Ok, time for a comment on a marketing blog. The blog I chose was “Katya’s non-profit Marketing Blog – Getting to the point. The link can be found here:
http://www.nonprofitmarketingblog.com/comments/why_i_think_gloom_and_doom_backfire/
In this post, Katya comments on the following ad:
In the ad, the message says “ending slave labor is not this easy”. In Katya’s view, this is a terrible message to send out as it makes the receiver feel helpless. It would be better to point out that the first step to ending slavery has been taken and that the receiver can go to the sender’s website to take another one. In the same way, Katya argues that marketers trying to raise concern for global warming shouldn’t be apocalyptic but tell them to “buy LED-bulbs instead” and similar advice.
While I agree that the sender should make it easier for the receiver to find out how to take action against the injustice of slavery, I disagree with her second statement. In my opinion, messages like that let people off the hook too easily and let them go on with their lives without reflecting on what they are doing. Sure, they might buy a slightly more energy efficient light bulb. However, messages like that strenghten people’s beliefs that all we have to do to be “sustainable” is to consume as much as before as long as we every once in a while choose “the green option” (whatever that really means). In my opinion, that is not correct and is just a convenient way to clear our conscience for a while.
Although it is hard for everyone to just stop consuming, at least we should make people more aware of the problem and take it seriously. Sending out the message that we can do everything as before as long as we do some very small changes in our lives will only be counterproductive, as it will delay the time it takes for actual change. These changes would mean that we have to accept that we cannot live exactly the same way as we have done the last 20 years, and it must not necessarily be a bad thing. Changes like these would be things like less cars, higher energy prices (incentive to use it more efficiently) and more locally produced products, cutting down on transports and creating more meaningful jobs where input is more directly related to output (more people can see what direct effects their work has).
Although Katya is correct in asserting that more people will take action if small, tangible actions are proposed, those actions are not what is really needed. Therefore I think it is wrong to choose too simplistic messages. While it is true that too dystopic ads may make it hard for people to choose satisfactory actions, trivializing the subject is not the right way to go.