Listen to the Radio Ad (30 seconds)
“Let me know what you think,” Michelle wrote about the WaterSmart MONTANA campaign she launched with the Missoula Valley Water Quality District this week. Her goal: persuade folks to stop cutting down cottonwoods, willows, and other native vegetation growing along the stream and riverbanks. So here’s what I think: the campaign has great messages, but I have a question about who it’s aimed at.
First, effusive praise for:
- Deftly connecting the issue of native vegetation (sorry botanists, it’s a yawner for your fellow citizens) to much higher priority issues:clean water and wildlife.
- Using empowering language: telling citizens they can make a difference and what they can do
- Injecting a note of humor, too. The radio ads poke gentle fun at traditional nature documentaries and the newspaper ad features a faux latin taxonomy (“Filterus Outus Pollutants”) that I find appealing.
So the messages are well crafted and persuasive — but I wonder if newspaper and radio ads are the best way to get them out there for this campaign. It all depends on who is cutting down the trees. If it’s creek and riverfront property owners generally, then then newspapers and radio ads are a good a way to reach them.
But if what we’re really talking about here is a handful of developers that are subdividing former farms and ranches and bulldozing the cottonwood groves because they block the water view from their mini-mansions, then that’s a different story. Radio and newspaper ads are a roundabout and inefficient way to reach such a small number of people. It’s like
spraying pesticide on the whole field when you could just pluck a couple of weeds by hand.
If we’re really concerned about a small number of developers, the campaign might have more influence on them if they reach out more directly through their trade association and newsletters, or even setting up one-on-one meetings to make the case in person. Not as glamorous, but more precise.
So Montanans, weigh in. Click the comments link below and share your thoughts on who’s cutting down riverfront cottonwoods and what the best channel is to reach them.
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
I also liked the transition from the fancy, hi-falutin’-sounding “faux Latin” to common language that everyone can understand and relate to. It is the sort of thing that needs to happen much more often — getting the technical jargon translated into layman’s terms so that those folks putting the research into action can understand what they are doing and why they are doing it.
I also agree that the audience needs to be defined — ad campaigns can cost a pretty penny, and reaching the target audience most effectively makes the most sense to this humble Vermonter.
By placing ads on the radio, the consensus can be changed. People move to Montana from everywhere, and if these people believe the “Montana Way” is to keep with native vegetation and purchase properties that really depict Montana, then the developers are influenced. Shaping this notion of “Montana” is a great tool to begin a turn in the right direction.
Good Blog!!
Thank you for all the feedback. One point of clarification: other agencies and organizations at the state and local level have targeted realtors and developers with this same basic message, so we wanted to get the message out in a more broad-based way to complement that. Hence the radio and newsprint. We also plan to distribute coupons for free native riparian plants on door-hangers in targeted neighborhoods, and offer workshops in collaboration with a local nursery.
Just to poke a little fun at Eric, I think it is a mixed metaphor using pesticide and then pulling a few weeds. Pick a few bugs (if you know the bad ones).
I like any kind of information that gets the word out to more of the public. In the Flathead, most developers do not seem to care about anything but the bottom line. We need to get MORE PEOPLE CARING about water issues and then VOTING for county commissioners who will act to make developers be responsible – and also SUPPORTING the Planning Board, Planning dept and staff, ATTENDING Planning Board hearings and SPEAKING OUT for better Planning that will protect our water. I think the Watersmart Montana program is a great way to get more people aware. Everything starts with educating people – about the harm done by removing riparian vegetation and the good they can do when they plant native plants.
The radio ad is well done and identified the value of plant material as it relates to clean water. Nature is a wonderful system.
I am concerned with native riparian and state and national forest and land management. What is the relationship to plants that draw out water, stream flow and the relationship to regional water conservation.
I continue to recieve mixed message in drought stricken, over vegaetated areas in the southwest. It would serve citizens, environmental groups and community leaders well to be informed of the horticultural practices and healthy forest- fire prevention management practices and concerns.
In the SW region a healthy forest has been discussed as 25 trees to the acre, yet our manged forest areas are as dense as 100 trees to the acre. Considering the drought conditions and the potential for wildland fires = fuels. The environmental information as it relates to forest conditions and water conservation is not clear.