A recent trend in marketing has arisen that lays the blame for the degradation of our planet on the consumer! In the last ten years many companies have focused their marketing messages on the ways their company is making changes for the betterment of the environment. These adverts, of course, were tacit recognitions that many companies weren’t conducting business in a very green friendly way. Well, “no more,” say the corporate marketers. The tables are turned, and now the companies are laying the blame on their consumers – albeit, in light fashion. As Adam Werbach, CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi put it:
Green marketing “used to be more about the journey [companies] were taking, now it’s more about taking the journey along with the consumer. I think it’s generally a very good trend.
Read more about this latest trend in corporate marketing by clicking on the article link below.
Marketers Blame the Consumer in New Save-the-Planet Pitches
As a side note, there was one conspicuous feature of this Ad Age article, and that was the choice placement of the “People Start Pollution, People Can Stop It” ad. This ad was a public service announcement released in 1971 by the Ad Council and featured an Indian man named Chief Iron Eyes Cody. This was at the beginning of the American Indian Movement and was released in the same year as the adoption of Earth Day by the United Nations. Here’s the full PSA for those of us who aren’t old enough to remember it.
4 Responses
-
Stephen Says:
You know, I’d just like to add that as a person who knows and has known quite a few Indian folks, this ad is actually quite racist in the historic sense. During the settlement period as Euro-Americans spread across the North American continent, there was a lot of outrageous ideology used to validate the taking of land from Indian peoples. One of these ideologies was that of the “nature loving savage.” In this ideology, white people viewed Indian peoples as not only socially beneath them, but genetically beneath them as well. White folks figured that Indian peoples, by not cultivating the land, were just wasting it. The reality is that most Indian peoples undertook lifestyles that emphasized a harmonious synergy between them and the environment around them, but this doesn’t and shouldn’t suggest to anyone that they didn’t negatively impact the environment around them at times. Many of them were also fantastic gardeners, and were far better cultivators of the soil than most of the settlers moving west.
Here’s my question: is making a synonymous connection between Indian people and nature within advertisements today politically correct? Should we as marketers care? How do we balance marketing advertisements, considering peoples sensitivities and insensitivities?
I just opened up deep and thick can of worms, didn’t I?
-
Lynn Says:
Terrific post(s) Stephen and always, ALWAYS, a great conversation starter. I do remember this ad from many years ago and I have to say that I think it did get me to think about littering but I didn’t actually think about the cultural aspect of using a Native American in the piece. I can also add discussion questions…What are your thoughts on sports teams using stereotyped imagery? Also, are their products that also use these images? Would it harm the brand more to change the image or would it draw negative attention? Can certain products get away with more? For example, Beer ads seem to get away with more than other products like pharmaceuticals or children’s products. Thanks for opening the can of worms – now just remember to recycle that can!
-
Stephen Says:
I always recycle cans!
I think it was the University at Fargo ND that just had to drop the name “Fighting Sioux.” Personally I think Indian names should be dumped unless openly endorsed by local tribes from surrounding areas. Sometimes there are certain matters that cause real bummers though. A short while ago I saw a news report about a high school from somewhere down south that was forced to drop their Indian related name. Because the school had the name on everything from their gymnasium floors to murals outside the school, the name change represented a significant cost of somewhere around $15K. The school district wasn’t very wealthy, and the question was where would the money to make these changes come from? Mind you, this was just to remove what was already there, not including the addition of new logos and a new school spirit name.
-
Stereotyping in Advertising « Century College Marketing Program Blog Says:
[...] approaches where marketers were dealing a guilt trip to consumers. You can check out that article HERE. In short, marketers were blaming consumers for not being “green” enough, but at [...]
