Archive for the ‘Critique’ Category

“An investment in our waterways is an investment in our future,” that’s the well crafted closing line for an otherwise puzzling and pointless commercial that the American Waterways Council is spending big bucks to air these days. It’s a refreshing reminder that industry trade associations can as inept at the communications game as we are.

Here’s what I expect the waterways folks were trying to do — build political support in Congress to pump more tax dollars into locks, dams, river dredging, bank hardening, and other nature destroying activities. Their pitch: Less pollution because barges move freight for less fossil fuel.

The pitch is pretty well worded, but without an opportunity for viewers to express their support, it’s just boilerplate. The ad provides no number to call, no petition to sign, no label to look for on a product, nothing. And that means that if people notice the ad, the waterways association won’t know it. And if voters agree with the ad, Congress won’ t know it.

My hunch is that this ad will vanish without a trace, taking a large sum of waterways association dollars along with it. And I’m OK with that!

A fresh environmental issue survey from CNN/Opinion Research finds that a majority of Americans believe that the economy should take precedence over the environment. It wasn’t by a huge number –  a little more than half (51%) picked “economy: and slightly less than half (45%) picked “environment.” The margin of error was 3%.

Pollsters love this question and they’ve been asking variations of it for decades. Here is how the question was worded this time around in this particular environmental issues survey:

With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree — protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, or economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent?

Until recently, majorities of Americans have consistently responded that the environment takes precedence. Sometimes a large majority, sometimes a small one, but always a majority. It was that way for decades. It’s only now, during this brutal, grinding recession, that the economy has inched ahead. And it’s not just this survey, it’s others. Check out recent stories from ABC News and USA Today.

These poll results are disturbing, sure, but I think they are misleading, too.  There’s plenty of evidence out there that everyday citizens actually reject the basic premise of that question. When I sift through my extensive collection of environmental issue surveys, I find plenty of poll questions that explore Americans’ attitudes towards the environment and their wallets in more depth.

I think you can summarize the American public’s general attitude towards the environment and their wallets in three statements:

#1) “Environmental regulations and protection don’t burden the economy much”

As a general matter, when pollsters ask Americans if they truly accept that environmental regulation hurts the economy, the answer is usually “no.”  Here’s one example: In a 2005 study conducted by Yale University, more than 3/4 of those who responded agreed with this statement: “You don’t have to sacrifice environmental protection to get economic growth. The choice between jobs and environment is a false one: we can have both.”

Click the chart to read the complete environmental issues survey

Remember, most Americans work in various service industries now. Only a few of us work in mining, agriculture, commercial fishing, forestry, or other industries where environmental compliance is a daily hassle or expense. The businesses that feel the pinch directly are often very outspoken about it — but that is a minority view.

Statement #2: “Environmental regulations hurt some companies sometimes, but they can be good for the economy, too”

When EPA announced last week that it was cracking down on mountain top removal mining, West Virginia mining interests and politicians thumped the table, squealing about lost jobs and economic ruin. So you might be surprised that just a few years ago, almost half of West Virginians told pollsters they believed environmental protection are often good for the economy, and another quarter said they generally don’t have much impact. Only one in 5 reported that environmental protections were generally bad for the economy — and that’s in coal mining, tree cutting West Virginia.

Click the chart to read the complete environmental issues survey

I think most Americans instinctively understand that people and businesses avoid highly polluted areas, that medical costs associated with pollution-related illnesses are a drag on their families’ economic well-being, and that wasteful, polluting businesses are less competitive in the modern economy.

Statement #3: “Environmental regulations and protections may cause higher taxes”

Americans generally see that protecting the environment is a legitimate responsibility of government, and recognize that this costs money — their money. In a study conducted for Duke University’s Nicholas Institute a few years back, researchers found that voters were much more likely to believe that new environmental regulations and protections would lead to tax increases than to lost jobs.

Click the chart to read the complete environmental issues survey

The real bad news here is that the voters are much more certain that hypothetical new environmental regulations would increase their taxes than they were that these these new regulations would actually clean up the air and water. D’oh!!

So if everyday citizens are skeptical of the basic premise of the “environment vs. economy” poll questions, what do their their answers to those questions tell us? Honestly, I’m not sure. And if everyday citizens are skeptical of the basic premise of this question, why do pollsters keep asking it way, anyway? Again, I’m not sure.

But I think I’m on safe ground here: The economy is a disaster and it has touched us all. Everyday citizens want to see our nation’s leaders focusing their attention on getting the economy fired up and moving forward. But there is no evidence whatsoever that voters blame environmental protections for this recession — or that they believe that cutting existing environmental regulations will produce much economic stimulus, either.

“I can do small things every day that will make an impact on water pollution.”

It’s such a simple statement, and it’s true. So why is it so hard to send a message — over the airwaves, online, or in print — that actually evokes that reaction? Unfortunately, many environmental messages accidentally evoke this sad sack reaction, instead:

“It is hard to believe that the actions of one person can really contribute to lessening water pollution.”

I pulled those quotes from Due Diligence Test Panel reviews of a pair of environmental public service announcements. The spots had a lot in common — both urged everyday citizens to do their part in their daily lives to stop water pollution before it starts. But here’s the key difference — the producers of more successful advertisement crafted their message to encouraging. The producers of the less successful advertisement crafted their message to be educational.

Tennessee Water Works produced the “Heroes” advertisement, which prompted that confident “I can do small things every day” response. Who are the “heroes” this ad is about? People like you and me, who plant trees, recycle their motor oil (instead of dumping it in the drain), and care for their lawns responsibly. In just 30 seconds, the advertisements finds a way to repeatedly encourage the viewers that these people are heroes and their small actions add up to something important. According to the test panel, this message eventually sinks in.

The government of Honolulu produced the “Water for Life” commercial that prompted the second, doubt-filled reaction. This spot is educational — illustrating how trash and pollution find their way into storm drains and out into the ocean that Hawaiians love. It’s true, but it’s grim — bumming the viewers out with shots of murky, polluted water, garbage, and choking wildlife. According to the test audience feedback, viewers see little reason to believe that solutions are within reach, or that they they have a part to play in bringing it about.

Environmental experts are often dismayed at how little the average citizen understands about their work. It’s easy to find yourself falling into the “if only they knew” trap — “If only they knew they lived in a watershed,” “if only they knew the stormdrain went to the creek.” It is our natural tendency to produce commercials, web pages, brochures, and other materials that try to cram a whole of science into a tiny amount of attention.

But the test panel reactions to these commercials underscore the shortcomings of these line of thinking. When it comes to raising environmental awareness, it turns out encouragement is even more important than education.

Click the links below to read the complete feedback reports:

• Environmental Awareness Report, Tennessee’s “Heroes”
• Environmental Awareness Report Hawaii’s “Water for Life”

P.S. I’m showing already-published materials to the Due Diligence Test Panel as part of my pilot test for this forthcoming service. The true purpose of the service is to pre-test and evaluate commercials and other materials before you release them into the wild. Once it launches, I will provide you with your panel feedback in complete confidence.

Here’s a clever ad from England for a folding electrical bicycle. Watch it and note the use of images and subtle psychological techniques to influence your perception of the gadget: The opening shots are other people smiling at the guy riding the bike — the first to smile is an attractive woman. You actually don’t get a good look at the bike yourself until after you have received the message that it will make you popular. That’s deft!

It’s easy to imagine lifting the basic concept for something you are working on: Imagine a commercial of people walking down the street, stopping to look at something, and and smiling (the first to smile is a handsome and apparently eligible male). You wonder what they’re looking at, and then the camera pans over to a house, where a woman is watering her garden with a rainbarrel.

Or try this. A bunch of people are standing in a line. They’re looking off to the side and smiling and nodding at something. The camera pulls back and you see that the people are waiting in line to enter a polling place, and they’re looking at somebody holding a sign that says “Vote for Candidate Jones, the Clean Water Candidate.”

Got any ideas yourself?

Note: I don’t know anything about the bike, just about advertising.