The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

One thing I noticed is that Singaporeans/Malaysians tend to be less altruistic when it comes to green issues. To advertise for eco-friendly products you would need to list an end benefit for the consumer. Where else in America there’s this whole sermon crap about “We help the environment!!!! Inconvenient truth anyone? help the little children!! Tree hug!”

maybe they’re going for the guilt factor – guilt about ‘family responsibilities’ and guilt about environmental negligence, all in the one ad – is the ad placed after a particularly saucy bunch of tarts?
failing that – yeah, almost but not quite.

The man is a machine indeed.

For the majority of Asians [excluding well-educated, middle class/affluent city dwellers] there are generally far more important things on the agenda, such as putting food on the table and saving money for the kids education. Even amongst the affluent, I find eco-friendliness to be accepted only at “low impact levels” such as skipping the plastic bag, for example. But when eco-friendly behaviour means sacrificing either convenience or money [however little], the Asian consumer is not ready to go as far as his/her European equivalent. Yes, I know I am generelising massively here.

Although the situation is slightly better in the US, every time I go there, I literally find it light years behind leading European countries and I hope Al Gore will be able make a difference at home. The man gave a very well written Nobel peace prize acceptance speech yesterday in Oslo. I was impressed by his rhetoric and his criticism of his own country and China.

Very odd placement there. Unless it is going for disruption or as Charles mentions, guilt; then I don’t know what they were doing…

“Disruption” is seemingly being used as justification for all manner of bad ideas these days. Unless the message, tone or medium has some relevance to the intended audience then you’re basically embarking on commercial masturbation, ie: just screwing yourself 🙂

(Sorry for that, I heard it years ago and have been looking for an excuse to use it ever since)

Maybe the owners of FHM also own Ecoverve? Eitherway, the opportunity to get their message across in a relevant yet interesting manner was there for the taking and yet they wimped out. What if all the pages around the ad were blank except for a little message saying “This page is now clean and pure thanks to Ecoverve” or maybe all the scantily clad models could of been “overdressed” with the same message appearing. Just thoughts which I’m sure Andy will destroy but this ad could of been made to work rather than stick out for all the wrong reasons.

The mindset of the reader is set by the content of the magazine and their decision to read it, you’re not going to change that in the space of a single page that the “reader” will be flicking past looking for the real content. It’s the wrong place to advertise and is another example of media buying guided by demogaphic statistics that are just counting the numbers and socio-economic backgrounds of the readers and not their engagement or willingness for it to be interrupted by something completely different to their interest at that time.

And George is absolutely right about disruption – Christensen’s disruption is that which completely turns an industry on its head, not somethign that makes a little noise and is then ignored.

alright, its quite a nice idea. you can stop fucking whining now. 🙂

Not bad George,not bad at all. If Andy can grudgingly admit that it must be pretty good…

its not that fucking good np, its just good for a planner 🙂

and congrats on whatever the fuck it is youre doing, just remember your place in
the carefully managed agency hierarchy.

bleach marcus? what about crude fucking oil which we can then pour down the throats of every eco hypocrite. youre not going soft on me are you brown?

thats alright then

Oh I know my place alright.