Trade Tips: Altruism or Publicity Stunt?
By Nicole Hayes
Have you seen a campaign or action that initially appeared altruistic but then wreaked of self-promotion? The following effort may be an example of that, but I'll let you decide.
This past weekend's "Super Soul Sunday" on Oprah's OWN network, aired the documentary "No Impact Man" created by Colin and Michelle Bevan of New York City, as part of a yearlong quest to reduce their carbon and environmental footprint as much as possible. Working off the “reduce, reuse and recycle” model, the Bevan’s went without electricity (six months, including television), took stairs instead of elevators (including access to their fifth floor co-op), bicycled New York’s congested streets (with toddler daughter in tow) for one year. The Bevan family washed their clothes in the bathtub, ate by candlelight and tried alternate means of refrigeration with a Nigerian flower pot idea that wasn’t successful. They eventually requested daily ice cubes from their neighbor's freezer for their cooler, grocery shopped from farmer's markets, used cloth diapers for baby as opposed to disposable—all to reduce their personal waste. Their perceived intent was that their diary of yearlong sacrifice when viewed by the public would spur a movement and behavioral change among individuals—and the promote Colin’s book, No Impact Man. Yes, Colin is an author. Michelle is a senior writer at Business Week.
While the Bevan’s can be applauded for their efforts to change how we treat our environment, understanding their professional backgrounds makes me question whether the message was 100% altruistic. Furthermore, they might have unintentionally defeated their "no impact" effect—by adding to the public’s carbon footprint. The couple landed multiple interviews on national television talk shows—interviews that occurred in television studios using wattages upon wattages of electricity. Studios delivered the Bevan’s interviews to millions of viewers who could only see the "no impact" information via their plugged in televisions and computers. Speeches and workshops could have been conducted in a park, sparing the electricity used by millions. Not only that, their neighbor who gave them daily ice from her freezer, was making her own carbon footprint so the Bevan’s didn’t have to. Does this make sense?
As communications professionals we strive to ensure that our messages, strategies, tactics and outcomes/impact align with our goals.
Was the Bevan’s purpose met or was it simply a publicity stunt?
No comments:
Post a Comment