The New York Times got hold a draft report by a nonprofit "environmental marketing firm" that recommends using better spin to win people over on this whole global warming thing. The Times reports:
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about "our deteriorating atmosphere." Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past." Don't confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like "cap and cash back" or "pollution reduction refund."...
In fact, the group's surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term "the environment" and talk about "the air we breathe, the water our children drink."
I can hear every good PR expert in the world groaning at this.
Put aside the fact that this calculated euphemism insults Americans who know what "environment" means. You're still left with several risks.
One: You're taking a bus to get to the same point. Instead of referring to global warming, you're saying that, no, the real problem is our deteriorating atmosphere, which is the result of greenhouse gas emissions that in turn cause global warming. Flack rhetoric makes things less clear, not more.
Two: You're hurting your cause. Global warming is a literal concept, proven by literal events and research. "Our deteriorating atmosphere" is bad packaging, like something out of Hollywood's current preoccupation with end-of-the-world movies. They're great special effects, but everybody knows they're pretend.
Three: You act like your spin exists in a vacuum. Huge mistake. If your research shows that people are uncomfortable with the word environment, then your opposition will find ways to say environmentalists twenty times a minute. Thirty times a minute if they're Rush Limbaugh.
Four: If you give up "environment," you'll need even more doublespeak to label what you do.What... You're going to start referring to people as Our Deteriorating Atmosphere Solutions Providers?
. . . . . . . . . .
Recent Comments