I want to discuss the ‘peak oil‘ video, referred to by Kyle in his comment yesterday. ‘Cassandra Peak Oil’ was released in December 2007 and was viewed 19,814 times. Not bad for ‘peak oil’ . . .
Kyle thinks this is a great example of the smart use of sex to sell green stuff. Is it? While there is no denying that the sex part gets people’s attention, I had my doubts. After all, what is the relevance of sex to peak oil? I put Prad to the test and asked him.
‘Is she trying to distract me?’ was his first reaction. His overall assessment: ‘Most guys who watch it are hoping she will take it all off, so they keep on watching. It was effective. Guys especially would not turn it off. But it’s a bit gimmicky, and too sensationalist.’
I did a quick analysis of the comments on YouTube. Reactions to the video, were mostly positive, two to one versus negative comments. Most people felt Cassandra did an excellent at calling people’s attention, and that she was a ‘smart, hot chick‘. As one commenter put it, ‘SEVEN DEADLY SINS, right on!’ Now ex-governor Spitzer should know . . .
‘Green Porno‘ with Isabella Rossellini, then ‘Cassandra Peak Oil‘, what’s next?
Oh My!
I watched the thing once. So, I didn’t dissect every statement or try to figure out where she might be heading (in terms of her message, that is).
That said, I see at least two problems, and they are both big.
First, it seems to me that this type of thing objectifies women. Does this mean that we should watch pretty women, or sexy women, or women without clothes, or women doing “things”, rather than other women or men, when it comes to getting our information about global warming, peak oil, and energy alternatives? While pretty women dance around on YouTube (or wherever the video came from), relatively old men (who are not very pretty in my view!) are making decisions that put gazillions of tons of carbon dioxide into your atmosphere.
Second, the message is all over the map and misses many key points. She says that “peak oil” is even more important than global warming. Where did she get that?? Resource limits are important, of course, but this video seems to miss some very key points, communicate others out of context, mix priorities, discount the importance of warming, and so forth. It distracts and dis-informs more so than it conveys wisdom and solutions. Of course, if a key part of the eventual message is that we need to develop cleaner energy solutions, quickly and wisely, great. But, in other respects, it seems very off-mark.
Although sexuality attracts attention, valid messages about global warming and about the broader sustainability situation can be conveyed in much better ways. For example, the lady who did the “Story of Stuff” thing did a great job, very creatively, and she didn’t have to dance around or tease.
But, in a vacuum, these types of things will take off. The more creative and humane and accurate and compelling messages and “pieces” need to get out there, and capture attention, otherwise every pretty woman who wants to dance half-naked and who thinks she has a message will be defining the level of public wisdom, at a pretty low level.
Anyhow, that’s my two cents, within the context that I only watched (listened!) once and have not analyzed her every word.
That said, when’s the next one??
Cheers.
I think it’s effective. It also draws a stark contrast between an intelligent, articulate personna and the personna that advertisers (still) think we need before we become engaged. I appreciate good irony along with a good message.
“if you had trouble focusing?”she says — yes i did. distracting and ultimately unnerving, (i must not like pink).
i believe the smart diction and friendly face would have been just as effective for anyone who would watch an energy related video.
the more prurient half of the gimmick could have been used to insert flashes of catchy sentences such as
“peak oil – you peak – you lose”.
both have a place in the current market, separately.
Nadine, you should be a copywriter . . . I love your idea.
Mary, I appreciate your practical side . . .
Jeff, your reaction echoes my initial reaction. The question is, does the end justify the means? And what are the best means? I too, did not appreciate her comment about global warming.
Hmmmm….well, if that was the “peak oil” video I can only imagine what will be in the “invading” video!
And Jeff’s comments (especially at the close) made me laugh.
Marguerite, in my view, the “end” (protecting the climate) could justify a lot, including this, if there weren’t much better alternatives. But, it seems to me that there are many better alternatives. For example, as you know, most advertising on TV (even as far as some of it stoops) nevertheless does not go that “far”, and some of it is still very engaging, fun, and effective. And, the “Story of Stuff” thing was great. So, with all the creative alternatives, having a half-naked dancing girl talk to me about “peak oil” is (even for a 49-year-old, single, ex chemical engineer) just a bit too much! Watching that more than once would turn many people schizophrenic, I think.
After the Spitzer thing this week, and then this, I’m starting to wonder if young dancing girls are going to distract our culture while old bald men behind screens continue to run mega-companies that pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Seriously, another thing that should be at the heart and foundation of any message, of course, is an accurate and healthy message. As far as I could tell, the essence of her message was not very accurate, and it didn’t cover some central points or have its priorities straight.
Now, the recent message from Science Debate 2008 contains a video that “suffers” in terms of execution but contains some very helpful information. Of course, it wouldn’t work as a motivator or as a mainstream message. It’s the opposite of sexy, and it’s the opposite of creative. It’s also the opposite of well-filmed. (But, it’s worth watching.)
Great post, though. And, perhaps, there is a sub-sub-segment that such a video (the peak-oil-dancing-girl) could work for, a sub-sub-segment that possibly could not be reached in any other way.
(I agree with one comment, earlier, that irony or comedy or etc. is often helpful, but this video, as bizarre as it was, seemed to take itself seriously both in terms of message and execution. I didn’t get the feeling that the lady in the video was poking fun at herself or at her genre, as Colbert pokes fun at himself on TV.)
I did not say that I thought using sex to sell was a good idea, or moral, or that it would not objectify women. Nor did I say that I agreed with every word she said – but that’s irrelevant, since there are lots of people who don’t shake their bum at a camera with whom I disagree.
I simply said that “sex sells”. It gets attention. Her YouTube has more hits than my blog. LBJ said, “once you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Now, when he said “balls” he meant “fear”, but we could take it as something else…
It also seemed relevant since we were discussing “hot ecoheroes” in the Shell Oil post. Unfortunately most of the leading peak oil people are middle-aged white professional males with pot bellies, and most of the leading climate change people are middle-aged white academic males with pot bellies and beards. That’s not going to make any woman slide off her seat in excitement.
The YouTube got our attention, and speaking as a male I can honestly say that we’re able to ogle a woman at the same time as listening to her, we’re very good at multi-tasking when one of the tasks is “ogling”.
Certainly it objectifies women, but it’s not like that’s anything new around here, is it?
I dunno, it’s not an approach I’d take, I think if you work on people’s minds you get less people interested, but at least they stay interested; if you appeal to their groins, lost of them are extremely interested today but forget it by tomorrow. I think it’s more effective to go for the lasting change.
On the other hand, her YouTube does have a lot of hits on it. What’d be interesting to know is how many of those hits turned into hits on her webpage.
Well said, Kyle. The word that keeps coming up for me is ‘practical’.
If a video like the one featured here, can catch the attention of even one person and make a lasting impression on that person, then it is worthwhile. Even transient impressions are worth going for, in my opinion. Think about the times when you attended a lecture, ‘forgot’ about it, and then, one day, something the teacher said surfaces again, and all of a sudden it makes sense to you.
Also there is room for many different types of communications, aimed at different types of audiences. As people trying to bring change in others’ behaviors, my feeling is, that it is important to figure out what fits us best personally. I would never do a Cassandra like video. It is just not me, even if I were twenty years younger. But I am very comfortable blogging away, and greendropping on other blogs.
Likewise, it is important to think about what is most likely to move the audiences we want to go after. Middle age white males are known to not be indifferent to young women teasing them with their bodies. That is a stereotype, I know, but there is all kind of data to prove it. If these guys are the ones making the decisions at the big oil companies, and in government, then why not sprinkle a bit of sex here and there. The acid test should be, is what I am putting out there relevant to the message that I am trying to communicate? Hence my initial hesitation with the Cassandra video. My main question was about relevance, which in my mind was very tenuous, at least the way the video is executed. This is why Nadine’s creative suggestion would make the video so much better.
I’ve been thinking about this overnight, unsure exactly what my opinion really is, but quite sure that it makes me uneasy somehow.
I think the bottom line is that what is missing in too many cases in the whole environmental debate is real substance together with clear messages and proposals on alternatives.
Messages like this will only create short term awareness and are unlikely to move things onwards. We need to move beyond simple ’selling’ on an idea and find creative ways to enforce ‘commitment’ to a principle.
Wow…ummm…wow! I think I would have learned a lot more in college if lessons were taught like this. I don’t have many other comments that weren’t already said. Peak oil is definitely a problem that most people aren’t talking about.
I need meditate or something to slow my heart rate back down
-Jason
http://www.screamtobegreen.com
Marguerite, I think a key point is “relevance”, as you mentioned. Or, another word is “fit.” Does the method have anything to do with the message?
Awhile back, I was a chemical engineer. Awhile back, I also worked for Chevron. And, I’m a middle-aged male (although I often feel much younger, and other times much older).
So, having genes and experience (in my education and in the oil industry) that should make the message-and-method of this video “fit” together for me, that is, that should (in theory) allow the two halves of the video to “fit” together, I can say (in my view anyhow) that they don’t fit together at all. That’s why I mentioned schizophrenia in one of my earlier messages. The video was actually a bit hard and awkward to watch. Peak oil and dancing girls are very different subjects, of course. And, although I’m not a brain scientist, they probably activate very different parts of the brain. I felt like I was getting bombarded from two very different sides. It was somewhat like the feeling a good parent gets when she/he is in the middle of doing something but, at the same time, her/his young child wants attention. You can’t play Scrabble with your child, or read him a bedtime story, and watch “Network” or “1984” or a Kubrick film at the same time.
There’s also the question of losing credibility. If too many distractions are used, in ways that go a bit too “far” or are a bit too “cheap”, to communicate a credible and important message, those means can cast doubt on the message to other audiences. Some audiences may wonder, “if the Earth’s climate is really warming, and if humans are a key cause, why do the people who believe that, and who fund those messages, need to use dancing girls to convey the message?” So, in some ways, if you have to go too “far” in targeting one small subsegment, there’s a risk that you’ll cast doubt in, or begin to alienate, other much larger segments. I don’t know for sure, but it’s a thought.
In terms of using some female or romantic attraction as a context for communications that carry accurate and compelling, and effective, messages, there are probably ways to accomplish a compelling fit between means and message. In fact, there are probably many. But, I think they would involve “means” and “message” working much more closely together, complementing each other, or at least having something to do with each other. An effective execution would probably not involve the schizophrenic feel that I mentioned earlier. Unless it were intended to be comedic, getting its message across much like Colbert. So, perhaps, there would be comedic ways to do something like this, and there would also be engaging ways that involve a better “fit” between means and message, but this particular video didn’t have the “fit” and wasn’t trying to be comedic, as far as I can tell.
FYI, I just saw on one of the news websites that the young lady (a singer) who worked with Spitzer has now released a single.
Happy Sunday.
Mark, you are right. When evaluating ads, there are two key dimensions. First one is recall of the brand name, in this case ‘peak oil’, which I am betting works in this case. Second one is persuasion, i.e. the ability to persuade people to buy the product, here to convince people of the urgency of the problem. In the case of the climate fight, we would need to add a third one, ’sustained action’, or commitment, to use your word.
Jeff, thanks for your personal feedback. It is worth a lot. The schizophrenic phenomenon, and the credibility issue, both came up in several of the comments on You Tube. My main problem with the video was the laziness with which it was executed creatively. She took one potentially good idea but failed to successfully integrate the two parts. Contrast with the Shell video, where they did a good job of weaving the sex/romance teaser into their selling proposition.
Jason I loved your last post on freeganism! Everyone, go check it out.
Mark and Jeff, I think that at this stage “short-term awareness” would be an advance on what we have, which is “no awareness.” That’s why the message being superficial, or superficially presented, doesn’t matter. It’s not a doctoral thesis, it’s a slap across the face, “listen up!”
For peak oil we’re about where we were for climate change in 1990: the general population is unaware of it, if aware of it doubts it, and if aware and believing denies that they can or should do anything.
If we’re speaking in marketing terms, the very first thing you have to do in marketing is make people aware your product even exists. So while I’m not sure about this particular little advert, I think it’s fair to try just to get the basic idea across. A YouTube thing is not a book or series of articles, it’s just something short and entertaining. The message is shaped by the medium.
Marguerite, be fair, Shell probably spent quite literally millions dollars on their thing – at least one actor, camera, sound-guy, etc, flown around the world, post-production editing, and so on. And she’s just one woman with a digital camera who knows how to shake her thing. So of course their stuff is better.
Marguerite, I agree completely with your point about execution. Given human creativity, I think there is a way (probably several, or many) to do an engaging and compelling piece that combines the context and attractiveness of sexuality with an accurate message in a way that is compelling. Probably very good (and valid) pieces of communication could be done in a tasteful way that would fit with the needs or patterns of certain segments.
This lady had a script, some attractiveness, some undies, and the means to do a simple split frame. She probably didn’t have much of a production budget, if any. She didn’t meld the means and message together, creatively. But, it certainly could be done.
As you know, the power of creativity is amazing. It’s shocking to see how little creativity is used in some areas (some news coverage, for example) relative to the creativity that often appears in some artistic works, or ads, or late-night TV, or whatever. I don’t say this to knock the lady in the video. In some ways, the video shows a lot of creativity. But, so did the invention of the very first stone wheel. My point is that more creativity could make this sort of concept more effective and less schizophrenic.
I see so much creativity in many ads these days. Why don’t more of those people put their creativity to work trying to protect the planet and its climate? I love the lemming ad. I love many of the Apple ads. And some others. And, as I mentioned earlier, the “Story of Stuff” thing was very creative and well-done.
That’s it for now. Cheers.
Story of Stuff, vs, Cassandra Peak Oil. Some interesting YouTube data:
Story of Stuff: added December 3, 2007, 103,403 views, in ‘News&Politics’, tagged: Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard, Free Range, Sustainability, consumption, environment, meatrix
Cassandra Peak Oil: added December 23, 2007, 20,148 views, in ‘Education’, tagged: peak oil, energy crisis, solar, green, Matt Simmons, Heinberg, peakoil, global warming, sex, strip, Ron Paul, Mike Ruppert, 911
Story of Stuff comes ahead. It may be in part because environment and sustainability are more into the public consciousness than peak oil.
humm…
First there is no consensus as to when we will reach peak oil.
Even if we reached the end of the extraction of the easier to reach and extract oil reserves, the increase in the price of oil make the extraction of more difficult to extract or less desirable oil reserves economically feasible. And there lots of that kind of reserves. And I am not giving any consideration to the enormous reserves of coals that are all around the planet.
I do not think that the intent of this smart video is to scare us about “peak oil”. I think the key message of the video is to move main stream consumers to get off the consume and throw away band wagon and toward living a simpler life.
I buy that.
Jacques
Jacques’ message wisely but unfortunately prompts me to reconsider whether I should watch the video one more time in order to re-evaluate what its main point was. In fairness, all things considered, that’s probably what I should do. Oh well.
You’ve inspired me once again. I’ve just written a post on the subject of the need for behavioral change in approaching climate change. That’s two posts I now owe to you!!
http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/03/16/more-taxes-
darling/
[...] 19, 2008 by lamarguerite Not as sexy as Cassandra’s video, but just as, if not even more informative, is the new documentary; ‘Peak Oil – [...]
I just turn down the volume after a few minutes. : )
Randy, Lawns to Gardens
[...] Scenarios is impressive by the depth of its thinking regarding the long term implications of peak oil and climate change. Most importantly, “Scenario planning allows us to use stories about the [...]
[...] not as popular as Cassandra’s, or at least not yet, but a lot better in my opinion. Kris shows us that humor and sex can [...]
quibblers: it’s an awareness generating tool aimed at numbers not academic rigor. And in light of the subject matter, concerns over the objectification of women are patently absurd. Idealism is fine for a philosophical discourse, but whatever your end of civilization pecking order is, we can all agree that viral awareness campaigns are desperately needed. Cross your t’s and dot your i’s from books and more scholarly treatment.