From Media Curves, interesting new research on level of agreement with “we” campaign ad, amongst different age groups:
I have voiced this before, I am not a great fan of this particular ad. The research seems to validate my feelings. It also confirms something else we knew from previous research, that the younger generation is most likely to respond to calls to climate action.
Mark, you are right, the AGW brigade is very active, as evidenced once more by the types and quantity of comments left on the YouTube site for this particular video. I did try to restore a bit of balance by leaving a comment, but that’s only one voice!
Hi Marguerite,
As usual, very helpful and informative post. You must be pretty busy finding all these things.
My quick thought is this: I’ve watched the video clip, seen the early ad, and etc., but I haven’t read any of the research on the ad or the early reports. So, the following thought is “under-informed.” But, that said, I don’t think any single ad (or even campaign) can address all segments or tackle all ills. And, I just got my first glimpse of one of those “we” ads that combine two very different people, and I thought it was very helpful in some ways, i.e., to help address the view that this is just a made-up political issue. The ad combined two people, one from the “left” and one from the “right”.
I’m a bit concerned that one of the many dynamics in our society is an over-focus on criticizing the messenger. Consider: When watching Lord of the Rings, people usually don’t critique (hopefully) Frodo Baggins for being a bit short, or for huffing and puffing as he climbs a steep cliff, or for occasionally making an understandable mistake. So, although I agree that more and (in many cases) better climate change messages are needed, I hope that people aren’t spending a lot of time critiquing “we” rather than celebrating it.
That said, I agree, of course, that a lot can be learned from looking at the detailed research, which I haven’t done. But again, attitudes and viewpoints and barriers are so diverse among the different segments regarding climate change that I doubt that one ad can address all segments.
Cheers.
“although I agree that more and (in many cases) better climate change messages are needed, I hope that people aren’t spending a lot of time critiquing “we” rather than celebrating it.”
That’s a very good point.
“attitudes and viewpoints and barriers are so diverse among the different segments regarding climate change that I doubt that one ad can address all segments.”
That’s also very true.
I never really considered to which demographic this campaign was targeted at. In my earlier criticism on this ad I tried to imagine the reaction of a “median” american viewer, who probably don’t want to get of his couch, and certainly not to fight. For younger people and potential activists, this campaign could certainly be another nudge in the right direction, and a public validation of their concern. “See, mom, it’s really important, it’s like the fight for Human Rights. I want to do this, be a part of this.”
I do think that the follow up they experience on the wecansolveit site is weak. If you feel excited, you want to do something. Something interactive is ideal for that. You want your clicks to be counted, help solving the problem. The more I think about it, the more I see the missing community as a huge lost opportunity. At least they’re collecting emails, so they could launch a community later on.
The peak for the 18-25 year olds is directly after “We need to act, and we need to act now.” That’s Obama/King style. But then the message weakens. They were expecting something better, something more inspiring, more empowering.
Group assignment: From this point, finish this ad in your own words. You may make reference to anything that could have been bought for a million dollars or so (for example, a huge interactive online community). Your goal is to make the purple line go through the roof.
Thanks Meryn. I noticed the same thing. Love your ‘assignment’!
By the way, to the “we” campaign’s credit, they are getting a bit more involved and if you go on their website, they are trying to build a viral campaign, asking people to send link to their site to all their friends, and then promising to reward them with t-shirts, and local leader positions.
What is missing however is a true participative spirit. I feel they are talking at me, not to me. The email I received from them yesterday announcing their next steps was very impersonal and ‘disconnected’. They have failed to engage my heart, and have lost me as potential advocate.
Again, it is important to compare with the Obama campaign.
Dear Meryn,
I like the assignment too.
That said, I’m going to take some poetic license and not think about the assignment in the context of the 30-second spot. In other words, I’m “dreaming” about ways to get the purple line to go off the charts outside of what might be said at the end of this particular spot.
For example, with a $million, . . .
• I agree that a great, and interactive, website and a corresponding viral community would be super.
• Also, it might be a great idea to fund a site or two or three that is/are actually run by the younger generation, i.e., by college folks. In other words, the right, energetic, funded, group of college-age folks could probably do a better job of “connecting” with their generation, and then (on that basis) doing outreach to other constituencies. Put another way, rather than doing it all under the “we” umbrella, how about funding a group of collegians who “get it” and who can help form a large, energetic, interactive, viral thing aimed at moving the mature mainstream mountain? That effort could tie into “we”, of course. But, at this point, I’d rather see the really young generations take greater leadership.
• Also, I’d use some of the money to help fund some of the college-based movements in other ways. For example, I’m sure there are some students, hopefully, at Stanford and Cal and so forth who are concerned about global warming. But, they probably don’t have much more than lunch money to fund or sponsor their events and efforts. With the right seed funding, on the other hand, one or several of those groups might be able to sponsor larger events, perhaps even something like the “Big Green” that (I think) Cal and Stanford should do together.
• Also, FYI, newspapers are having a very tough time these days. The New York Times’s recent results are dismal. I’m afraid that puts them at the “mercy” of big advertisers, even more so than ever. For example, ExxonMobil runs a lot of advertorials in the Times. So, perhaps, the Times may be reluctant to tell its public the complete truth about ExxonMobil, to criticize ExxonMobil, for fear of losing that revenue. (Given the Times’s results, their revenue from ExxonMobil is probably VERY significant.) So, for example, a $million could fund a great print campaign in the Times that could speak out more accurately, more strongly, more humanely, more compellingly, than the Times itself seems to be doing. In other words, for a $million, great messages can be conveyed in the Times that begin to “set straight” the messages that ExxonMobil runs and that generally don’t get covered in the media. It all makes me wonder why people who have such sums of money don’t spend it (yet) on the global warming cause?
Anyhow, those are a few things that could be done to help move purple up.
The key is to do things smartly, of course, and to get the essential messages right.
Great thought-provoking assignment. Thanks!