Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts

Monday, June 9, 2014

Paddy Power are being assholes for a cause now




The Tweet above showed up on Saturday, and people went nuts on the online gambling brand.










But then yesterday, they revealed the whole thing as a "corporate social responsibility" campaign:




Of course it was faked. How could anyone doubt that? But it's interesting to note that Paddy Power, who are not exactly know for social sensitivity in advertising, used predictable outrage as a way to get rainforest issues in front of soccer fans.

No, deforestation is not a laughing matter. But they played Twitter like a piano. And like it or hate it, that's one for the record books.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Toys 'R' Us: Screw nature, buy more toys!


My kid loves nature. It didn't happen entirely by accident. While he comes by it honestly, surrounded by interesting Canadian landscape, flora and fauna, I've also done a lot of work to encourage this interest. By getting a kid to understand nature, you build an understanding of the more practical issues behind environmentalism.

That's why I think this Toys 'R' Us ad (from last summer) is really unfortunate:



If I had seen this on The Simpsons, I would have appreciated it as ironic commentary on how we teach our kids to want an endless supply of stuff. That's what made that show great — that it showed us our bad side with humour and understanding. But it acknowledged that it was, indeed, bad.

This, on the other hand, is not satire. It is an ad for a toy store. That tells kids (and parents) that buying a bunch of foreign-produced plastic shit destined for our landfills is better than learning about trees that just stand around making oxygen.

I'll take my Christmas spending somewhere else.


h/t Huffington Post

Monday, April 29, 2013

This 40-year-old PSA will start your week off with a "WTF"?



If this woman looks familiar, don't be surprised. It's Joanna Cassidy, aka Zhora the Replicant from Blade Runner, aka Dolores from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, aka Margaret from Six Feet Under.

Back in 1973, she was known from a couple of cop films, but not well enough to be named in this Ad Council PSA about forest fires. Instead, her sultry delivery seems to be a generic play on the "sex sells" cliché with a bizarre surprise ending:



Interesting that sex in advertising was already a target for parody forty years ago. And yet many advertisers continue to use women's sexuality to deliver unrelated messages to us with no irony at all.

Via Smokey Bear's YouTube channel.


Thursday, April 25, 2013

e-book campaign takes a shot at the Bible

Via Ads of The World

Copy reads:

"The Holy Bible has been printed more than 6 thousand million 96 billion) times.
Download the e-Book."

The campaign, by DDB, Bogota, goes after The Little Prince and Don Quixote as well, but neither is as as potentially (and amusingly) poignant as this one. It was possibly the first book printed in the west (using movable type) and is celebrated for being the best-selling nonfiction book of all time.

Interestingly (from a mythological point of view) if Adam and Eve really had denuded the forests that quickly, they would have been spared both the forbidden fruit and the fig leaves.

Hmmm...


Thursday, October 11, 2012

"Bush is back in fashion" - Crude pun, beautiful illustration


Marc posted this interesting Romanian campaign on Osocio today. It's for Mai Mult Verde ("More Green"), and environmental group holding a fashion show to raise funds for tree planting.

\

I'll have to assume that comparing female pubic hair to shrubbery works in Romanian, too. It's a rather crude and childish pun, but I still find the illustration by Annabella Orosz enchanting.


The work is by G2. 

Monday, May 28, 2012

Union Carbide's 1950s promise of "...a hand in things to come"

How d'ya like them apples?

Retronaut recently featured this amazing gallery of Big Brother-ish ads from Union Carbide. Besides the classic 1950s illustration and long copy, they are fascinating for the postwar arrogance of the whole thing.

This was an era when science was on the march, and anything was possible if we had the right men on the job. From pesticides to energy, petrochemicals to bionic parts, this company promised to shape the world of tomorrow.

The real question is, how many of these were positive developments, and how many contributed to the sad state of the world today?

Chemicals from coal. Check out the green mist.
Yikes!
This environmental destruction is supposed to be inspiring, not terrifying.
My elbow was recently rebuilt with stuff like this.
sand... I mean SAND!
Fabricated building materials. Dig the sexy lede.
The original Green Revolution.
Weatherproof materials and treatments.
Oscar-winning arc lighting.
Plastic landscape fabric.
God complex much?
Maybe se should go back to the word "atomic".
People are much less likely to mispronounce that.
Powering the modern housewife...

...and the jet set.
Of course, the optimism couldn't last forever. In December 1984, Union Carbide ended up having a "hand" in killing 3,787 people in Bhopal, India, when one of their pesticide plants leaked deadly toxins into the air of the nearby slums.

Among their other handiwork are the dioxins in Sydney Harbour, Australia, that have made all fish there unsuitable for human consumption, death by silicosis of 476 West Virginia miners in the 1920s, and buildings with lots and lots of asbestos.

 I wonder if these two later turned on, tuned in, and dropped out?

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Dutch model goes green for WWF. Literally.

"Nature. That's you."

Marc shared this lovely video, for WNF (Dutch World Wildlife Fund) on Osocio.



The model is the Netherlands' own Doutzen Kroes, a supermodel/actress who is one of the Victoria's Secret Angels. Marc added that the campaign, which is actually quite tasteful (even if it reminded me a little too much of "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" from Creepshow) generated tons of advance buzz because it was reported that Ms. Kroes did it in the nude.

With all the obsession these days about clear-cutting the bodily undergrowth, I suppose some of them might have been disappointed.

"Oh no! Not THERE!"
The ad is part of Dutch WWF's 50th anniversary campaign.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

The corpse of Michael Jackson wants you to save water


I get the insight. But the execution just makes me think of his shrivelled corpse.

The fact that he played a zombie in that suit doesn't help.
The other two in the series — Madonna (alive, sort of) and Elvis (dead longer than many of my colleagues have lived) — are less creepy, but also awkward.



Via Ads of The World

Monday, June 27, 2011

Coke's new green billboard is covered with fukien tea plants




No, that is not a typo. Coca-Cola Philippines has teamed up with WWF to build an innovative outdoor ad:
"The 60 x 60 ft. plant billboard, located along Northbound EDSA-Forbes, utilizes a thriving species of Fukien tea plant, which absorbs air pollutants. According to botanist Anthony Gao, each plant can absorb up to 13 pounds of carbon dioxide in a year, on the average. 'This billboard helps alleviate air pollution within its proximate areas as it can absorb a total of 46,800 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, on estimate.' Gao says.

Recyclable materials were used for the overall make-up of the billboard. 3,600 pots were used, recycling old bottles of various Coca-Cola products. These bottles were filled with a potting mixture made up of a combination of industrial by-products and organic fertilizers—a formulation that is stable and light-weight . These bottles were also designed to hold the plants securely and to allow the plants to grow sideways. Additional holes were made for proper drainage and for holding the drip lines in place.

A drip irrigation system, also known as trickle irrigation or micro-irrigation, was especially installed for efficient water distribution. This irrigation method saves water and fertilizer by allowing water to drip slowly to the roots of plants, through a network of valves, pipes, tubing and emitters. The system is operated on a schedule to distribute water with nutrients to the plants. It provides the plants with what they need when they need it.

With all the eco-friendly mechanism it employs and the relevant advocacy it stands for, this innovative advertisement is a salient reminder for Filipinos to take an active hand in protecting and saving the environment."

Perhaps Coke could do more for the atmosphere by not trucking megalitres of packaged liquid all over the place, but that's just me. It's still a cute PR stunt.

Thanks to AdFreak for the link.

The Paper Terminator

To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the release of terminator 2 (which they obviously really, really like) Swedish artists Daniel Larsson and Tomas Redigh — under their name of Rymdreglage — created this beautiful stop-motion marker homage:



Awesome, eh? But it seems to have offended quite a few YouTube viewers with its "waste" of so much paper.

"Climate criminal," said one. "Please, be eco friendly!" said another. "He must have killed a thousand trees!" said yet another.

Listen, folks. I am a certified tree hugger. But to criticize the use of so much paper in this piece is to totally miss the point.

The painstaking creation and casual destruction of each frame of this animation is part of the artist's statement. It's especially apt for a commemoration of fairly trashy pop culture from 20 years ago. That is not a waste of paper. It is a much, much better use of a renewable resource than all these stupid e-mails and briefs that people keep pointlessly printing out for me at meetings.

You might as well complain about the carbon footprint of burning so many candles, or the energy used to film it all. Art is worth it. And this is cool art.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Two good comix about the environment

These ones I saw this morning in my browsing reminded me that I really need to convince one of my cause marketing clients to do web comix. If honest and fearless, they can express complex ideas in a much more stand-out and memorable way.

This first one, posted on 9GAG and Buzzfeed, makes a very important point about all our romantic notions about the love of "Mother Earth" — a planet that has withstood at least five major extinction events prior to our evolution:


Seriously. Let's stop all our hippie mooning about what we're doing to nature, and start looking at environmental stewardship as a question of self-interest.

The second is a political editorial comic seen on The Uniblog that explains why we haven't figure this out yet — because our priorities are fatally screwed:


Yeah... we're boned.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

"Marlboro Earth" cigarettes will save the planet

You've got to love The Onion. Even after years of coming up with new satire on a weekly basis, they still manage to rock out something like this:

Click to enlarge.

People are the greatest environmental threat to the planet, so any product that shortens their lifespans has a direct positive impact on ecology. It's greenwashing logic at work, and not that far off from reality:

Although industry research indicates people do offer some secondary benefits to the planet, such as recycling programs and wind power generators, studies have concluded these efforts fail to offset the disastrous potential of humanity.

According to Philip Morris, Marlboro Earths are the first green product to address that threat head-on.

"Wildlife habitat encroachment, climate change, the exploitation of precious natural resources—they can all become a thing of the past," said James Freedman, a member of the marketing team tasked with branding the new product. "Smoke these cool, clean Marlboro Earths every chance you get, and you'll reduce your carbon footprint to zero in no time."

Added Freedman, "Plus, you'll look really sophisticated and glamorous while doing it."

Read the full article here.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The amazing coal-powered car?

Adland shared a video of this clever billboard, posted outside the New York Auto Show, that contrasts the tailpipe emissions of the show's 1000+ cars with the "zero-emission" Nissan Leaf.



Good ad, but bad environmental science. Although New York City is actually one of the lowest per-capita emissions producers in the USA, due to low reliance on coal and heavy public transit use, the majority of the United States get its electricity from coal.

Electric cars are great, when they can be sustainably powered. But considering the US produced 1,787,910 tonnes of carbon last year in coal power generation alone (not to mention sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrogen oxides) the trade-off is really neighbourhood tailpipes versus distant smokestacks.

What you don't see can also kill you.

What do you think?

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Can we re-imagine meat as a luxury good?




For someone who loves cheeseburgers so much, I actually have a lot of respect for vegetarians and vegans. Not so much on ethical grounds as on environmental ones. Many of them are living more lightly on the land than I do.

But I continue to consume meat. For me, it is a natural and healthy food if sourced responsibly and consumed in moderation. Julia, my wife, has gone 2/3 vegan with her "Vegan Until 6" lifestyle. But she's still an omnivore at supper.

What we try to do is to choose locally-, small-scale-, and naturally-farmed meat whenever possible. This is more effort, requiring visiting open-air markets and farm gates, and it is certainly more expensive. But I've come to decide that that's a good thing. It makes us value it more.

It also makes us think about the animals we eat. Julia's grampie used to raise cattle in New Brunswick. (Her uncle there still does.) Family farmers who have small herds really get to know their livestock. They love them. But when the time comes to slaughter, they do it, because farmers' pragmatism overrules their sentimentality. (Despite the fact that they tend to have a lot of both!)



We're raising our son as an omnivore, and he's a child who is not afraid to feed clover to a cow one year, and have it as a hamburger the next. We are fortunate enough, here in Ottawa, to be able to visit the Canada Agricultural Museum whenever we want. He gets to see, touch (and smell!) the creatures that make up his hamburgers, hotdogs, and chicken sandwiches. I like to think it teaches him to respect them.

And "respect" of the animals we eat, in the Noble Savage myth we all imagine where the hunter-gatherer's life is a shared journey with his prey, is what I'd like to see more of. But how?

Well, here's a crazy idea: What if we purposely made meat more expensive? 

Imagine if our agricultural standards and regulations cracked down on the many industrialized practices that keep meat cheap: confined animals, medicated feed, growth hormones, feedlots and factory slaughterhouses. Imagine if livestock had to be raised the old fashioned way: pastured, slaughtered and butchered by many small businesses.

Gone are the mass meat recalls (since small-scale meat packing limits spread of contaminants). Gone are the disgusting massive pig, chicken and beef operations. Back are the entrepreneurial family farms.

Could it work? If hamburger were $10 a pound, would you eat less of it? Would you really value the taste of a well-prepared burger?

And in case you're rushing to the comments thread to tell me what an elitist prick I am, I know what the gaping holes in this idea are.

First off, rising food prices are causing unrest worldwide. Why would we want to make it worse? Economically vulnerable people already struggle to feed themselves. And as easy it is to suggest that they learn to cook and eat beans and rice — like the rest of the world — and minimize meat. But there would have to be a major social change for people to adapt to that. Cooking is not a skill that is in the toolkit of many of Canada's urban poor, and people are used to feeding themselves on McDonald's for cheap.

Secondly, my Libertarian friends are experiencing fits of outrage at the idea that the government should force the change. I understand that. But don't worry — the industrial food lobbyists would never let it happen anyway.

No, the only way to really do this is with consumer power. Making individual choices about how our food gets from gate-to-plate that allow us to enjoy that bacon sandwich with full responsibility and little guilt.



And it is elitist. The stuff is expensive. I really do pay $10/pound for my hamburger to get naturally-raised, dry-aged, local beef from Aubrey's Butcher Shop. 

Here is their pitch:

From “Field-to-fork”..... this traditional butcher shop prides itself on its extensive knowledge of the meats and the farms they come from. It begins with a time honoured history of providing the highest quality products from dependable local sources … that means Farmers, not factories. Some of the relationships with farmers and suppliers extend back over 40 years. Meats are prepared and cut by true butchers trained on site. This ensures that all products meet Aubrey’s high standards and more importantly, exceed the customer’s expectations. In short, at Aubrey's, you will get exactly what you want cut skillfully to suit.
It tastes much, much better. And while I end up making burgers less often, I really put care into preparing them because that meat is valuable stuff.

In short, it's a luxury. Just as meat was a luxury food for our ancestors, from the early modern period right back to the hunting and gathering days. Meat was not to be taken for granted.

So my question to all my omnivorous friends is, are you willing to pay more for less meat? And to all of you: do you think it will make a difference?

Or am I just a smug food snob idealist?

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Heart of Glass

Acart President Al Albania sent me this fascinating bit of futurism from Corning, who are riding high on the wave of high-tech glass as the ideal interface material:



It's a little long, but it rings true. Especially if you are reading Work That Matters on an iPhone or iPad.

Many of these technologies are already in place. And while the bathroom mirror interactivity seems a little intrusive to me, I can see Gen Y loving the idea of constant connectedness.

It's interesting to note that, in addition to announcing glass' future, Corning curates its past at the Corning Museum of Glass. It's amazing to think that a technology that was started thousands of years ago can still amaze us. Plus, it's reusable and extremely recyclable.

Makes you appreciate that beer bottle just a little bit more, doesn't it?

Next up: Apple iBeer?

Friday, November 26, 2010

The "Compassionate Adman" Gene

Today is a school holiday in Ottawa, and like many dual-income families, my wife and I were faced with a "take your kid to work" day. I brought our six-year-old son with me to the agency, and as he always does when he's at Acart, he started making his own ads.

If you read this blog, you know how I feel about many social issues. My son has similar passions. But right now, all of his efforts are focussed on science, nature, and especially fish. He has been known to tell off fishmongers for stocking unsustainable species, and piped up during a morning conference call with a supplier to deliver a rant about shark fin soup.

But when it came to his ad, he decided it was important to teach people about invasive species:

"Snakehead Fish: Very Bad"
Yes, I know his handwriting is atrocious. That's genetic too...




But his rendering of Channa argus, from MEMORY (no photo reference) astounded me.

What he really wanted to write as copy, before he decided to be more brief, was "Snakehead fish are very bad for the environment. If you capture one, give it to the Toronto Zoo". (I love that he doesn't even consider a deadlier cull...)

The Northern Snakehead is an aggressive freshwater food fish of Asian origin that was released into the waterways of the  Northeastern United States sometime before 2002. As a new top predator, it immediately began to displace native fish and colonize more and more bodies of water. Wildlife management efforts are underway to prevent it from entering the Great Lakes, where it could destroy the ecosystems and fisheries.

My son loves to keep fish, to catch fish, and to eat fish, so this is the kind of stuff that keeps him up at night.

The sad thing is that, in China, the snakehead is a valuable food fish. If we could only convince American anglers that Chaozhou-Style Steamed Snakehead or Snakehead Hot and Sour Soup were delicious, maybe unrestricted angling could give this voracious predator a taste of its own medicine.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Stop F---ing The Sharks!

And by that, I mean "Finning"...

I Believe in Advertising posted this ad from Grey Hong Kong that speaks out agaisnt the Chinese tradition of killing sharks just to add their (tasteless) dried fins to prestigious wedding soups. It's really kind of freaking me out, but I thought I'd share based solely on the urgency of the issue:



IBiA also posted this translation:

“Jaws never return
Shark killing tragedies. Showing every day.
73 million sharks are brutally killed every year. In Hong Kong last year, 4460 tons of shark’s fin were consumed. Experts estimate that in the next decade, most species of sharks will be exterminated. Your choice will determine the ending of this tragedy…
Rescue sharks. Preserve the ocean. Please stop consuming shark’s fin.”

I should add that, if you don't stop eating that stuff, my 6-year-old radical naturalist son will also kick your ass.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Cameron and Schwarzenegger team up for the environment


Canadian Director James Cameron and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have teamed up once again, but their newest collaboration is not exactly The Terminator:



The two stars did this rather disappointing little PSA to speak out against California Prop 23, a "dirty energy" ballot proposition that will be part of Tuesday's voting. If it passes, it will suspend the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 for reasons that are claimed to be economic. But the two celebrities insist that it's really an attempt by Big Oil to protect its interests in California.

Whatever happens on the political front, what's irking me is that so much Hollywood star power could turn out such a weak PSA. Not that I was expecting them to paint themselves blue and appear in 3-D or anything. But couldn't they have at least put some creativity into it?