Well, have you seen the new 'eco friendly' search engine launched this week from Yield Media?

www.ecocho.com.au that claims to 'offsets carbon emissions with no cost to the user.
The search engine is powered by Yahoo! and Google and offsets greenhouse gas emissions by sponsoring the growth of up to two trees for every 1000 searches you make."

Beautifully positioned on the search page is the number of kilos of CO2 and the number of trees. This is equal to 500 Kg per tree. Well done ecocho for planting the trees but where's the amount of CO2 they are generating?

The best data I can see (I have written to them and asked) is 2 trees per 1000 searches. This was on the PR release.

Now is it me or does that seem a massive offset being 1 Kg of CO2 for each search they have to offset?
If that is the case someone stop them immediately!

They have a FAQ asking "How much GHG is being used to run the site " but it is not answered. Their claim to be Carbon neutral is not an answer to this question.

The positioning of this service as an environmentally friendly product and then hiding the actual amount of emissions being generated is wrong. It is also wrong to have displayed under the same FAQ a NO CO2 logo. Where's the ACCC when you need them?

With media commissions becoming virtually non-existent, the two main remuneration models for advertising service providers is either retainers or project fees specified in rate cards.

Some advertisers retain all of the resources they need, others will have no retainer and have a detailed and substantial project rate carte card, while the biggest group will have a combination of some retained services and some services specified in a rate card or project fees.

But which is the best model if any?

Continue reading "Rate cards versus retainers: evaluating the best model for advertising" »

The whole point of offsetting or making yourself carbon neutral is that this is the last thing you do after you have measured and reduced as far as you can.

Then we all get a positive outcome. In advertising one of the best ways to reduce carbon emissions is to do it in a more targeted way or maybe move to another media channel.

The information and advice coming from the various industry bodies is not going give you that switching option.
I cannot imagine hearing a marketing representative for a printer saying ‘Hey, we are emitting way too much carbon, try on-line. We do plant a hell of a lot of tree though’.

While the Federal Government’s hefty carbon trading legislation is hurriedly being carried through the houses of parliament we should all stop and ask the big question:
What effect is it going to have on the life-blood of the nation – advertising?

Well advertising agency executives can all continue to sleep soundly on their futons.

The carbon trading schemes will desperately need their marketing and creative prowess. And Green is the new killer app in our strategic armoury (just watch out for the boys and girls from the ACCC if you tend to wash you greens too rigorously).

So they can continue to run those award-winning ads to ‘save the whale’ while at the same time not paying a price for slowing boiling them alive with the CO2 they emit in the process.

In the Wall Street Journal online today is a report that Wal-Mart is clearly suffering from not ensuring they owned the IP created on their behalf.

A video production company was engaged in the 1970s to video record management meetings at Wal-Mart and until recently have done so until their relationship was terminated.

Now the production company is selling these video tapes to anyone interested in paying for them, exposing Wal-Mart and their executives to often embarrassing disclosure.

Now they are looking for how they can stop this legally. Perhaps they should have taken legal advice when they put the original contract in place with the production company.

Continue reading "Wal-Mart discover the dangers of intellectual property agreements and copyright" »

This morning I was talking to a group from the AMPA (Australian Promotional Marketing Association) about supplier selection, remuneration and collaboration. Being a smallish audience of 20 - 25 people it was a lively and interactive discussion.

These people represent the category of the marketing communications category that is often termed "below the line" and are often seen by "above the line" agencies as an after-thought.

Because of this they are mostly briefed secondary to the creative and media agency and often left to interpret the brand strategy through their discipline.

At one point in the discussion I asked the audience "What are the most important factors for creating a truly collaborative environment where the best of each participant is realised?"

Continue reading "Creating collaborative marketing environments" »

Just for one moment let's assume that a 30 second TV spot that is purchased becomes the advertisers responsibility. Just because the television is on anyway should not mean that it’s only the station network and the viewers who are responsible for the carbon emissions.

A choice has been made to promote the goods and services in this manner therefore one must take ownership of the time and responsibly for the emission.

Let’s pick a random, large rating show: The Biggest Loser.
Good reach and correct demographics.
Where is the measurement of the carbon footprint?
Don’t know?

Well, with the increase in large format plasma TV’s you can bank on having injected around 668 Kg of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the air every time that spot is shown in that show. That’s more than the weight of 5 of the contestants!

So while marketers count their tarps, clicks, hits, position and reach they should also ask ‘who is the biggest loser’

When looking at the world of marketing communications it’s starting to get harder to know if you are doing the 'right thing' by the environment.

Should I specify recycled stock for the brochure or a FSC labeled gloss paper? 
Or even better why not put it on-line or burn to a disk and save the rain forest. 


Here is a statistic to ponder.
A 24-page brochure during its life from chain-saw to the final printed product in your hand will have emitted approximately 25 grams of greenhouse gases into atmosphere.

When burning it to a humble CD or DVD it will have added 350 grams!
That's 14 times the weight of CO2 adding to climate change.