When we discuss sustainability communications in class, it always seems focused on showcasing benefits and value for the consumer. The consumer holds a lot of power in this way and so any advertising or messaging is done to please the consumer. Shaming the consumer with pictures of dying animals or messaging that talks about environmental harms has been proven ineffective. But what about shaming them with much harsher language?
An anti-littering campaign in Toronto caused quite a stir online last year when it was revealed. The ads showcase pieces of distinctly branded trash on the ground with the package lettering spelling out different insults for the type of person who litters like ‘Dipstick’ or ‘Lowlife’. The copy on each ad reads “Littering says a lot about you”. These ads spread across the Internet rapidly last summer on Tumblr, Reddit, and other media outlets. It received 130,000 notes on Tumblr within 24 hours of being posted. On top of that, I found these ads on Tumblr today, which means that they are still floating around even months later.
Unfortunately, the ads had to be pulled from use in the city only a month later due to copyright infringement cited by several of the companies who’s products were used for the trash. But no matter, the ads have clearly had a second life online where many people have since seen them.
It is hard to say whether this type of advertising is all that effective. The ads are very unique and tonally interesting. They are abrasive without being harsh or preachy but this may not have any direct relation to decreased littering behaviour. I personally enjoy these advertisements but I think I fully appreciated them when I could see them all at once in a sequence online, rather than individually on the street or in the subway. I also enjoyed the fact that something Torontonian was receiving positive attention for once. I’m also not sure that Toronto is facing the right littering problem. In Toronto, the trash and recycling bins downtown are often overflowing and messy or there are too few or far between when you need one. Increasing the accessibility of bins and how often they are emptied is probably more important.
What do you think of the ads? See the rest below.
Hi Connor,
Thanks for sharing the anti-littering campaign from Toronto! I’m a sucker for creative marketing so I really got a kick out of reading your post and going through some of the advertisements that you posted on the page. One of my recent blog entries actually includes a video that touches upon the idea of consumer shaming, although in a much more different context. You may have already seen this video a decade ago, but Greenpeace launched an ad that insulted SUV drivers – some phrases characterized by rather offensive language as well. Here’s the link to the video if you’re interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMl9DOA_Dzg
I think that the key differences between these two scenarios of shaming are the actual motives behind the consumers’ actions. A lot of SUV drivers are who they are because they need that functionality from a vehicle to provide for their families or for the type of work that they do. If you glance through the comment section in the link, you’ll notice lots of dissent towards the ad and Greenpeace themselves. But no one can really justify littering.
You make a good point about whether this campaign was really effective or not. I personally think that this was a good attempt at trying to reach out to the public. The city’s approach to guerrilla marketing was impressive, as all they had to do was take a snapshot of trash cleverly placed together. There wasn’t much risk involved besides the copyright infringement, and hopefully a lot of awareness has been raised as a result.
Cheers!
Hi Jeffrey,
Great point about the motives behind the consumers’ actions. They don’t want to be shamed for something that they believe they are doing to benefit their children like driving an SUV but littering doesn’t benefit anyone – it’s purely laziness. This is true accept in the case that they can’t reasonably find a non-full receptacle to use, and then they’ll shift the blame to the City. So the City has to provide ample opportunity to stop littering if they’re going to use shame tactics.
Thanks for the comment!