Archive for the ‘Clean Water’ Category

This rather bleak “obituary” for a Minnesota lake that choked to death on phosphorous gets your attention and gets its point across, but is weaker than most at motivating those who see it to actually take some action. The ad is part of Minnesota Water’s “Let’s Keep It Clean” campaign.

This month, I’m conducting my first round of field trials for the Due Diligence Test Panel. To start, I pulled “Patricia, Lake” 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.

When asked what they like about the piece, test panel members honed in on the clever concept:

• “The most compelling thing about the piece is the title “Obituary” – that really gets your attention. Also having a black and white photo gives the impression of lack of life in the lake”.
• “I like that it is done in an obituary style, I think that it makes a big statement!”
• “The end where it says in lieu of flowers that we can pick up a rake and clean leaves from the streets and around storm-water drains. We can all pitch in to help make sure this doesn’t happen to our local body of water”.

But these high marks were offset by below average marks on two questions that predict action rather than lip service — faith that their action would make a difference, and faith that others would do their part. It seems that, at least for some panelists, the grim piece just bums them out rather than inspiring or encouraging them to act. Several used words like “harrowing,” “depressing,” and “sad” to describe how the piece made them feel.

So what do you think? Do the piece’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses? Would you spend money to run this ad, or would you send it back for repairs?

Click the link below for the full report: Environmental Communications Report

Much of the pollution that is slowly choking the life out of the Chesapeake Bay originates far upstream, in communities where people have little emotional attachment to the bay and probably don’t even realize that their rivers and creeks end up there. The same goes for the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, Puget Sound in Washington, San Francisco Bay, and so and so forth. There’s basically two approaches for addressing this challenge:

• Approach #1: Make extraordinary efforts to get through to upstream residents that pollution from their community ends up downstream in some famous body of water
• Approach #2: Emphasize the immediate consequences of water pollution, and de-emphasize the famous body of water downstream

Today’s video, suggested by C.K., takes the first approach and does a helluva good job with it. It is almost 100% environmental message method compliant:

• Step One: Begin With Behavior. Check. The ad clearly highlights several steps everyday citizens can take to do their part
• Step Two: Foolproof Photos. Check. I love the shot of the family looking at oil stains on a piece of cardboard. Genius!
• Step Three: Swap the Shoptalk. Check. All swapped.
• Step Four: Insert Words That Work. Half Check. The word “future” is in there, and the piece clearly nails the “what you can do” idea.

So here’s my thought provoking question, though. Is evoking the connection between local behavior and Puget Sound the most effective way to get people to fix their cars, use less fertilizer, and pick up after their dogs? Would it be more powerful to make the connection to the local creek, instead? Like this video below?

So I’ve always thought this “Weed and Feed” TV commercial produced by the city of Austin, TX and the Texas Cooperative Extensions is just terrific. So I was relieved to see the Due Diligence Test Panel agrees with me.

This month, I’m conducting my first round of field trials for the Due Diligence Test Panel. To start, I pulled “Weed and Feed” 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.

As you can see from the attached memo, the DDTP gives the “Weed and Feed” piece above average marks on almost every criteria. And when invited to share their opinions in their own words, they offer praise like this:

• “The piece is put together well. The problem is explained clearly. I like the way the young girl asks the question about the herbicide contained in “weed and feed” and then has the question answered as the piece proceeds. The piece also tells you what you can do to help eliminate the problem (spot weed or pull weeds by hand), which is very helpful in getting people to do something.”
• “The strongest evidence is shown clearly when they discovered this chemical in many major rivers lakes and streams.”
• “It’s great that it uses real people, not celebs.”

Here’s the method rundown:

• Step One: Begin with Behavior. Check — pull weeds and spot treat with small amounts of pesticide, rather than using toxic “weed and feed”
• Step Two: Foolproof Photos. Check — family, faces, babies, the works
• Step Three: Swap the Shoptalk. Check — the only unfamiliar word is “atrazine,” but in this context, it sounds like what it is: a nasty toxic chemical
• Step Four: Insert the Words That Work – they get a half-check here. They use words like “sick” and “toxic,” which imply that avoiding weed and feed is a healthy choice. But they don’t come right out and say that.

Good job, Texans!

Here’s a classic “Foolproof Photo” I grabbed off the website of The Nature Conservancy. It shows how you can use photos to illustrate even relatively un-photogenic activities like voting and donating for clean water. All it takes is a little creativity!

Anybody out there have a recommendation for a “green” t-shirt company?