Imagine this scene: You have asked a video production company to make an environmental advertisement, and they have come back and shown you this draft: A walking catfish with a New Jersey accent who makes wisecracks about residents who pollute rivers and streams. Would you spend your advertising dollars to run it? Or would you send it back for “repairs?”
This month, I’m conducting my first round of field trials for the Due Diligence Test Panel. To start, I pulled “The Catfish on a Mission” and 9 other pieces from EPA’s Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox. These pieces are offered up as models for others to use or emulate, so they’re fair game for some public critique.
Overall, the Do Diligence Test Panel gave this piece slightly above-average ratings. Which means that for everybody out there who hates Chuck the walking catfish, somebody loves him. Whichever camp you fall in, viewers clearly understood and appreciated Chuck’s message about the everyday behaviors that cause pollution. Here is a selection of their comments on that:
- “pointing out common things that people can avoid that will protect the water. like proper disposal of used auto oil”.
- “I liked the examples. They really showed the point of how people directly affect the environment”.
- “Showing people engaged in everyday chores that can pollute our water supply if done improperly”.
Here’s a sample of the favorable comments about Chuck himself:
- “The guy in the fish suit had a good message”
- “The use of a man dressed as a fish is kind of funny”.
- “The funny offhanded comments Chuck makes to drive his point home are to me more effective than someone stiffly displaying the ways that people pollute the water, It gives the ad and the message some interest”.
Here’s a sample of the negative comments about Chuck himself:
- “The guy in the catfish suit. His accent is horrifically annoying. Maybe it’s supposed to get your attention, but I would have changed the channel just to get away from it”.
- “Why does a fish from TN have a New York accent?”
- “the guy iin the fish suit might have been a little over the top and abrasive”.
So, in a nutshell, this piece is divisive. The people who love it and hate it balance each other out to produce an average result. If it was your advertising budget on the line, would you run the ad? Or send it back for repairs?
Click the link below to get the full report:
Environmental Communications Report
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
Hmm…rather than pointing out how stupid people are (I mean, that “dipstick” could be YOU, do you like being insulted by a fish?), how about Chuck be less annoying and more grateful by pointing out the SMART ways people protect their rivers? Show a woman washing her car at a carwash or on a gravel driveway, using biodegradeable soap, so that the drains stay clear? And the “dipstick” with the oil might start to dump it in the gutter, but then have a flash of insight and decide aloud to bring it to the community’s recycle center. Chuck could cheer the wisdom of these folks, and encourage everyone to take a page from their book. People will usually remember what they see, so watching suds enter a drain might translate into “Oh, if I wash my car in the driveway, that drain will take the soap away very efficiently.”
In other words, model GOOD behavior instead of making fun of or even showing bad behaviors.
I, too, find Chuck more annoying than helpful. Perhaps a more local Tennessee accent to go with the regionally relevant catfish. But even more important, a less abrasive script. Here’s an example from EPA’s NPS Outreach Toolbox involving a grating NJ accent in a radio ad that originated in Texas (and which has been duplicated in a few other places because it has supposedly tested well with local audiences):
http://www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/radio/thecalltx1.mp3
I wonder what the Do Dilogence Sounding Board would think about that one.
And what is it with the South choosing New Jersey accents?