such as Hildon’s?

Going green and going lean

Green Thing, the not-for-profit environmental movement created by Agency.com’s Andy Hobsbawn, has launched what I think is a really cute campaign.
'Glove Love' is about rescuing single gloves then (after a wash) selling on non-matching pairs for a fiver with a little Green Thing tag sewn on.
London Underground has agreed to donate some of the thousands that are left on the tube every year which at the moment are just thrown away after a certain time. A viral narrated by Emma Thompson is promoting the movement and the money raised will go to the charity the Green Thing trust.
Coincidentally I've just read the chapter of Chris Arnold's thought- provoking book 'Ethical Marketing and the New Consumer' titled 'Churn and the Disposable Society' which looks at the debate around reuse vs buying new stuff.
He, however, airs the view that reducing churn, while undoubtedly good for the environment, lowers manufacturing which is good for the economy, especially in the developing world (given the exploitation of workers that often occurs in these places I'm not sure I concur entirely but let's save that thought for another blog!).
Arnold reckons the tension can be resolved by brands taking responsibility. So a mobile phone company could market a collection service while Primark, the epitome of the fast fashion trend, could sponsor charity clothes dump bins.
Marketers will increasingly come under scrutiny in this area so ideas like these are definitely worth consideration.

Is this the right Method?

This week we reported on the latest marketing campaign by Method, the environmentally-friendly cleaning product company. While I like Method's brand and ethos, its latest activity makes me feel slightly queasy.

It is running an initiative through schools called ‘Toxic Turn-Ins’ which involves parents and children trading in their current household cleaners for Method products.

In the story Gavin Hayes, the general secretary of think-tank Compass, calls for schools to be commercial-free zones and while I don’t wholly agree with him, in my opinion this campaign oversteps the mark.

There really is something about this activity that smacks of a sense of entitlement. Yes Method is a wonderful company and it may be driven by higher ideals but it's still just that - a company, ultimately out to flog its wares.

I wish the good folks at Method all the luck in the world in chipping away at the market share of FMCG behemoths like Unilever and Procter & Gamble but not if they pull stunts like this.

Business with soul

Last week’s Marketing Society Forum question asks whether corporate social responsibility is replacing traditional campaign marketing. The resounding answer from the four respondents was 'No'.

Of particular interest to me were the thoughts of Mike Welsh, the chief executive of Publicis Dialogue. ‘Most of the world's big corporations undertake CSR projects because they have to not because they want to,' he argued. He may well be on the money but what a depressing state of affairs.

If Welsh is right this suggests that senior management - or shareholders - are solely driven by profits and would only approve of CSR for the sake presentational issues. Do you get to a certain level and automatically lose your humanity? I'd like to think that if I were a chief executive of multi-national I would give something back to society but then maybe that's why I wouldn't make a good one.

Business and social responsibility were not always seen as mutually exclusive. Kraft's rejected bid for Cadbury put the story of philanthropist John Cadbury back in the spotlight.

Yes it is true that his brand of paternalism would not work in today's world where people resist being told how to lead their lives. But nonetheless the example he set shows that CSR, although it was not called that back then, can be embedded in a business and not just an add-on.

CO2 rising up the agenda

I'm just putting the finishing touches to a feature on the Carbon Trust's Carbon Reduction Label. For the piece I spoke to commentators with some concerns about consumers' understanding of carbon emissions as a metric. However a few events in the last week or so could change this.

Today a government advisory committee on climate change said the cost of air travel has to rise to deter people from flying. This is to ensure the target of reducing CO2 emissions to 2005 levels is met. If the government accepts this then you can bet the airlines will kick up an almighty stink. Consumers won't like this idea but it will certainly raise awareness on carbon emissions.Likewise a report published by the think-tank IPPR again raise the unpopular issue of personal carbon trading.

Another issue is the 10:10 initiative which aims to get individuals, companies and institutions to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% during 2010. PR overlords Freud Communications are involved so you can bet it is going to be big. Watch out for the funky metal tags appearing on celebrities and high-profile figures soon.

Are those that want a shift away from carbon fighting a losing battle?

Carbon emissions: What's your number?

Marketing is entering the final stages of its carbon footprinting exercise. Readers of the magazine and this blog may remember that last month we revealed that Marketing is having its carbon emissions certified to enable us to carry the Carbon Trust's Carbon Reduction Label.

Yesterday I attended a meeting on this with our environmental consultants, senior figures from Haymarket, Marketing's publisher, and representatives from the Carbon Trust. As it got quite technical at times I was mostly in listening mode. One issue that I did contribute on was whether we should incorporate our carbon footprint number as part of the logo which will go on the cover.

As I reported last month the Carbon Trust has made this optional. Given that no other weekly magazine has been certified, to a certain extent I take the view that the number is meaningless because there is no direct comparison that can be made on whether we are good, bad or average.  

But then again does this make us look like we have something to hide - which we don't? Our sister title, the environmental monthly journal The ENDS Report, which is also going through the same process plans to display its number - even though, ironically, it is on course to be higher than ours - because they believe their readers would like this detail.

Brands so far have split on this issue with Tesco asserting that it will persevere with displaying the number but others like Morphy Richards and Kingsmill going ahead without it. If the Carbon Reduction Label does gain critical mass this will surely be when these debates become relevant. At present I feel that communicating a commitment to reduce carbon emissions, which users of the mark must do, is a potent symbol in itself.

Health enforcer heads for the climate department

Just clocked that Will Cavendish, the director of health and wellbeing at the Department of Health and the architect behind the Change4Life programme, is on his way to the Department for Energy & Climate Change.

He is taking on the brief of director-general. Not entirely sure what this entails but marketers should think about getting on his good side. During his tenure at DH he oversaw the push to tone down tobacco displays, traffic-light labelling (which the food industry mostly hates) and seems to have strong-armed the booze industry into launching its joint responsible drinking marketing push, The Campaign for Smarter Drinking.

One of my contacts describes him as a ‘strong supporter of effective self-regulation who appreciates the importance of social marketing’. It will be interesting to see how this manifests itself in his new role.

Newly reduced, sometimes reused and hardly ever recycled

While my thoughts are first and foremost with the people that stand to lose their jobs now thelondonpaper is closing, I can't help but think of all the trees that stand to be saved as a result of this.

We've all seen the state of the tube during and after the morning rush hour; it's impossible to move for discarded Metros, then it’s the same again in the evening with thelondonpaper and London Lite. Now after a certain time these days the Standard becomes free so that's getting strewn all over the place as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the attempts to recycle these papers strikes me as woeful. Yes there are a few filler ads in the papers about recycling but London Underground staff clearly treat them as general rubbish and there are hardly any dedicated newspaper recycling bins around the capital.

I'm not sure who is to blame but it seems as if there was little thought about the environment at the outset of the freebie newspaper war.

P&G and Hotpoint take a spin

I’ve just received a piece of direct marketing promoting a tie-up between Hotpoint and Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) Ariel Excel Gel.

It’s a 21st century environmentally-friendly twist on the age-old marketing tactic of teaming a detergent brand up with a washing machine.

According to the mailer, Hotpoint and Ariel have worked in partnership to develop a new collection of washing machines with energy-saving ‘Eco Cycles’. Using the gel with the machines means you save up to 50% of the energy normally used, it claims.

If I take this up, and there is a chance I will as my washing machine is on its last legs, I’ll get three months’ supply of the gel.

Ariel Excel Gel’s USP is that it can clean clothes at a rather chilly 15 degrees. When it launched last year commentators were quick to point out that hardly any washing machines have a 15 degree setting so with this tie-up, P&G seems to have found the ideal match for its product.

I like truckin'

Driving up the M1 yesterday offered me some unexpected examples of green marketing. 

Fancy-pants haulage trucks, it seems, are where it's all at. The first one I saw on my way 'oop north was from Marks & Spencer. Its strange curvy roof was what initially caught my attention. Then as we drew closer I saw it was Plan A branded, emblazoned with the slogan 'Streamlined to save fuel'.

I've have never seen one of these before and was left thinking it was another example of M&S leading the way again. But within minutes a similar truck came into view but this time it was from TK Maxx with messaging about how great these vehicles are too.I resigned myself to a journey of funny-shaped trucks but a conventional one from Tesco was what I saw next.

Come on Tesco, pull your finger out! If TK Maxx can make the switch then surely it's not beyond the UK's biggest retailer.

An afterthought - I wonder if the streamlined trucks' drivers are specially schooled to be environmentally-conscious just in case someone wants to know how these vehicle work?

Spoiling for a fight?

More news emerges about the government's thoughts on food waste, which I have blogged about before, in a number of policy documents released on Monday. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wants to combat huge levels of consumer confusion by scrapping or reducing in size the 'sell by' and 'display until' dates on food labels. The signs are that retailers will resist this as it helps them manage their stock so there could be some troubled times ahead.

Potentially more of an issue and another way for retailers to fall out with government however is the criticism of bogofs. In the past the practice has been blamed for the obesity epidemic but now, according to these papers, they are also helping to kill the planet. The argument goes that bogofs encourage shoppers to buy food that they end up throwing away because they don't get around to eating it before it goes off.

A Stella(r) idea

We broke an exclusive story this week on a new positioning for InBev's Stella Artois lager brand. The main angle we went with was the fact that it had ditched its period-style ads and had instead taken inspiration from the swinging 60s.

But what really struck me is the way that its marketers have decided to shout its green credentials from the roof tops. Pretty much all the big brewers are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprints, as the mag's booze correspondent not a week goes by without some press release dropping into my inbox relaying how well they are doing on water use or energy consumption. However these achievements are hardly ever communicated through consumer-facing activity which is why I'm fascinated by this move by Stella.

If you haven't clicked through to the story there are two separate green pushes on the brand. One is an on-pack promotion aimed at saving hedgerows. The thinking green woman's pin-up Ben Fogle has been enlisted to PR it. The other is the aforementioned campaign which communicates that Stella bottles are made from 75% recycled glass.

I think this is a clever move for the brand. As I mentioned on a previous blog, green is viewed as premium and Stella is eager to be seen this way and lay to rest its distasteful 'wife-beater' nickname.

Now just to be clear, I'm not accusing InBev of indulging in greenwash. Helping hedges and using recycled glass sounds like a good thing to be doing. I'm highlighting this because in a sector dominated by laddish ads this postioning could provide valuable cut-through for the brand.