Branding Biodiversity
post by Axel · 2011-01-09T15:20:42.796Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 9 commentsContents
9 comments
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf
I'm quite interested in seeing if this works. I have sent this to several wildlife-guides and conservationists and will monitor their reactions.
It talks about what emotions drive people to actually do something to protect biodiversity rather then just showing them figures. After looking at what makes a certain brand successful they apply it on biodiversity. Their end conclusion is to remove messages based on extinction as it just makes people apathetic rather then inspire change. Furthermore they propose different ways of conveying "biodiversity is important" for different audiences. Love, fuzzy feelings and "you-can-make-a-difference!" for public changes and financial advantages and concrete action for policy changes. Lastly, the advise to make the message more personal by talking about loving your pets, focusing on local species and anthropomorphise whatever you are talking about.
In short they want to protect biodiversity by making it a brand name and getting people to buy their product (i.e. donate money, etc.)
9 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by David_Gerard · 2011-01-09T21:48:14.295Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yep. More broadly: If you're trying to propagate an idea, then there is no such thing as not marketing - there is only good marketing and bad marketing.
Replies from: Perplexed, None↑ comment by Perplexed · 2011-01-09T22:13:35.412Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
there is only good marketing and bad marketing.
That is one dimension. In another dimension, there is the question of whether the target audience of the marketing is aware of what is being marketed.
What, for example, do the people who have glanced at that PDF brochure think is being marketed there? Is it biodiversity, a strategy for marketing biodiversity, or an advertising agency? Assuming, as I do, that it is the ad agency, I would suggest that this marketing campaign is at least partially a failure, because we here are talking about the strategy rather than about the clever folks who came up with the strategy.
On the other hand, it could be called a success, because discussion of the virtues of a particular advertising agency would not otherwise take place here.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-01-10T05:30:51.599Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I hope you're wrong.
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-01-10T09:21:13.252Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think I'm right to a first approximation at the very least. If you're trying to propagate an idea, you're selling something. This is not intrinsically unethical, though you do have to keep one eye on your ethical compass.
If I were wrong, what would being right look like?
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2011-01-10T13:19:45.068Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I enjoy talking about ideas in small groups, and I enjoy the sensation of being persuaded by a good argument. It's fun for me. When I recognize what's happening it's not fun for me to be marketed to. I hope that these activities have little in common.
Relevant: except in the context of small discussions, it's basically unimportant to me what others believe. I know many or most other users here have different priorities.
Replies from: David_Gerard↑ comment by David_Gerard · 2011-01-10T13:37:46.145Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Trying to convince anyone of anything, on whatever scale, involves selling an idea. At this point, you have marketing, and its effectiveness is measurable. This includes putting no effort into your marketing.
comment by icebrand · 2011-01-09T20:32:06.757Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For me this is in the "not surprising, but important to notice" category. Every kind of activism is a kind of marketing. The branding of important topics like cryonics, rationality, transhumanism, etc. tends to suffer from neglect, or plays out in weird ways that will never go mainstream. This may be due to the way we tend to think about them or the kind of people attracted to them.