You’ve seen those bp ads. Lately, eco-ad campaigns’re popping up everywhere, where big corps admit they did bad — and promise they’re gonna do good. [image from bp]
These promises are questionable, however. For ex: Today in the NYT, we got a fascinating look at the people behind British Petroleum’s “beyond petroleum” campaign.
Writes John Kenney, a guy who worked on the bp campaign: “I guess, looking at it now, “beyond petroleum†is just advertising. It’s become mere marketing — perhaps it always was — instead of a genuine attempt to engage the public in the debate or a corporate rallying cry to change the paradigm.”
Why does the guy think bp isn’t all that it could be? “… they didn’t go beyond petroleum. They are petroleum.”
Damn. This makes me wonder about the Ford ad running on my site right now (ok, after this, I’m really, really gonna stop talking shit about my advertisers).
The premise of this widespread blog campaign, dubbed “Bold Moves”: Ford now realizes it’s fucked itself over by not paying attention to fuel-efficient cars.
At first glance, this campaign’s super refreshing. We have a company admitting that it has a horrid fuel efficiency record. When I click over, I’m at least grudgingly impressed by Ford’s efforts here, cuz Bold Moves seems so much more honest than the usual “bigger and faster is better” Ford ads.
But the more I click, the less convinced I get. I mean, we hear a woman say that oil addiction’s a problem. But that woman’s a rep from the Rainforest Action Network, being interviewed by Ford’s ad peeps.
From all I’ve seen, no actual Ford peeps make an explicit connection between fuel efficiency and environmental consciousness. Ford’s efforts are not efforts to do good for the environment. Yes, Ford seems to want to make more fuel efficient cars — but only cuz it wants consumer dollars.
The lil Ford films point only to consumer demand (i.e. Ford’s getting killed by Honda and Toyota) for driving their new, more eco-friendly efforts.
Sez Robert Shanks, Ford’s VP and Controller for the Americas. “We’re in trouble because we lost touch with the consumer. If you don’t offer to those consumers what they want, there are other alternatives that they can go to. So when that happens … we have to fix it.”
Sez Peter Horbury, Ford’s Exec Director of Design in North America. “Today, it’s ‘what does the customer want?’ Not ‘What does the factory need,’ but ‘What does the customer want?’”
Don’t get me wrong — I’m glad that Ford’s getting into vehicles with higher gas efficiency — for whatever reason.
But I also wish that Ford would admit that the problem isn’t just shifting consumer demand — It’s about the environment we all share. This kind of admission, I feel, is necessary, if US companies like Ford are going to make large-scale, permanent, meaningful changes to their business practices.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Am I being too harsh on the ad campaign here? Should I be giving Ford kudos for this first step?
Update, 8/19/06: Ford’s slashing production — It’ll build 404,000 fewer trucks this year than last.
One: Keep talking about your advertisers, good or bad. Anything else means you’ve been bought.
Two: You’re missing an important point. Ford does not need the environment. (No, seriously!). The *only* purpose of the Ford Company is to make money for its shareholders. It has no morals, no conscience, no free will. All it is is a vehicle to make money. (Yet, it has rights as a legal person - a topic for another. bigger rant)
So expecting anything but following consumer demand from them is unrealistic - there’s no vested interest. And they are not going to make any permanent changes that violate that principle - unless somebody with an actual conscience buys Ford and forces it to operate differently.
Which is by the way well within our reach as consumers. Ford has annual revenue (i.e. sales) of $170 bln, while it is worth $15 bln. That makes me wonder why we don’t have a not-for-profit yet that starts buying up eco-unfriendly companies….
Comment by Robert 'Groby' Blum — August 14, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
I heard recently that this whole thing is about to get real ugly for comapies like Ford. Next year China will start importing cars into the US market. Cars like the Chery QQ, yes, winner of the worlds cutest name for a car. It retails in China for three thousand dollars, that’s it, game over Ford.
Comment by Damien — August 14, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
Great piece, please don’t stop “talking shit” about your advertisers if this piece counts as an example of that.
Comment by Brian — August 15, 2006 @ 3:31 am
I’m with “Groby” on this one. We can’t expect any sort of a consumer-based industry to adopt any sort of an environmental conscience. They’re a corporation…they do what they can to get money. That’s the basis of their existence. So, now that the market is demanding more environmental friendliness, they are addressing that. The most important thing is that we continue to inform the consumers so that more and more of a market is created for these improvements. But, even then, it must be recognized that they are only doing it for the money…not because they have an actual conscience for the environment.
And, I’m a huge advocate for nonprofits buying up eco-unfriendly companies…sorta like how the Nature Conservancy (http://www.nature.org/) is buying up land so that it can protect the natural environments and habitats…it’s totally worth checking out. But it’s just one way that socially- and eco-conscious people can help change things that are usually left to the corporations whose only motivator is money.
Comment by Gillian — August 15, 2006 @ 11:23 am
Groby summed it up well. Ford will only stop making large SUV’s and inefficient sports cars only when the market for those products no longer exists. Sure they will design some products going forward that they can refer to as environmentally friendly. That way they can have their cake and eat it too. They would love to sell you a fuel-efficient vehicle that they can tout as eco friendly while supplying a completely different segment of the market with a steady stream of Mustangs and Explorers. Automobile manufacturers do not car about pollution any more than they care about the fatalities caused by their products (40,000 a year in the US alone). Change will only come about when the market drives it. I just hope that high fuel prices can speed that process up a bit.
Comment by James — August 15, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
But I’m v. much aware that, on paper, corps are supposed to make decisions based on what’ll make the most money for their shareholders. At the same time, it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of leeway in terms of the direction that even publicly traded companies are allowed to take.
Take Whole Foods, for ex. This company just got rid of live lobsters. While there are other changes I’d like WF to make, getting rid of live lobsters was touted NOT as a money-making issue, but as an ethical issue. Perhaps more specifically, an ethical issue WF’s consumers cared about.
Which is to say that Ford could say global warming / environmental issues is something that’s a prob that needs to be addressed, esp. since customers feel it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. But instead of addressing that issue directly, Ford’s simply saying that customers want vehicles with higher MPGs…
Comment by Siel — August 15, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
Well said. I still give Ford at least some benefit of the doubt. At least they’re doing *something*. They’re not really, truly, changing yet, but they have definitely taken the first step. The question is - are they just so much of a dinosaur that they *still* have to hide behind a costly advertising campaign to think they’re being “open”? And will this keep them mired till their death? That said, I think they are more open than they’ve ever been, and if we give them the straight critique, there’s a chance they’ll start to hear it. Will it be too late for them and us? Hopefully not!
Comment by Nick Aster — August 16, 2006 @ 12:47 am
WF *sells* it as an ethical issue. I’m am fairly certain that somebody did the math and said: “OK, it’s going to cost this much. It’ll also generate good publicity, which would’ve cost that much in advertising. Seems like a win. And if it isn’t, we can always jack prices - there’s a reason we’re called Whole Paycheck”
I might be cynical. Then again, I used to work for an ad agency…
Comment by Robert 'Groby' Blum — August 16, 2006 @ 10:13 am
Maybe you’re right, Groby — I worked for a PR firm that was bought by an ad firm (Y&R) soon after I left — This was back in ‘99… Damn, I’m getting old!
It’s an odd issue — Nick — I like what you’re sayin’ — but also have to say I just don’t feel that optimistic.
I feel I’m in an odd, odd divide. On the one hand, I feel that — because of current laws — I should applaud any sorta effort that corps take that seem to give a nod to enviro issues.
On the other hand, I think, dude, the peeps running these corps are big boys. Why should I congratulate their taking a super small, super belated baby step?
Comment by Siel — August 16, 2006 @ 10:01 pm