Thinking More about Using Television

With the amount of rampant product placement already occurring in television and movies, it's obviously a great avenue for passive messages. If you have the cash to pay for the spots! I heard last year that television script writers had gone on strike (I think it was in America) to protest against the brand placement they were being forced to write into television scripts - not just as a presence, but as a point of conversation amongst the characters! It's good to see so many people around the world committed to sustainability. Maybe one day we'll be the majority in stead of the minority!

Lisa Mariah

Sustainable Energy Information Partnership
Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
 

The Department of Health and Human Services, specifically CDC and NCI, partnered with Hollywood Health and Society at USC to provide information, education, etc. to writers and producers developing health-related storylines. This may be a great starting point/resource for ideas on how to get the entertainment community to get out environmental messages. See links: http://www.cdc.gov/communication/entertainment_education.htm http://www.learcenter.org/html/projects/?cm=hhs

Shayla Workman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: 703-308-0319

Check the archives. I posted a link to a great article in the New Yorker magazine last fall on this topic - on how Mexican & South American social change folks were working behavior change messages into telenovelas (soap operas) - public health practices mostly - with great success. But same techniques could be used for enviro. behavior change messages.

Anne Boulder,
CO USA Gracestone, Inc.

I would argue that discouraging TV use all together may be a better approach. Television is just an advertising box that encourages rampant consumerism. Watching too much TV is a major contributor to obesity. I have a hard time finding any redeeming value to TV use. Hardly a friend for a sustainable future......

Thanks & Adios,
CJD ----

Carol J. Dollard
[email protected]

Dear all -

In the just published book referenced below, which many members of this group may find of interest anyway, there is a chapter by Sharon Dunwoody about what can and cannot be achieved through different media channels, including TV. You may want to check it out. Dunwoody, S. (2007). The challenge of trying to make a difference using media messages. In: Moser, S.C. and L. Dilling, eds., /Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change/. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89-104. At the risk of sounding completely self-promotional, I encourage you all to get a copy of the book, or ask your libraries/institutions to acquire a copy. It's pricey - sadly - but if enough people buy the hard cover, we'll get to soft-cover in the not too distant futures. For more information go to: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/communication/book/

Best,
Susi Moser

I can certainly understand your position, but if we want to reach populations that are not already actively engaged in environmental issues, television may be the best venue. Soap operas have been promoting awareness of rape and domestic violence for more than 20 years.

Terri

The Environmental Media Association (EMA) mobilizes the entertainment industry in a global effort to educate people about environmental issues and inspire them into action. EMA was created in 1989, as a non-profit 501(c)3, with the simple but powerful concept that through television and film, the entire entertainment community could influence the environmental awareness of millions of people. Through the use of weaving environmental messages within entertainment programming and utilizing "celebrity" for positive role modeling, EMA continues to have a profound effect on how the public receives environmental information. EMA was founded by some of the biggest names in film and television world, who help EMA serve as a valuable link between the entertainment industry and the environmental community. http://www.ema-online.org/index.html

I don't know whether we have an organisation like this in Australia, but I certainly haven't heard of one. Given what's being shown on our local TV at the moment, we certainly need something like EMA! I was very unimpressed when 'Neighbours', a prime time Australian soapy with a large following, aired a storyline about a character who, after a traumatic event, decided there was more to life than middle class money, and that he would learn how to live sustainably in the suburbs. He's been ridiculed by his neighbours, portrayed as a fool trying to train a rooster not to crow, given an unkempt look (as if this is mandatory), and also suffered from lice and all the negative connotations associated with that. And they used the words 'living sustainably' numerous times to discribe his way of life. It's an incredibly negative stereotype that damages the public perception of what can be achieved without having to go back to living in caves!

Best wishes
Lisa Bendigo,
Victoria Australia
 

If I might continue this conversation a little further, even though it does not contain references or requests for information . From another perspective Carol, is what you say about TV a bit like saying politics is a waste of time and it is not worth voting, I wonder? Both having down sides and many people are too engrossed in both for no apparent change or benefit to themselves or those around them. Both are part of the fabric of life today and both have buckets of money spent on them to the profit of the few, it seems. Both have side effects and collateral damage and seem to promote obesity - this last one is a bit of a stretch for politics perhaps though many in politics appear to be affected by it. I mean there are wonderful programs on the environment and sustainability, emotionally uplifting and challenging -subjective I realise - and much more on TV, yet often not given the profile and promotion they deserve and therefore one requires research and perseverance to find them. Similarly, there are also people in politics who are really striving for the best for others, rare though they be, I gather, and they do not receive publicity often if at all. Yet both seem to be necessary and both have educational elements and upsides. Also in the art world, much is anti environment and heavy impact though it is art so thought to be 'good'. TV has a good portion of this kind of fare too so I guess it brings up choices for us and for me that is what we are here for: to sort out what we really want and go for it. I guess what I am trying to say is that conversations on these topics are great for educating for sustainability because they prompt critical thinking, yes? A with politics, if we do not get involved we can not influence or change the status quo. Perhaps there is an analogy here for TV, as all powerful it may appear to be - the owners, sponsors and legislators and its negative effects, that is. Ignore politics and they might go away and the same with TV, yet we have tremendous opportunity to utilise them for our betterment and sustainability or they tend to dominate, as you point out. Lastly, I have heard it that certain TV shows can induce Alpha state consciousness and in Alpha the body heals and the mind de-stresses, so this is most beneficial, perhaps a major source of de-stressing in busy lives. The question you pose and part of the concern you have is possibly: can advertising 'seep' in when one is in Alpha and therefore 'reek' havoc on the recipient or not? Alpha state is used in Accelerated Learning, among situations such as visualisation and maybe as part of meditation, and is amazing in increasing the capability of a student to absorb information for whatever reason and allow self-healing. Therefore, I wonder if in fact advertising spots on TV would allow the viewer to remain in Alpha or whether they tend to rouse/wake up people - louder sound and fast, colourful action, often in purposeful contrast to the more subdued show. Any thoughts on this last point anyone?

Kind regards,
Paul

Paul, Re your last point: The advertising industry has very detailed data on exactly how people repsond to various ads. I don't work in that field but once saw a presentation (given to electric utility marketing executives, buyers of TV ad time) showing exactly how heart rate and other biometrics responded, second-by-second, throughout a TV commercial. This information was used to re-craft ads to get very very specific responses. Their tools are very sophisticated, drawing on all the social sciences, medical science, etc. Most of the huge ad agencies now have sub-practices called "socially responsible" advertising. An ad exec from one of the big ones spoke to the US National Recycling Coalition conference a few years ago (who are working on re-branding recycling here) and said "by being in this practice, I get to work in advertising but not go to hell," which says a lot about even how the ad world views its own work... It would be great to get more input on advertising & sustainability from advertising professionals who know exactly how to induce alpha states, desired aspirational behavior change, etc.

Anne Boulder,
CO USA Gracestone, Inc. 

Dear Friends,

What follows is an Advertising Age article about GE's latest Ecoimagination advertisement, which is on TV here in the USA (and, perhaps, in other countries?). I thought you'd be interested in seeing what the advertising community's trade publication thinks about these kinds of ads. "And so we can feel our admiration without shame, having been persuaded that a gigantic, soulless corporation can -- if only through the miracle of institutionalized greed -- work for the greater good. This is not something we'd have thought about if we hadn't seen a few TV commercials. See, the thing about advertising is, it works.." they say at the end. Perhaps a critical mass of the advertising business itself is finally waking up to the good it can do while making money at the same time.

Best regards,
Steve

http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=115300

Spot Highlighting GE's Shift to Eco-Friendly Is Quite a Catch
Industrial Giant's 'Ecomagination' Campaign Trolls for New Image
By Bob Garfield
Published: March 05, 2007

Fishermen haul up their nets and discover, amid a pitiful handful of fish, thousands of bottles of water. 'Ecomagination' Is it a Greenpeace ad decrying ocean dumping? No, the fishermen toss the fish right back over the side. They're trolling for water! It's a GE ad about new technology for desalination. "Ecomagination at work." Clever twist. Inspiring technology. Kind of makes you admire ... gulp ... GE?! The company that dumped PCBs in the Hudson? See, the thing about advertising is, it works. Or, anyway, it can work -- if the audience is actually there, and if the practitioners know what they're about. By its mere presence, of course, advertising works at a basic level: conferring awareness, substance and credibility to a brand. In the rarest of cases, it can also represent the very essence of the brand, transcending the goods themselves: Nike and Marlboro, for instance. Power to persuade But advertising has one more remarkable quality, one seldom asked of it these days, at least in broadcast form: the power to persuade. To change minds, and feelings, on a mass scale. Propaganda, in other words. Needless to say, this power can be deployed for good or evil. Consider anti-tobacco advertising, which has helped reduce consumption and propelled changes in social and governmental norms. Then think about cigarette advertising itself, which for decades positioned the products as beneficial and then -- in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary -- benign. The problem is figuring out when persuasion is serving truth and when it is serving lies. Or both. In advertising, that problem is never more evident than in discussion of the environment. Confusing the public Sometimes it's easy, such as when the sleazebags at the Competitive Enterprise Institute tried to confuse the public about greenhouse gasses by focusing on the importance of the life cycle of carbon dioxide -- an irrelevancy to the question of climate change. "Carbon dioxide," said the ads that ran last summer. "They call it pollution. We call it life." What scum. But what about when Toyota boasts about its Prius hybrid? Are we supposed to credit the effort to find a cleaner car, or think about the Land Cruiser, which is an environmental abomination? And consider BP, which five years ago adopted a new green and yellow logo shaped like a blooming flower. It's a cynical, dishonest and unforgivably manipulative little trick. Yet even we here at AdReview have to force ourselves, when we pass its gas stations, to remember that BP isn't really some sort of kinder, gentler eco-friendly oil company. This brings us to GE. Two years ago, it unveiled its Ecomagination campaign, showcasing the various steps it was taking not only to safeguard the environment but to make boatloads of money safeguarding the environment. The ads from BBDO Worldwide, New York, were clever and beautifully produced (all GE ads from BBDO are beautifully produced), but they raised the question: Is this for real, or just the latest greenwashing of a serial polluter? Are they enlightening us or tricking us? Propaganda Well, nobody is pure, and propaganda is never the same as truth. But this campaign legitimately reflects the corporate vision to develop clean(er) technologies for industrial customers in energy, transportation and so on -- 45 products (up from 17 at launch) that will generate $13 billion in 2007 revenue. Seems pretty real to us. And so we can feel our admiration without shame, having been persuaded that a gigantic, soulless corporation can -- if only through the miracle of institutionalized greed -- work for the greater good. This is not something we'd have thought about if we hadn't seen a few TV commercials. See, the thing about advertising is, it works.
Review: 3.5 stars
Ad: GE Agency: BBDO Worldwide Location: New York

Steven G. Brant,

Business Futurist
Founder and Principal
Trimtab Management Systems
[email protected] NYC
Tel: (646) 373-5347
http://www.trimtab.com
Associated with The Ackoff Center at UPenn PA
Tel: (610) 529-1914
http://www.acasa.upenn.edu
http://ackoffcenter.blogs.com

Hi Anne,

Your last 'wish' is mine too and the tool of TV is scarily powerful, if they go into as deeply as you indicate and which I accept. Anyone know any execs in TV who may seek to promote sustainability? Here in Sydney just a few nights ago we had a show called The Carbon Test onone of the commercial channels and it was linked to a major newspaper which carried a one page test/check list for families to fill while watching the show. It worked rather well from what I saw and the idea of combined approach is quite different and I would see as effective. No stats from anyone yet on number of viewers and so on, though a great new example of how TV and the media can play a part, certainly 'a first' here for dealing specifically with carbon emissions. Lifestyle programs area very suitable setting for such messages I would think and surely a quiz show could be couched in sustainability issues. Anyway, thanks for the input and I am keeping my radar on for opportunities here, that's for sure.

Kind regards,
Paul Blackheath,
NSW Australia

I was interested in the Carbon Test too, and the aspect of a commercial station taking up the issue. Sadly, it bombed in terms of audience numbers at around half a million viewers (commercial TV should be looking for a million + to have a winner). The review I read said that the problem was the station's target audience (16 to 39 and 18 to 49 age groups) "couldn't care less" and didn't want to watch it. Pretty sad. Another example of TV confirming its role as an enterntainment medium and not education?

Anne

I think it was a good attempt by a commercial station to put together a show to respond to the increasing public awareness of the issues. It was probably the wrong format and didn't quite hit the mark. I was dissapointed with many aspects of the program, however, I know a lot of people have been talking about it and the issues raised, even those who didn't watch it. Let's hope that they learn from their experience and keep trying.

Cheers
MOC

All these arguments of psychological manipulation aside - the amount of time spent in front of a TV is time not spent engaging the "real world". Seems like getting folks outside and connected to the natural world would be much more productive in getting people interested in saving the environment. A friend recently recommended the book: "Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder". I have not had the opportunity to read it, but I strongly agree that we need to get folks out in nature to make that connection so they value it and learn to recognize their place in it. I just don't believe that nature shows on TV, no matter how well done, will never accomplish that.

Thanks & Adios,
CJD ----

Carol J. Dollard, P.E., LEED AP
Utility Engineer
[email protected]

As Carol points out: "a map of the territory is not the territory." Or, you can't feel raindrops unless they actually hit you.

Nice debate!
Dave

If you haven't already happened upon them, I just wanted to share a new twist on SM based TV ads - please visit www.chesapeakeclub.org . Our program is funding the expansion of this campaign to new coastal regions of the state. I would also highly recommend the Richard Louv book "Last Child in the Woods." Virginia environmental educators are sponsoring his appearance at the state's premiere environmental conference next month to reach the state/local government and business people in attendance who have the pens and money to help make a difference in our formal and informal environmental education efforts.

Virginia Witmer
Virginia Coastal
Zone Management Program
Richmond, Virginia

This is a great example of what could be on TV. http://www.youtube.

I believe that with proper permission from the owner of the commercial (and especially for the music), this television spot could be converted to a Public Service Announcement. And Im confident that I could get it on air for free across Canada. It wouldnt work in Quebec given the Switch Off element on the building. If anyone knows who owns the spot, Id be happy to pursue it.

KC Flynn

98 King Street South
Waterloo, ON N2J 1P5
Phone: 519.746.3997 ext. 17
Fax: 519.746.6926
Cell: 519.577.8195
Toll Free: 800.711.1391
Email: [email protected]

Morning KC,

Try contacting the guy Eric Prydz who made it on [email protected]. According to google link his web site www.prydz.net is not up yet though he is in London and runs the label that produced the clip. Terrific idea and maybe he is interested in offering it elsewhere such as Aust for non profit showing.

Kind regards,
Paul