PR « Mediacology

PR

Ecology / Ethics / PR — No Comments
17
Oct 09

Greenwashing: first step in the grieving process?

OK, I realize my header is a bit of a stretch, but after reading an interesting overview of some recent articles about Greenwashing as a first step in the evolution of change, I though, why not? If it’s true that Greenwashing is an effort to appease a changing consumer base, could this also be a corporation’s reaction to a loss of authenticity? The first step of grieving is denial. Greenwashing is denial incarnate. But it’s also the kind of denial that drug addicts use when confronted with the impact of their addiction on families and friends.

The next step of the grieving process is to feel the pain. From a corporate standpoint that would be the loss of revenue–granted this is not the kind of suffering caused by the loss of biodiversity or justice. Oh, if it were only possible. Yet, customers and employees of corporations have feelings and care about the world, too. Granted, different industries are more inclined than others. Mafiosi certainly love and care for the families, it’s the rest of us who need to worry.

The third step is adjusting to live without your customers. Well, deal with it.

In the next step one is asked to find a safe place in the heart. This is harder to do in the abstract. Where and how does a company have a heart? How is it manifested? In its mission? Corporate social responsibility index? Treatment of employees? Tough one to gage, but I think it’s possible. It’s certainly more visible with small businesses that have distinct personalities and clear stewardship practices.

The final and fifth step of grieving is to find a process for dealing with the love of the lost one. This is perhaps the most difficult concept to translate because when a company loses business to customers who no longer trust them, where is the love? For the former customers or the former profits? Frankly, when you read some corporate charters that state the customer is number one, it smacks a little in disingenuousness. Of course they are.

But can a company “soul”-search to discover its loss of authenticity? I think it’s possible. I’ve heard stories of many CEOs, company boards or employees deciding to transform their businesses to become equitable partners in the world community. Everyone has the potential for a life-changing insight, even the most grievous fascist (though in some cases it seems very unlikely. Cheney anyone?).

So maybe Greenwashing is a good sign after all. The challenge is to get beyond the first step.

Thanks Todd for the article link!

Activism / Corporate Media / PR — No Comments
20
Aug 09

Astroturfing media corps

Activism / Ecology / Marketing / PR / Video — No Comments
7
May 08

Environmental activism as media criticism

Greenpeace is both marketer of ideas and media critic. The above video is a recent attack on Dove, parodying its “Onslaught” campaign to criticize Dove’s use of palm oil because it destroys rain forests. The Greenpeace version is pretty intense, although a bit manipulative. What do you think?

Now Greenpeace has a “StopGreenwashing” site that allows users to submit examples of “greenwash”– “Used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” I applaud their effort but have a small (constructive) criticism of the project. You are asked to vote on greenwash videos, but there is no context given. You are supposed to automatically understand why the commercial is bad. Furthermore, the site offers no tools for reading ads. I hope that in the future Greenpeace will make the effort to incorporate media literacy tools into the site.

Technorati Tags: Greenpeace

Activism / Advertising / Deconstruction / Gender / Marketing / PR / Video — No Comments
7
Oct 07

Dove-olution? Updated

I admit that Dove’s first round of postironic anti-”beauty” beauty commercials rubbed me the wrong way. I posted that it was a little too close to the edge of self-promotion for a beauty supply company to market itself as the anti-product. But this one is pretty darn amazing, to be honest, and it really hit me viscerally because I have a young daughter. The advice is wise: we shouldn’t let media parent our children. So though there’s a tiny cynical voice inside me that decries this as an insidiously ploy cloaked inside the protein shell of a corporate virus, I believe the intention behind it is sincere. I believe this would be a good teaching tool, as long as it is presented within the context of other messages.

Update:

I just became aware that Dove’s parent company Unilever also makes Axe, which has one of the most heinous, misogynous marketing campaigns in the universe. It is so insidious and evil it almost nullifies all the good will that Dove creates with its ad. Because on the one hand, Dove is promoting the self-esteem of girls, but on the other, Axe not only promotes the degradation of girls, it creates the fantasy that women are just tools of male sexuality. It subtly promotes a rapist mentality by encouraging the belief that every woman’s goal is to rip off her clothes at the first sent of a boy using Axe. And if she doesn’t, what will he do with his false expectations? It is quite infuriating and disgusting.

You can send a letter of protest here:

From Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood:

Unilever says it wants to promote girls’ self-esteem. Its Dove Campaign for Real Beauty has been lauded for challenging the standards of the beauty industry.

There’s just one problem: Unilever is the beauty industry. A manufacturer of diet aids, cosmetics, skin whiteners, and other beauty products, Unilever is responsible for much of the advertising it claims it wants to help girls resist. Unilever’s advertising for Axe grooming products – which appears frequently on MTV and other youth-oriented media – epitomizes the sexist and degrading marketing that can undermine girls’ healthy development.

If Unilever is serious about promoting girls well-being, they’ll start by looking in the mirror. Please take a moment to urge Unilever CEO Patrick Cescau to end the degrading Axe campaign.

Technorati Tags: advertising, dove

PR / Propaganda / Web 2.0 — No Comments
22
Sep 07

Disinformation ecology

Disnfocycle

Deltoid » The Disinformation Cycle:

One of the features of the endless stream of articles about the nonexistent DDT ban is the way they all cite each other instead of cracking open a textbook or checking with an actual scientist. I call this the disinformation cycle. As far as I can tell, it is nearly 100% efficient and there is little danger of actual facts about the world contaminating the pure flow of disinformation.

News / PR / Propaganda — No Comments
14
Jun 07

Framing 101

Frame

What follows is a decent article about how conservatives “frame” language in order to control how issues are thought about. The concept is based on the work of neurolinguist George Lakoff, whose book Don’t Think of an Elephant, was in the back pocket of every Democrat after the last presidential defeat. Framing is important for the study of propaganda, but I think it’s overblown because it assumes that all politics is about language (much of it is) and who controls it, but coming up with good ways to frame concepts is no substitute for good policy and righteous action. Sure framing will help progressives and ecologists get their messages out, but what is more important is ethics, intention and pedagogy. Organizers should think less about manipulations and more about establishing good intentions through the pedagogy and work of their cause. By incorporating the philosophy of Deep Ecology, for example, the long term change has greater benefits.
To Catch a Wolf: How to Stop Conservative Frames in Their Tracks – CommonDreams.org:

BLITZER: Congressman Kucinich, you voted against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced. You’ve since voted again against it. But some would say yesterday’s plot that was described by the FBI underscores the need for precisely that kind of tough measure to deal with potential terrorists out there.

Here is the framing evoked by the question:

First, and perhaps most importantly, the question assumed that the plot was indeed serious and was not, as Arianna Huffington has suggested, disorganized and disgruntled citizens who were hapless and harmless. Second, the question assumed that the plot was only foiled due to the provisions of the Patriot Act – not community cooperation or police work. Third, the question lumped all Patriot Act provisions together under the banner of necessity. Many provisions in the Patriot Act are indeed beneficial and needed. However, many more are a clear violation of civil rights – Blitzer’s question did not reveal these disparities. Fourth, the language “tough measure” and “terrorists out there” represented the Bush administration exactly as the President wanted: The Republicans are tough (hence the Democrats are weak), and there is real evil immediately threatening us (and the Democrats are too weak to protect us).

Finally, the question suggested that the trampling of civil rights through this “tough measure to deal with potential terrorists” is virtuous and worthy of being commended. Since the plot was foiled — Blitzer’s question implied that the Patriot Act is an effective measure to fight terrorists — and is therefore worth the destruction of civil rights.

Technorati Tags: Lakeoff, puppy

PR — No Comments
19
Dec 06

The “Falsies”

The hard working folks at Center for Media and Democracy, who publish PR Watch and other invaluable resources, have compiled a list of the worse spinsters of the year. If you have been tracking the media in 2006, you will recognize many of these stories. It’s an excellent, compact list of the latest misinformation strategies being employed in the mediasphere.

Falsies on Parade: The Worst Spinners of 2006 – Center for Media and Democracy:

The two top winners of our third annual Falsies Awards share a love of film. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a misleading moving picture must be worth tens of thousands of lies. In contrast, the third-place Falsies winner spread its money and its message over many media, including the Internet, television, radio and billboards. All the better to spin you with, my dear!

Dishonorable mentions go to a partisan front group, anti-environmental think tanks, efforts to recruit elementary school children for the military, and paid bloggers posing as grassroots supporters of the world’s largest retailer. Lastly, the 1,204 respondents to our Falsies Awards survey nominated dozens of other worthy recipients, several of whom are mentioned below in our Reader’s Choice Awards.

Technorati Tags: falsies