I am interested in your comments on these ads.
I thought the Tibet Super Bowl ad with Timothy Hutton was just dreadful. I didn’t see the Hurley-deforestation ad until today. File this under “What the heck were they thinking?”
Seriously, Groupon? You really think that comparing deforestation to a Brazilian wax is good marketing?
One good thing did come from the ads — This AdRants headline: “Groupon Trivializes Deforestation With Female Deforestation.”
For those who missed it, here’s the Tibet ad, which actually involves making light of people whose lives and human rights are at risk:
And don’t miss Cuba Gooding Jr. making light of the fate of whales:
The criticism of these ads has been rapid and widespread — see here and the NY Times list of links here:
I doubt Kleiner is thrilled, given that John Doerr is sufficiently concerned about global warming that he wrote an op-ed saying, “We must put a price on carbon and a cap on carbon emissions.”
- Royal Society special issue details ‘hellish vision’ of 7°F (4°C) world — which we may face in the 2060s!
- A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice
One last point: I’m all for humor in a good cause, but these ads aren’t in a good cause. I don’t use Groupon, but I can’t imagine now why I would want to.
UPDATE: Groupon claims this was all just harmless intentional satire designed to raise money for charity (see ABC story here). Nice try. They may have designed these ads to be intentionally satirical, but, as we all know painfully, the intent of the communicator doesn’t really matter in these cases. The response of the viewer does.
You’d think people would know by now that 30 seconds is simply not enough time to do a satirical ad and that if you are going to do a satirical ad you have make very, very clear it is a satire.
Also if Groupon had really been interested in raising money for charity, the ads would not direct you to groupon.com but rather to SaveTheMoney.org. It remains hard for me to believe that Groupon really didn’t know just how controversial (i.e. offensive) they would be.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
The Decider apparently believes in bad press is goooooood press or something flat. From a psychological standpoint it would be interesting to study how consumer awareness might be influenced. It might very well help to bring awareness to the topics in question.
They are all dreadful and tasteless. This is the epitome of mindless consumerism. It is also deeply cynical, implying that actually caring about causes like the rainforest or whales or Tibetans is just too much for the cool kidz, who happily and mindlessly pursue their pleasures, while congratulating themsleves that they are actually aware of some serious problem, even if they can’t nbe moved to do anything about it because they’re too busy being trivial.
I only saw the Tibet ad, and thought it was tasteless. I don’t have a problem with ads that are a bit un-PC, but they at least have to be funny. It was such a self-conscious attempt to be “edgy” that it went OVER the edge…way over into borderline racist territory.
These ads will live on through YouTube, so as deforestation gets worse, Groupon will look worse as well. What were they thinking, indeed.
“I’m all for humor in a good cause, but these ads aren’t in a good cause…”
But they’re not even humorous. They are nauseating, literally. I feel sick. When did it become acceptable to laugh about dying cultures and species and forests?
This is taking denial to new depths. Shame on anyone who took part in the production of these ads. Amazing that so many people complained about the obviously satiric ad “No Pressure!” which was clearly fantasy, whereas, the rain forest, the Tibetan culture, and whales are all REALLY dying out. Along with everything else.
These are carefully thought out and diabolical.
The viewer is permitted to consider the upsetting issue (rainforest, human rights, whales) and then given the payoff association – which is just connect with groupon.cm to handle the issue.
This is a form of greenmail-astroturfing – and a further example of how advertiser supported media will guide mind set away from the issue.
Until the fires and heat and drought and floods command more attention than TV – this is what we will get.
Expect more like this.
I like to think that at least Christopher Guest knew what he was doing. As mocumercials these are terrific. From what I’ve read so far that’s what they asked him to do and he delivered. Why anyone thought they would actually promote Groupon is beyond me. I’ve unsubscribed from their emails.
These ads are obviously distasteful and offensive to people like us, but really they should be that much more offensive to the mindless drones they are aimed at.
It’s like they’re basically telling them, “here you go you vapid blithering morons – here’s a taste of what real issues in this world look like, let’s all pay lip service to them for five seconds and– SAVE $15 DOLLARS ON YOUR CAR INSURANCE!??! CHA-CHING!”
What really matters in life: saving you money so you can go immediately waste it on a bunch of useless crap and keep feeding the beast. Dance monkeys, dance!
From a totally unintended perspective these ads are actually kind of brilliant in a perverse reflection on society kind of way. Hopefully the backlash to them will be big enough that some of the sheep will catch that.
These ads remind me of “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”. Remember the Cow that asks, then pleads to be eaten? — “Watch the End of Everything, while you Enjoy a Good Steak”.
Of course, Douglas Adams had his get-out-of-jail-free card… but we don’t have any time turbines.
I think these ads were really Trial Balloons, floated to gauge the public’s indifference to Suffering, and desensitization to immediate existential threats.
@LP
I wouldn’t call that perverse brilliance completely unintended. Remember, Christopher Guest created these things. It’s a bit like inviting the Sex Pistols to play at your daughter’s 16th birthday party. What did those Groupon managers think was going to happen?
And yeah, distasteful in context. Absolutely. At the same time I keep going back to the meta-context and imagining these in a movie about Super Bowl ads rather than as a Super Bowl ads. That’s when I see Guest at work and being his usual brilliant self.
Maybe we should creat an add that goes something like ” Global warming poses the greatest risk in terms of job losses that the world has ever known. Hundreds of millions of people will loose their jobs, maybe billions and sometimes without warning, but hey, the wealtiest among us may be able to protect themselves and still party in remote locations even without jobs because they’re… the chosen ones.”
It needs a little massaging, but what do youi think?
I wonder if anyone here finds the Coke ads similarly distasteful. Think about it: they’re implying Coke helps unify the world, all while buying up water resources in poor countries and selling the water (with sugar and caffeine added) back to the people who live there for the profit of a foreign company. Water scarcity is surely having the opposite effect on world peace (see India & Pakistan). As has been well documented, foreign “ownership” of that water has caused many conflicts. I guess that wasn’t in-your-face enough for people to get upset about, even though I find it equally distasteful for basically the same reason.
It seems my previous comment didn’t survive moderation. So I’ll try again.
I was fooled as well. Until I heard about the rest of the story.
Visit this site: savethemoney [dot] groupon [dot] com
You will see that the purpose of the ads was to create discussion. And perhaps people would put some of the money they’re saving through Groupon towards more noble causes than spas, restaurants, et.al. Groupon is also matching the donations.
[JR: I don't think the commenters here -- or on the blogosphere -- were 'fooled'. The ads were beyond tasteless. The purpose of the ad was to make money. If they wanted people to donate some of their savings to charity, they should have said so in the ads. Indeed, the ads don't even mention that website, which means that 99.9% of the people who see the ad will see nothing else but the ads.]
It is OK to laugh a little. I only watched the Hurley one. Look, she got thousands on beer drinking guys to think about rain forest destruction for 15 seconds. Maybe we can get her to do a climate change ad. “Extreme weather is not good on your hair! …” Joe, you have a certain audience in mind. That’s fine. But her audience will have to be reached using different methods. Let’s be open minded and creative. The Party that can’t laugh at itself looses.
Joe–maybe sometime when there’s nothing more pressing, you can devote one of your weekend open threads to nominations for those ads/speeches/declarations/books/documentaries that will be among the most embarrassing artifacts once we finally wake up and realize that we’re facing the end of the world as we’ve known it. It would somehow be nice to have them gathered all in one place.
Elizabeth Hurley is tasteful (and tasty) — for the first 13 seconds. After that, it’s about the most tasteless (and senseless) ad I can remember. I guess when they are being edited down for the hugely pricey Superbowl time slots, it’s easy to lose something on the cutting room floor.
Let me amend my conclusion. After seeing the Timothy Hutton ad, I decided this type of non sequitur is Groupon’s schtick for the whole ad campaign.
@EdH
I didn’t realize these ads were made by a member of Spinal Tap, so in that case I retract my statement of “unintended” and say well-played Mr Guest.
However, I still worry that the message is too subversive to get across to the people that need to hear it the most. Those of us who “get it” already get it, while those of us who don’t are probably too busy lining up for their discount bikini wax to notice.
Perhaps the volume on the underlying message behind these ads needs to be turned up to 11? ;)
Chances are, they are after the name recognition, and enjoy the attacks.
After their website name grows in name recognition, they will switch to less edgy ads, likely.
Who knows, it might work for them, commercially.
But not with me.
David Smith: Perhaps one like this, featuring Charlie Koch:
“Global warming poses the greatest threat to human civilization that history has ever known… But by using my Groupon privileges I bought a $98 million retreat with ski run in Antarctica for a mere $49 million.”
@Jim
Although I’m obviously not going to knock anything that raises money for good causes – this still seems like a cop-out to me.
Instead of just raising money to fix problems we should be attacking the underlying causes of those problems.
In this case they’re making fun of the problem to promote the thing that’s causing the problem (mindless consumerism) and then justifying it by saying some portion will go back to fixing the problem.
It would be like a Tobacco company telling everybody to buy more cigarettes because 2% of their profits go towards fighting lung cancer.
Wow. This is beyond tasteless. It is a reflection that so much of our popular culture has become inured and insensitive to the the suffering that ironically they are inflecting on the rest of the planet.
It is enough to despair that any messaging on climate change can penetrate the consciousness of most people or enough to at least motivate them to actually do something. These ad treat human suffering as an abstraction.
Target demographics: those legions of disconnected people who see these ads as funny are some of the types who would band together with 100 others to save a few dollars, but they are not interested in banding together to save the whales or the rain forest or rights of Tibetans. That is a big problem, the millions of people who just don’t care. Witness the decades of SUV sales and beer commercials with beautiful young people trampling the snow covered mountains to catch a football and other nonsensical leisure time fun. Like Cuba said, “It’s more fun to …”
I think one’s reaction comes down to whether you think Groupon is making fun of itself or of the issues.
Groupon’s stated rationale seems dubious: “Since we grew out of a collective action and philanthropy site (ThePoint.com) and ended up selling coupons, we loved the idea of poking fun at ourselves by talking about discounts as a noble cause. So we bought the spots, hired mockumentary expert Christopher Guest to direct them, enlisted some celebrity faux-philanthropists, and plopped down three Groupon ads before, during, and after the biggest American football game in the world.”
Except it’s nowhere evident that they were poking fun at themselves, or making any substantive connection to a noble cause.
Evidently the vast majority of people disliked the ads.
http://emoney.allthingsd.com/20110207/groupon-back-peddles-after-viewers-fail-to-see-the-humor-and-the-compassion-in-their-super-bowl-ads/?mod=ATD_skybox
Groupon Backpedals After Viewers Fail to See the Humor and the Compassion in their Super Bowl Ads
I won’t see the ads because advertising makes me sick. I thank God for the remote control. Once we had havens of ad-free TV here with the ABC and SBS, but business types were installed at SBS by the Howard pathocracy and despite over 90% opposition from SBS viewers, they introduced advertising.
Advertising is possibly, in my opinion at least, the most base of all the excrescences associated with market capitalism. It exists without morality in a one-dimensional universe where psychological manipulation is its prime purpose and rationale for existence. Psychological manipulation to the ends of promoting mindless, robopathic, consumption and making money for the advertisers. It functions, moreover, as a sort of privatised tax on consumers. The means employed, crude lying, distortion, misrepresentation and every type of psychological manipulation, including the fomenting of feelings of personal inadequacy (allegedly alleviated by purchasing the product in question)which is a species of spiritual molestation, and, in regard to children,(who are not spared these tender mercies), child abuse, have been used even in the vilest ends, such as anthropogenic climate change denialism.
That these particular ads were vile, offensive and crass would not be some dreadful mistake. First they no doubt appeal to the Dunning-Krugerite denialist mob, who love to see environmentalism sneered at. I’d say that represents a lot of advertising types as well. Second the furore is good publicity, bring secondary exposure to the ads in question. And third, the sub-species of humanity represented in advertising are notorious for their hyper-inflated sense of their own cleverness and power at manipulating the rabble. Being the centre of attention just feeds their egos, and as morality and a sense of decency and restraint are, by definition, absent in this group, there is no risk of a nagging conscience. I’m afraid that getting steamed up over advertising amorality just further encourages them.
As some earlier comments suggest, the Liz Hurley ad got rainforests on the minds of many guys who otherwise wouldn’t care. Perhaps she can redeem herself by following up with a serious discussion of the issue. If she does she certainly will expand the audience for this critical issue.
urban living IS a little muddled sometimes
These are terrible ads and reflect a deep problem. We are in a world where “I’ll do anything for attention or a ‘hook’” seems to be the prevailing paradigm. I’ll never use Groupon, and this ad agency should be fired, along with the folks in the marketing department (at Groupon) and any execs who actually approved these ads.
This is not only bad taste: It’s harmful.
Jeff
I think negative advertising is better than no advertising. This issue can never be won till it becomes a moral issue. I think these were a step in that direction.
David (@10), Chris (@17),
Good thinking. The real message here is that “serious” global issues are too heavy for Real Americans to waste their beautiful minds on. So we need an ad which starts with Lloyd Blankfein talking about how seriously concerned everybody at Goldman-Sachs is with the persistently sluggish jobs recovery in the United States. Then he can segue to the Groupon that G-S traders used to buy the 2011 Bentley Mulsanne for only $200k apiece.
They are amoral, however, I do think that at the stage were at with people avoiding and ducking and ignoring this issue, the more exposure had will ultimately force the Avoiders to start considering the implications.
This video on why we avoid the issue of Climate Warming is spot on, be it a bit British….he actually predicts that ads like these will be more and more and is a form of denial which helps to keep the truth hidden…
(in part 3)
The Ingenious Ways We Avoid Believing in Climate Change. Part One
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=134979279899689&id=139434822741700
(SPINACH TARTS AND ICE CREAM)
I was shocked by it. We don’t have a TV antenna or cable, so this was my first serious exposure to pop culture in a long time. I was literally left speechless. We have fallen so far so fast and I don’t think people who are steeped in it have even noticed.
It is not OK to make light of deforestation, the people of Tibet are not an appropriate source of humor, and the tragedy of the whales is not funny.
My reaction to all three ads was pretty visceral. They made me ashamed to be human. It’s hard to imagine a more vacuous, cynical approach to marketing.
Fun Fact / Trivia
Groupon is “projecting that the company is on pace to make $1 billion in sales faster than any other business, ever”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupon
AAAAArgh! The f’en ad is talking! In German even! Waschmittelreklame auf climateprogress? Pulease have mercy!
Yes, the ad at the right margin. And I couldn’t stop it.
Sehn Sie sich diesen Fleck an!
Hurley is hot, but I no longer have any respect for her. Groupon sucks, because it’s consumerism BS. Sh*t like this (including the stupid Super Bowl) is why this country is going down and doomed.
Paulm @ 32 – I watched the link, thought provoking. I couldn’t help thinking about the good germans, during WW2, ignoring the reality of what was happening to the Jews & undesirables while living in site of the smoke stacks. Until this moment I had always considered the deniers as behaving in a similar fashion. It strikes me, now, that the comparable group is actually the avoiders; those who understand the gravity of the problem, know they should do something, but instead make believe its not real and act as described in the lecture.
Explode your TV. Do it now.
Maybe it’s time for someone to market motorcycle helmets for TV viewers as a safety device to keep their heads from exploding while watching some denialist BS on Fox. It may take more than multiple head vises these days.
Criminalize Compound Interest
because compound interest is the singular reason that businesspeople feel they have to expand their businesses exponentially in a finite world.
I think it may devalue efforts at balanced information to be perhaps picayune over Hurley’s somewhat snooty ad. Ads are there to sell products; if one doesn’t like ads (or at least the ones that seem more apparently rife with the crasser aspects of in your face commercialism) which in part at least pay for programming, fair enough. But the ad probably brought attention to the Brazilian rainforest issue more than it brought attention away from it, and it did what ads are supposed to do; unless it was seen as stupid, possibly for some of the reasons you mention — but that’s an ad problem, not a rainforest information problem.
The ad, other than Hurley’s features and figure, seems to me to be kind of boring and she was snooty (but then if I remember correctly she teamed up with Hugh Grant in life or movies or something and he is awful)but to make something out of the ad seems like oversensitivity and probably makes it easier by others I think to take more valid points far less seriously as mere “environmental” crying or knee jerk responses.
I could be wrong about the ad, but that’s my take, and I would imagine a lot of people who would like to be concerned about the rapidly dwindling rainforest/carbon sink/species issue but need better information (and reminders) might agree.
I didn’t think the Tibet ad was that much worse, but in a bit poorer taste (but it probably made people remember the advertiser, which was their point). It doesn’t hurt Tibet,and it does bring (minimal) awareness (if slightly to some seen as possibly a tad bit condescending), and moaning about Tibet without doing anything positive doesn’t help anyway. That said, the ad was stupider than the first one. And while Timothy Hutton has a right to do the ads he wants, seriously, was that for money or did he think he was pimping Tibet issue awareness as a fringe benefit here. Harder to support the actor after that stunt.
Harder still to rank on Cuba Gooding, Jerry McGuire’s only client, and one of a “Few Food Men.” But personally, before seeing it I thought the whale ad might be the worst; but after doing so, I disagree that he was making fun of the plight of the whales.
Actually, of the three ads, the whale one was the best, and in a way, whether intentional or not, made a much more profound point. Whales are in a pickle, yet it is easier for us to just ignore the real issues, have fun and watch ‘em play. I thought Gooding delivered that line, and the subtle satirical undertone well. Again whether intentional or not don’t know, but the ad was not mocking whales and their fate, and if anything, mocked us ignoring the problem while appreciating their grandeur and splendor.
FWIW, Elizabet Hurley seems to have some “green cred”:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-greenback-pack-410752.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/7-new-celebrity-products-and-green-pros-and-cons.php
However, she’s not among the “top ten” compiled by this site:
http://ecobites.com/hot-topics/eco-gossip/1193-top-10-green-celebrities
Top 10 green celebs as voted by a poll of 100 entertainment writers…
1. Leonardo DiCaprio
2. Brad Pitt
3. Al Gore
4. Ed Begley Jnr
5. George Clooney
6. Angelina Jolie
7. Bono
8. Darryl Hannah
9. Cameron Diaz
10.Woody Harrelson
The article says Julia Roberts, Morgan Freeman and Willie Nelson are associated with Earth Biofuels.
Dominic Monaghan, Darryl Hannah, Scarlett Johanssen, Robert Redford, Ted Danson, Alexandra Paul, Sting, Pierce Brosnan, Edward Norton, and celebrity chef Jamie Oliver are also mentioned.
It notes that “Scarlett Johanssen shows genuine concern and has used her fame to act as mouthpiece for a number of ethical causes she feels passionate about, particularly women’s rights. She also takes a hard line on those celebs who do boost their profiles with green claims, saying “You’re always going to have people who hop on the bandwagon when something is hip.” Rather vague, but something at least.
I know I’m in the minority, but I thought Groupon was actually trying to raise awareness about an important issue and then pivot to their service.
Great cinematic skill; clever scripting? No. But that doesn’t trivialize the issue … in fact, they say it’s serious ….
To me there’s a difference between tasteless, tacky or crude, and trivial. And it’s an important one.
Typo:
“the combination of Brazilian deforestation and climate change irreparably the rainforest devastates”
When I get a couple of hundred people together (Hurley can’t afford her own Brazilians, whether procedures or employees?) I’m going to boycott whatever Grope-on is.
I’ve been trying to think what to say.
I feel like crying.
That’s how these ads make me feel.
Wow, I’m really surprised about these reactions.
First of all they were directed by Christopher Guest, the King of satire about mindless Consumer Liberalism (where it’s a lifestyle brand instead of a philosophical flame) and celebrity obsession.
[JR: I'm afraid a brilliant director and a brilliant cast doesn't save one from offensiveness, as the "No Pressure" video should have made clear.]
Secondly, as Groupon says, they started out trying to do their crowd sourcing for philanthropy but it never got big and then the instant they moved towards consumer gratification with the same model they became the fastest growing company in history.
[JR: If they had wanted to boost philanthropy (rather than just sales), then their TV ads would have directed people to the philanthropic site not there commercial site.]
And then of course they view it during the most puerile consumerist extravangza known to man, in which sexism, racism, homophobia etc. are used as punchlines in between uplifting messages of “redemption” that we’ll all get along if we buy their products; when in fact a lot of companies are pursuing policies that make this harder (like the Coke example above).
Perhaps it’s because I read their emails but even without knowing these things (and I think it’s blindingly obvious when knowing them) I found it to be really biting satire. It could also be because I’ve been recently watching British forms of satire constantly so I was in that mindset.
Now was it a good ad for Groupon? I dunno, they insulted their entire target customer base as being concern trolling liberals that don’t actually fight for causes because they’re too busy with extreme luxury consumerism which in reality is a huge demographic for them (and a label I could fairly be tarnished with — I’m trying to change this) and also are mocking themselves for selling out. I would say laughing to the bank but they just turned that down.
I read it as a challenge to get off your ass and do something. On the other hand I don’t think it’ll persuade people on the fence to not care about the issues or to actively contribute to destruction when they wouldn’t already, so I don’t see how it could be seen as a negative.
I don’t care if you use Groupon or not, although most of what I’ve seen from them has been community small business oriented and often times it is to learn trades and crafts that will be important for the relocalization that I know a lot of people on this site believe we need to do. I was persuaded to finally learn about glass blowing and metal working because of Groupon deals, which at the very least has enabled me to use the concepts in creating some prototypes.
But I do find all this anger against them to be really misplaced. Whether you think the ad was wise or dumb, it was obviously supposed to be political satire and ever since A Modest Proposal political satire is supposed to piss people off so they are motivated to tackle systemic injustice. I’m not sure what that has to do with Groupon, other than to prove that they’re crazy to run an ad like that during the Super Bowl.
My suggestion for you all is to turn off the telly.
Permanently.
Gosh Gang, Thank you for a moment of sanity in an insane world. You all truly made a s*it day memorable.
I made a point to not watch the Stupor Bowl and am proud to say that I have never subjugated myself to a full serving of the tripe in 69 years of walking this Eaarth, watching the add on the CP link bummed me out for the day. Here we have the Brazil Rain Forest transforming from the lungs of the world to a CO2 emitter before our eyes and all it is remembered for is a beaver wax in a “Groupon” ad. Sweet Jesus. Surely it is the the”Dinner at the end of the universe.” as pointed out above.
But you folks came to the rescue and had me laughing by #8 and ready for the fight again well before the end…
Two Palms Up,
Leif
CP lives…
@Scott, #22: That is a big problem, the millions of people who just don’t care.
I live in a college town in Texas and lots of houses are rented to groups of 3 or 4 college students. There are so many pickup trucks driven by these kids that it is usually easy to spot such houses, even if the places are otherwise well cared for: so many gas hog trucks that the passable part of the street is one lane only. I’m just amazed. Don’t they care that their vehicles get lousy mileage? Don’t they care at all that they collectively suck up huge quantities of imported oil? The answer is no, they just don’t care.
Apparently they worked, since they’re getting all this free distribution.
I signed up just to post the comment below. There were quite a few comments in complaint against the ads.
Your Superbowl ad on Tibetan curry ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycwmYbK0gIQ&feature=player_embedded ) and the Brazilian rainforest ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6rZz1wOtTw&feature=player_embedded ) were abominable.
NEVER, EVER will I patronize you.
I made the mistake of forgetting to mention the whales in my previous post to them an excuse to post on their site once more:
“And concerning my previous statement expressing my disgust about your Tibetan and rainforest ads I forgot to mention your deplorable whale ad.
Cuba Gooding “Someone’s got to save them.” “But it’s more fun watching ‘em jumping, playing.”
Go back to the hell you crawled out of Groupon. It’s because of trash like you that this world is a pile of feces.”
I agree with Bill M. @ 14, and would add a related suggestion:
Do a weekend thread inviting a listing of the other things we could have done to wake up our sleeping leaders and fellow citizens, had we really tried–reacting appropriately to the pain, suffering, and worse that we know lies ahead for millions/billions of people.
Maybe this could spark new ideas toward faster climate progress.
“Amazon drought caused huge CO2 emissions Experts fear it might happen regularly, turning forest into warming source” (which I’ll blog on shortly). That’s a positive feedback that could accelerate us toward 1000 ppm and multiple simultaneous catastrophes:”
I don’t have a clue as to the math but how many parts per million will 8 billion tons of CO2 add up to?
How many gigatons or ppm will the devastation of the entire Amazon forest contribute?
I can’t see the ad right now due to technical problems but, as I understand it’s about (female) deforestation, I just wanted to point out there are two ads by Greenpeace about (fe)male deforestation that I thought were pretty funny.
Here’s one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfwrgnnxHbw
I’m sure those who are interested will find the other one…
Re: Brazilian deforestation
Granted that there has been much deforestation in Brazil, it would nevertheless be fair and a great idea if U.S. media, advertisers and politicians were to stop deluding the population, and themselves, by using Brazil as the bogeyman of deforestation and instead would look at the U.S.’ own record of record deforestation. To get an idea of the gravity of this rarely discussed destruction the Native Forest Council has been putting together an impressive collection of evidence: http://www.forestcouncil.org/mmedia/index.html. I would suggest to take some time to study this carefully and then, please, share it with with your fellow citizens.
I would also recommend anyone to watch the documentary film “Bear Island” by the National Geographic Society, as it depicts massive deforestation, in this case in Alaska, and connects it with the disappearance of brown bears, from >150,000 three hundred years ago to now less than a 1000 in the lower 49 states. That is a >99% destruction, just like what happened to the buffalo and the salmon, and only a hair’s breadth away from the fate of the Eastern elk, the Arizona Jaguar, and the passenger pigeon.
Brazil therefore is, just like hell, not “those others”. Anyone who sees evil and destruction, of the environment and/or human beings, only in other people is most likely to commit it themselves.
The French philosopher and mathematician Pascal once said, “We never commit acts of evil with more “perfection” than when we do it with a good conscience.” I would add, “and with fingers pointing at somebody else.”
References:
1. “A Green History of the World” by Clive Ponting. Penguin Books, 1991. ISBN 0-312-06989-1
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_North_America
Well here is an interesting story in the NYT today. Looks like all that talk about food shortages was wrong; the situation is actually much worse than initially reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/business/global/09food.html?hp
Here is a good news story, in a sort of way.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/climate-scientist-sues-skeptic-for-libel/?hp
In Canada our libel laws make it easier to sue someone.
@38 David Smith: I agree.
What these ads do highlight,though, is the desperate urgency to make the connection between the economy and the environment. At the moment one eats the other and people think thats just “normal”, hell, even quite fun! We need a deep and serious discussion on how we transform the incentives of economic activity to where they will encourage people to live with the planet. If we had a system that vallued living trees as highly as dead timber, we could start making progress.
“First of all they were directed by Christopher Guest, the King of satire about mindless Consumer Liberalism (where it’s a lifestyle brand instead of a philosophical flame) and celebrity obsession.
[JR: I'm afraid a brilliant director and a brilliant cast doesn't save one from offensiveness, as the "No Pressure" video should have made clear.]”
Being purposefully offensive in messaging is a long honored rhetorical tactic that goes back to all the Greek orators that you have skillfully summarized throughout the years. Obviously people can disagree about whether it’s a smart tactic and whether particular uses of it go over the line.
But disagreement about tactics is not what is dominating this thread and others. People seem genuinely outraged toward them on the moral level, as if the people behind the ads are just know-nothing Kochs.
In that context I feel obligated to defend them as their heart is obviously in the right place even if they made a mistake in execution. I agree that the worst mistake about it was not directing people to the savethemoney.org in order for them to learn it was partnering with real charities.
I also think there is a large subconscious attack the messenger element going on because people recognize it is too true. There are few things more offensive than the truth when accepting that truth means you need to move to action; no need to lecture about that to this group!
Telling the truth is will make you a lightning rod and historically the moralists such as Joe have worked to concentrate on the normative (what should be) end while the jesters/satirists worked from the positive (what is).
A moralist without a jester is a scold and a jester without a moralist is a buffoon. So really I’m saying that people should step back and evaluate it from that end and then give constructive criticism if you feel the execution was off, but let’s not have an Execution.
A few comments (comments 38 and 59 stand out as giving credit) show that the tactic worked for a least a few people.
It’s an explicit message, they did the same thing with whales.
This is loutish pretend rebel right-wing crap in ad form:
“Screw ‘Save the Whales!”
“Save the MONEY!” BOOYAH!
“Screw ‘Save the Rain Forest’!”
“Save the MONEY!”
And no, Groupon is about the money. The appeal is basically for stupid people what black humor is for clever people.
Also, cf this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0830/entrepreneurs-groupon-facebook-twitter-next-web-phenom.html
At *best* thepoint.com is “see, the market solves anything worth solving” like the Breakthrough Institute. But it seems more like hype and publicity for Groupon, and Groupon is about the money.
Oh, and did I mention the money?
‘Celeb’ culture sucks! ‘Hip’ cynicism sucks. Monstrously overpaid monstrously cynical celebs suck. Groupon sucks. It’s all just another manifestation of The Malaise.
‘Team 0.5′ at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is apparently the world’s most powerful transmission electron microscope, and yet even if I had several uninterrupted hours of access to it I doubt I could locate my interest in these preening clowns.
Erich Fromm was right – turn your bloody TV off!
I haven’t read everyone’s post yet, but I think what Groupon was trying to do got lost somehow. Check out http://savethemoney.groupon.com/
Here’s text from that page:
Money is one of our most important natural resources. Sadly, thousands of dollars are wasted every year. Until now.
Finally, celebrities are lining up to spread the word about this important fight. Watch the informative videos below to find out how you can help save the money.
If you save so much money that you feel like saving something else, donate to the four mission-driven organizations below. Groupon is matching donations to ensure we can save the money, too. Also, join the discussion.
Having images of the rainforest in the minds of everyone who is watching the Super Bowl is a good thing. Television is such a powerful visual medium — mabye Groupon could have framed things better, but I believe they made a positive difference with these ads.
We need help getting these issues and values deep in the psyche of the American public, and saving money is probably one of the most positive messages we could hook on to.
it would appear that they were trying to actively disgust people about a subject that is normally passed over so that it would be talked about in the tones that it should be talked about.
in that regard, these ads were astonishingly successful… here we are after all. all they did was amplify something that many people do casually every day without thinking. liking writing a letter to complain about deforestation and wood pulp overuse.
tasteless, possibly. but very effective, and very well aimed. and if they do attract people who actually *are* thinking that they should screw the whales/forests/tibetans/etc. then great. they have gotten someone to give money to support a valid cause when they thought they were screwing it.