We’re closing for the climate strike tomorrow because our industry is partly to blame
The Republic of Everyone and The Bravery are closing tomorrow to join the climate strike. It will impact profits, yes, but more importantly, it will signal that our industry cares about the planet despite selling things that make it worse. Quite simply, it’s the right thing to do, explain Ben Peacock, Claire Maloney and Scott Matyus-Flynn.
Tomorrow, our agencies will be closing for the day to allow our teams to join the climate strike. When we made the decision to do this, we didn’t think about it too much. Since then, we’ve been surprised about a lot of the conversation it’s created. So, let us explain.
It was a no-brainer for us. We help brands find their purpose; we need to do so too. Our clients are also closing for the day: Ben & Jerry’s, Unilever, and Patagonia. Yet, when our people asked if they were free to join the march, they did so rather gingerly. We were taken aback they thought they’d even have to ask.
Weapons-grade stupidity and peak virtue-signalling.
A shining example of everything that’s wrong with corporate Australia.
Congrats.
yep
“Weapons-grade stupidity!” Gold Robbo.
Isn’t this response just Iniquity Signalling?
That’s peak lazy commenting Robbo. How exactly is it “virtue signalling?”
Hi, given that our agencies are specialist in social and environmental cause and purpose marketing I’m not sure how this can be virtual signalling? It’s actually core business for us.
I do assume from your comment though that you probably come from the climate denier camp, so understand your dislike for business taking a stand when it is in conflict with what you believe in. I wonder how you would feel if it was supporting a cause you do believe in?
There is no such thing as “climate denier” – no one denies climate! Some people deny mans impact on the climate. But, that’s a very different thing! Also, about your clients joining in – well I have just been to my supermarket to check and there is Ben & Jerry’s on sale everywhere in freezers run on CO2 spewing electric supplies and Unilever products in non-recyclable plastic bottles all over the place. So, exactly how are your clients “closing for the day”?
Dear Ben
Advertising encourages consumption. Lots of consumption.
You encourage consumption.
You do it for Unilever. You do it for Aldi.
Your work might be well-meaning, but you still make money by encouraging consumption when consumption is the problem.
Some might say, your hiding under the halo of ‘goodness’ is more destructive and deceitful those whom you rage against.
So please, make your stand against whatever it is you feel so outraged by, but remember to allocate some time to work on your hypocrisy as well.
@Dear Ben
As stated in other posts, have you looked at the work we do?
Every project ROE works on has some social or environmental benefit. So yes, we work with Unilever and Aldi and other big brands, but we help them to move towards better sustainable actions.
If we convince people to switch to a more sustainable product, that makes a positive difference, and we are always careful to promote sustainable consumption rather than consumption for the hell of it.
I can see how in this industry people expect any statements like this to be false and greenwashing – but this is simply not the case here. Clients come to us because we walk the talk, and that’s exactly what we are doing tomorrow – recycled cardboard signs and all.
You don’t get it.
You help drive consumption.
Consumption for products no-one needs.
You are part of the problem.
Like the Aldi 6 pack of family toothbrushes all encased in plastic!
Or Good Fish by Olive Green Foods. ‘Real fish caught by real fisherman’ [now there’s a claim]. Lots of claims but no proof or guarantee of the fish being Responsibly sourced.
Or Country Road? Did you suggest a campaign to stop selling garments made for paltry wages in the sub-continent? Did you suggest a campaign to tell their customers about the amount of water needed to grow the cotton used to make the garments? Did you suggest a campaign to tell people to stop buying clothes they don’t need? Doesn’t look like it. Looks like you asked CR to spend money on lots of green plastic balloons, oversized green plastic glasses and various other ‘better for the environment’ sales promo stuff top for your #discovertheheart employee engagement program.
But wait, it gets better – you did all that [and more – like printed brochures that had to be printed, transported using horrible electricity] to help ‘CR become the most sustainable retailer in the Southern Hemisphere.’
If it wasn’t so sad, it’d be laughable.
While there may be no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism we should still be applauding steps in the right direction. No small part of that is participating in the public discourse, and encouraging individuals to act on their values.
You seem to have made peace with the ship going down, but I am unsure why you lash out at those who want to contribute in some way.
So what do you suggest that they do? Or are you suggesting that anyone in advertising is inherently part of the problem and therefore everyone should stop advertising altogether?
ROE Employee,
The smug and hypocritical platitudes are noted with the rest of the non-voting children marching. ROE contribute to the problem. Deal with it.
Actually what we do is encourage people to shift their consumption to brands and products away from those companies doing nothing to those that are seeking to reduce the negative impact of that consumption and/or deploy some of the profits of that consumption to social and environmental causes. I am fine if the brands and companies increase market share at the expense of those that do not.
Ben,
If your credibility can be salvaged, can you demonstrate you are shifting consumption and more importantly, demonstrate the companies you take money from to advertise minimize environmental impacts?
If you cannot, I call Bullshit on the platitudes demonstrated in this thread.
Hi Wolf, yes, but you can go and Google that yourself. Go and read their sustainability reports. Also, you are quite aggressive so may I ask you comment as yourself rather than hiding behind being anonymous, which really is just another word for gutless.
A suitable response from a school child but Ben, can your reasonably expect educated adults to believe what is presented on Google.
That’s like saying we all believe what Google Analytics or Facebook present in regard to marketing reach…
Wolf, you’ve missed my point. The companies we work for present their environmental and social impacts and improvements through annual satiability reports. You asked for proof they minimise impacts, I’m suggesting you use Google to find those reports. I’m also suggesting that due to the personal nature of your comments you do so publicly as a person, not hiding behind an anonymous handle.
*sustainability reports…autocorrect!
Ben, I have reviewed the Unilever 2018 Sustainability Report Summary:
https://www.unilever.com/Images/uslp-performance-summary-2018_tcm244-536032_en.pdf.
It states since the GHG impact per customer has INCREASED 6%?
The report talks about goals and aim however few have ASSURED (not even sure if auditable) by PwC to which they state “Selected Information subject to limited assurance procedures set our below” – Waste, Fairness, Opportunity for Women, Water Usage, Energy and GHG Emissions, Waste, Occupational Safety.
https://www.unilever.com/Images/unilever-sustainability-ara-assurance-report-6-march-2019_tcm244-534888_en.pdf
I will be honest, I find your argument to be on very shaky ground. The authenticity of the “Sustainability Reports” which are Selectively Reviewed by PWC wholly dependent upon the corporate entity to supply in-audited information???
I call Bullshit on the “Marketing Sustainability Report” and Bullshit on your statement that work is bid and completed on ethically sustainability corporations. Bullshit.
Hi Wolf, I’ll repost my comments from below here as they cover this. Also, I’ll close off my conversation here. If you wish to pursue it further, please reveal your identity so its clear that you are prepared to publicly stand by your attacks and comments and so any professional interests in why you have spent so much time on this thread are revealed.
— Reposted from my comment below —
Most of all, in response to the comments that suggest that either we are hypocrites for working with clients at all or that unless something is perfect, it isn’t good enough, I would simply say that if you let perfect be the enemy of better, we never go anywhere. No company we work with is perfect, but the people we work with in them are trying new things to be better then presenting them broadly within the company to show that positive change creates positive impact for the company – financially and in other ways. And it’s working. This is how change happens…you start with small things, prove the possibility, then grow the appetite and the ambition.
No company making effort in this space purports to be perfect. But they do seek incremental improvement and that’s what we need. Winning starts with beginning.
So if your criticism is that we or our clients are not doing enough and need to do more, good on you, but please first acknowledge the work that is being done. However, if your criticism is that anyone who isn’t perfect doesn’t have the right to make comment, then the question becomes what efforts are you making and so, what right do you to have to make comment either?
Ben, my name is Robert Paulson.
His name is Robert Paulson.
C’mon now Wolf, you just broke the first rule of Fight Club.
Ben, the first rule of fight club is YOU do not talk about fight club.
The first rule of Advertising is, if you do your job well, consumers won’t notice your effort at all.
Your whole premise in this tread that you move the consumer to a more environmentally sustainable product which you can’t objectively prove. Still calling Bullshit.
Second of all, protesting with children does nothing for your brand and image. It is lazy empathy. Climate is constantly changing. Large asteroids struck earth, nuclear winter followed and somehow life survived. Spare us the empty platitudes please. Focus on your product.
And the first rule of commenting is that if you stand by your comments, you put your name to them. You know how when you go to a conference, the first thing you do before asking a question or saying something is state your name and where your from? Kinda like that. If you haven’t got the conviction to put your name to your own comments what does that say about them?
You have is a handle out of Pulp Fiction and a response out of Fight Club, which says what kind of character you think you are while all the while sticking to being anonymous. Anonymous is gutless, pretty much everything those characters aren’t. You’re on a professional forum…be professional or stick to YouTube comments.
Hello Ben,
Your desire to “know” who Wolf “really” is doesn’t excuse you from justifying your stance and certainly doesn’t excuse your insulting him/her to avoid responding to his/her very legitimate points.
One might call you gutless in your futile attempt to distract.
Ben Peacock how would you treat one of your workers that simply didn’t go in for all this climate catastrophising and simply just wanted to.. well do is job that day. Would he be ostracized?
No one was told they had to attend, people were given the day to attend if they chose.
Ben
The opposite of a client denier is a new age Marxist.
After 500 million years and surviving not one but two ice ages, the planet is dying?
Give me a break.
Kiddies, time to snuggle up to your comfort puppy and have a mutual whimper.
Yep the planet will save itself. By killing off humans.
Nice one Robbo. Laughing my tits off mate.
Last time I checked, a strike is a refusal to work. But you’re acknowledging your people ‘know the work will still need to get done, and that means doing it around the climate strikes’ – so you’re not really enabling them to strike. You’re expecting them to change their work hours, keep up with the output and demands from clients and still deliver.
Hi, good point and please let us clarify. Firstly, you are right, it’s not a strike, though we use that wording as it is how Friday is being described. It’s actually giving our people the freedom to attend a rally if they choose. Secondly, we are not asking people to work extra hours to make up for time, we built the day into our planning and time lining of client jobs like we would a public holiday. I do appreciate that the way we worded the article does suggest what you are saying go, so good pick up, thanks.
What a crock. I guess there aren’t many “quiet Australians” working at those agencies. Hopefully agencies across the major polluting countries also go on strike to ensure some tangible action is taken on climate change.
Nothing infuriates me more than the old “We’re not one of the main polluters” argument that gets trotted out every time Australians try to do something about climate change… I don’t create as much rubbish as the guy down the road, so by this logic I can litter as much as I want as long as he’s putting his in the bin? Come on.
this point is worth exploring – sure, we can’t just say “the other guys are worse than us, so we don’t need to worry”. BUT exactly how far do we go down this path, to our own detriment in terms of lifestyle, increased cost of living etc, knowing that what we do will impact the climate to the tune of a big fat zero?
Do we hope that we are simply setting a good example to the rest of the world? Which is fine, as long as we admit the truth. How much value in setting an example vs the impact on our way of life? People in Australia need to understand the context of this behaviour change that activists are demanding and also the point of it all if we can’t do the heavy lifting on our own.
It’s a tough one – if everyone knows that anything we do does nothing at all to improve the world, what is the (non-shouty and logical) response to arguing about the validity of doing it?
So much space dedicated to virtue signalling.
Seems like you can be a bit partial to some virtuous moments yourself. Here you are giving oxygen to your opinion about which chronic disease deserves more attention than others and in a really nice way too…
https://twitter.com/GrahamWebster2/status/1117310703415615488
Nice to see your comment above. I think you missed the point.
Please see my comment above. Sustainability is our core business, so I’m not sure how this can be virtual signalling. ‘Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values’. that’s wearing the T-shirt whiteout backing it up with action, in my boo.
We live what we do everyday and it is far more important that we show up and show support for a better response on climate action than it is to be seen to be there. We wrote this article on request to encourage others to do so, not to in any way signal.
For anyone not up on the lingo: ‘virtue signalling’ is when somebody does something good, and has the audacity to do it publicly.*
*Does not apply when the signaller is conservative.
The term “virtue signalling” has a biblical equivalent. Christ called them “oh ye hypocrites.” He was talking about those that Prayed and raised their hands in the streets and carried on so everyone could see how pious they were. Jesus wisely suggested that they prey in cupboards. Similarly American Indians when they gave a gift they would leave it quietly outside the recipient’s tent not acknowledging who left it.
Yeah how dare people in the communications business communicate the things they stand for at a moral and business level.
That’s quite a lecture.
If you really believe that our industry is a force for evil, as you appear to, then you should down tools and lock up for good: you’re in the wrong industry.
I applaud the strike, it keeps climate change top of mind but, for goodness sake, don’t pillory the communications industry for being an accomplice in crimes against humanity. By your criteria, tell me one industry that isn’t.
If you look at what we do you will find we did leave the mainstream of the industry to start agencies that focus only on better products and helping brands do what they do better. Not everything agencies do is bad at all, but surely it is hard to argue that a lot of the impact is ignored.
I love the smell of virtue signalling in the morning.
Hope you enjoyed it along with a fairtrade coffee (no milk) in your reusable cup https://www.dailydot.com/via/virtue-signaling-social-media/
I do think whenever I see this stuff there’s more tangible ways to tackle this.
Is the business buying from renewable energy sources (which are higher cost?
Enforcing keep cups with staff?
Switching off lights?
Minimising the use of air conditioning or buying better insulation?
Carbon offsetting every flight?
Climate change does feel a bit like mental health at the moment — it is great to talk lots about it and days like this are important, but it is the bits in the middle that drive real behaviour change.
The answer to all of the above is yes, all of those things are important – and ROE does all of those things and more.
But given some of the largest businesses in Australia are saying that climate change is one of, if not their biggest, business risks – it’s in the interests of everybody to be taking a stand.
I’ve heard this one before, about how business is apparently interested in addressing climate change…..
….funny how they keep funding the Coalition’s election campaigns innit?
@line. True – there is hypocrisy and it’s certainly not a golden rule. But I’d think most that are signed up to Business Not As Usual (i.e. businesses campaign to strike) don’t fund the coalition, and we know with some assurance the ones that we currently work with don’t fund it.
Everyone above has nailed all the points I was going to make.
Mumbrella, can you please ask these phonies to pen another article when they drop these climate change inducing companies from their books? OK. Thanks.
Hi Sam, like a lot of commenters above, you don’t seem to have looked into what we do at all before making your comment. We only work with companies who have built around trying to deliver a better product with better impact (for example Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s) as well as companies who are seeking ways to do what they do while either reducing their negative impact or increasing their positive impact, such as Unilever, Qantas, Stockland, Frasers and many many others. As such, I will assume you are fine for us to keep our pens firmly in hand.
Ben. You don’t get it. You keep talking about only working with companies that want to deliver better products, with better impact etc…..
But you blissfully ignore that whether the products are better, or not, you’re still encouraging consumption.
The solution isn’t better products with better impact.
The solution is less consumption period.
Now, this is where you say – ‘but people are going to consume anyway, so we see our job as helping people understand which products are better for the environment’.
If you really want to lecture the world on how to live, start an agency whose encourages people to stop consuming more of the products and services your clients pay you to sell.
This is as idiotic as Earth Hour.
Again. Look at what we do.
We tackle from all sides. We look to reduce consumption, encourage more sustainable choices in consumption, and help companies make their products more sustainable.
This isn’t some ad agency doing one charity campaign and marketing themselves as a do good agency. This is what we do every single day.
>“We look to reduce consumption”
Hahahahah. I’ve previously worked with some of the clients you work with / you’ve mentioned.
Their goals have always been growth & penetration increases. Are you honestly telling me that you walk into their office and say “hey guys, let’s lower our market share”?
>“encourage more sustainable choices in consumption”
You’re simply doing this by growing the companies you work with.
>“This isn’t some ad agency doing one charity campaign and marketing themselves as a do good agency.”
Then why PR this?
I also spy a lot of fast-fashion / likely slave-made outfits in the agency shot – but now’s probably not the best time to bring that up.
Please read my bigger comment below, it responds to all this.
@Hmmmmmm lol I spy some baseless stone throwing about what the agency is wearing – you know what they say about assumptions? You undid any of your rational good work by being really basic there.
Consumption and over-consumption is indeed a problem. Especially with 7b+ people in the world. Less consumption is a big part of that (check out Garage Sale Trail which champions reuse across the country). But we also want the less consumption to be sustainable, not unsustainable products.
Unless Ben (and ROE) can fix global climate change instantly tomorrow without disrupting my lifestyle I refuse to support this action.
Ben, you’re [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
What a righteous crock of shit this is. A noisy strike is easy, and will do exactly nothing to progress the argument. In fact, it will entrench the views of the sensible middle and hard right that the advocates for this quasi-religion are as bad as God-botherers. Beyond the strike, what are you proposing we do?
– devolve our comfortable lifestyles? And how exactly? One car per family, a ban on air travel, no global trade in goods and services?
– deny third world and emerging economies access to cheap energy to move people out of poverty? (this is totally unfair as we have already accrued these benefits – how dare we deny others)
– and if we do all this, what will the impact be on the global average temperature? Provide data please.
“..effect our children, possibly to the point of extinction”!!! Really??!! Fear-mongering much? This is the problem of the fanaticism of this position – ideology rules, detail matters not, and debate is unwelcome with true believers screaming the house down.
By all means, go on ‘strike’ tomorrow. Maybe you’ll go out of business and stop being part of this evil system you have decried (and happily earn a living from).
Buddy, “barf”, you are way out of touch. Provide data? Do you read. Anything. Do you do science? Ever.
@Anonymous I’m as knowledgable about science as anyone on a marketing forum. Where did you get your PHD in climate science? And this is where you clowns fall over – it’s not a science problem, it’s a communication problem. And your overwrought predictions of extinction make you easy to ignore.
it’s a science problem AND a communications problem.
In the communications industry we help people make choices without thinking. But this one takes a lot of thinking. So plenty of work yet to do and not enough shits yet given.
The science says time is running out before things get crap. That’s sad. If you’re not upset you might be a jellyfish.
People can start to fix things by:
– Phasing out dirty energy & single use plastic.
– Investing in future jobs and energy alternatives.
– Taxing pollution and arresting the worst offenders.
The communications industry can help out by promoting better values. Heads up people. This matters.
Frabby, care to explain the how things can be fixed? You are very light on the detail appear from some idealized statements that 99.9% of the population support. So far I just see empty rhetoric.
– All energy creation relies upon Fossil Fuel sources. A single wind turbine relies on tonnes of coal, iron ore, copper, bauxite, silica etc. All that needs refining, transporting, maintenance over its lifecycle.
– Sure lets invest. BUT, it needs to be cash flow positive and not rely on significant subsidy…
– I’m very sure, Australia already has some of the highest business and personal tax rates in the developed world. If I was a business I sure would want to avoid that.
” devolve our comfortable lifestyles? And how exactly? One car per family, a ban on air travel, no global trade in goods and services?
– deny third world and emerging economies access to cheap energy to move people out of poverty? ”
This, plus the abolition of private property and rationed land and resources is exactly the aim.
Well done ROE and The Bravery for putting your values into action.
Can’t help but be reminded of David Shariatmadari’s take on the overuse of the phrase “virtue signaling” after reading this comment section:
“What started off as a clever way to win arguments has become a lazy put-down. It’s too often used to cast aspersions on opponents as an alternative to rebutting their arguments. In fact, it’s becoming indistinguishable from the thing it was designed to call out: smug posturing from a position of self-appointed authority.”
^^^ This.
Miss L is spot on. Both RoE and The Bravery are purpose-led, accredited B Corp social enterprises who practise what they preach. To accuse them of ‘virtue-signalling’ is nonsense and sad to see in an industry where a huge number of agencies are getting involved around the same issue…. and an even larger number keen to blow their own trumpet at the least excuse – it’s what we do! So why be so thin-skinned when it comes to this issue?
It’s the unfortunate case that climate change has become a political football despite the bare scientific facts… to a point where young people are now leading the charge for action while politicians and many businesses fail to. I can’t believe you would see a similar reaction if the article had been about gender equality or inclusiveness in the workplace.
The broader point being made is that consumerism in its current form sometimes drives destructive and negative behaviours and we need to be aware if and when we are playing a role in promoting these. As does the broader business community. Once problems have been identified and called out then we can seek to mitigate them.
We should celebrate businesses that look to create a brighter future, not criticise them.
Phil, YOU are spot on. Yes, times a million.
Thanks, Miss L! As they say, haters gonna hate and likers gonna like…and we’re gonna strike either way : )
It does feel like there may be a coordinated group of people just waiting to write ‘virtual signalling’ on any climate related article out there but after 12 years of doing what we do, we;’re kinda used to it.
The minute i see the words “virtue signalling” it’s a sure fire sign that the person has no actual ground to stand on & is trying to deflect from this fact by throwing what they think is a witty comment back, instead of actually addressing the content of the article.
agreed John, it’s a pointless phrase that sounds as dumb out loud as it does on screen. Like Ben said above, the coordinated attacks on any person or company implying the world isn’t great right now and needs to do things better just screams “I hate change, leave me alone”.
The sticking point that allowing staff to take time off work isn’t giving them the right to strike may be true but then Climate Strike is the name for the movement, not necessarily a demand that all attendees have to quit work/school for the day just to take part
there’s plenty of ground john . This pathetic posturing will have no effect – a lot like your diatribe: vapid, pointless, and hopeless.
Couldn’t agree more, and we would be really happy to rationally discuss points if they were reasonably made…
Please advise in detail exactly what this strike will achieve.
No maybe’s, possibilities, might be’s .. except to give people a warm fuzzy feeling as they drive home in their carbon emitting cars, talk on their carbon emitting phones and fly off in carbon emitting aircraft to destinations far for their holidays. We all know that without world involvement there will be no change in ‘climate change’ and China doesn’t look like doing anything soon if ever.
@Pete, the climate strike is a demonstration (part of a global series of demonstrations) which in turn a way that people can show their beliefs and seek to influence the political classes in a democratic society. For the detail, you should attend the strike tomorrow and see for yourself.
Hi Pete, strikes and other protests have a long history of pressuring governments (and private entities) into making substantial, tangible changes to how our society functions. In this case, the best outcomes would include getting the federal government to push for a binding global emissions reduction agreement, and start making a genuine transition to a low-carbon economy. Flow-on effects of supporting a significant renewable energy industry in Australia include more science and manufacturing jobs for Australians, and leading the way in R&D and implementation which can help developing countries make that same transition.
Successfully pressuring a conservative government to do this would also have the added benefit of de-politicising the renewable/fossil energy debate.
As a casual (not by choice) contractor always seeking professional work of any marketing publicity kind in the difficult and competitive business we are in, it must be nice to be able to afford a day off, I support the cause but seriously I’d work 25/7 in this industry I love, it’s a privilege that unfortunately many take fir granted.
It’s pretty hard to ask people to give up their comfortable lifestyles and/or pay more for everything if zealots like Zali Steggal won’t purchase an electric vehicle because “like all families, we have to think of our budget”.
Zali earns more than 2.5 times the average wage, so if she won’t walk the walk because of the cost, how the hell can she and others try to impose these sacrifices on everyone else?
You’re joking, right? Omfg you cannot [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]. I guess once people started turning away from the churches they’d need to find another thing to follow. Welcome to the Cult of Leftist Idiots. Climate Change is the begotten son. Symbolism and tokenism has been taken care of. Now they’re starting to instigate feast days rotff!
@Meri: There is no leftist cult. However there does seem to be a nasty cult of climate change denial in the face of all scientific proofs to the contrary. Raising belief above science is way more like cult/religious behaviour than empirically following the scientific evidence.
Climate change is fact: it does not respect political factions. The kids organising the climate strike are not politicised. They’d just like a feasible life-supporting world to grow up in. It’s a pretty reasonable wish.
The decline of the ‘churches’ has fuelled a moral vacuum which in turn has fuelled a greater volume of anger from people like your good self. I daresay you could do with listening to a few sermons from someone with an un-blinkered social conscience and genuine care for the planet and those around us. Like our kids.
@ Phil I think you need to make a distinction between denial of climate change and disagreement about how to deal with it. I think dismissing those that question the approach to addressing the problem as ‘deniers’ is why less people bother with the cause at all. And while the extremist activists seem to want us to go back to hunter-gatherer living, somewhere between that and where we are now is a more sensible and engaging approach
All this feel good banner waving ain’t going do a thing to change the world. Enjoy your long lunch, throw your phones, computers, lights, cars into the bin, oops, recycling compact.
While you’re at it, go enjoy your two-day weekend that the union / worker movement protested and fought to secure. And be thankful that you, your daughter, mother or sister have the right to vote, because people protested for suffrage. Remember that Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Australians are no longer classed as ‘Flora and Fauna’. Segregation no longer exists thanks to the civil rights movement.
Should I go on? Or are you just going to stick with “pROtesTinG iS sTUpiD yOU gUys”?
Where did this squad of haters come from? And why do they all sound exactly the same? One of the weirdest comment threads I’ve ever read on this blog.
You’ll find the same crew, same comments and same venom on most climate stories on all platforms. And they are always first to comment. Would surprise me of it’s not at least loosely coordinated in some way.
“Would surprise me of it’s not at least loosely coordinated in some way.” Ben, you
“Would surprise me of it’s not at least loosely coordinated in some way.” Ben, do you read your copy before you publish it?
I think most people have seen through the thin veneer of your actions and call the bullshit for what it is. Go and google bullshit Ben.
The comments are far more believable and entertaining than the bullshit article.
One of the weirdest and most entertaining for sure!
Absolutely agreed.
The absolutely irrational and uninformed comments are astounding. Although as Ben mentioned, sadly unsurprising for a business who has been flying the environmental good flag, sailing the ship, building the arc – all the terrible metaphors – for over 12 years.
I’d like to find this whole thread hilarious but it just further highlights the reality of this situation we are in globally and the absolute indifference and inaction from all angles – public policy through to the general public.
I wasn’t MOOOOOVED by this article.
I think the tone is a bit off?
It’s an important issue. We all need to do better. We all need to care more.
Maybe a smidgen of humility or humbleness would have gone a long way here?
Why do we in this industry try and tear down anyone trying to do good.
This anger / energy put towards anything positive would be much better spent. Here in particular it is fiercely misguided.
ROE are the only agency doing this right and behind the scenes also holding their clients to account vs. pitching anything to get a yes, throwing a charity partnership in for good measure and proposing a cheap stunt at the end to all feel good about (for a day).
Scott, Ben and the team are truly in it for good and have been for many years before it became the “new cool”.
If our children understand then why can’t we.
Can’t wait for all the fair and level-headed “virtue signaller” commenters to level the same accusation at people and brands openly flaunting poppies on Remembrance Day. Funny how it’s only progressive causes that are viewed as unseemly.
Wow, what a bunfight hey. There are so many comments in this that it feels like it needs one big response. We’ll try and respond by what we think the key themes are.
First, to the supporters. Thanks. Your comments are heart warming to say the least.
To the ‘climate change isn’t real / man made’ comments, simply this: The Pentagon sees it as a key threat to global security, so if you have better intel than them, do tell: http://theconversation.com/the.....ter-118017 NASA too.
To the ‘virtue signalling’ comments: This feel a bit thin…lobbing in an an insult then adding no substance to the debate, but we’ll answer them anyway. If virtue signalling is publicly standing for what you believe in, then we’re all for it. We will point out that we were approached to write this article, however, so if your point is that we are doing this for personal gain/publicity, then that would be incorrect.
To the comments that are less concerned with the content of the article but find the tone too aggressive, point taken thank you. There’s no value in making enemies for the sake of it and we will rethink that next time.
In response to the ‘what is the point of striking/how does it change anything?’ comments, this is a fair debate. Certainly spending two hours walking up and down streets is a symbolic thing, but we would argue symbolism matters a lot. A large scale show of people who care has always been one of the most powerful ways to create change. If we all sit silently and want something we simply won’t get it. So yes, there needs to be more than marches and ‘strikes’ but they have their role.
In response to the comments that suggest that one cannot ask for policy change on climate change unless we throw away all our phones, computers and so on, we would say it’s not about everyone’s creature comforts being taken away, it’s about reconsidering the systems that underpin the way we live. It’s not what we produce as a society, it’s how we produce it.
One doesn’t have to stop having laptops and sneakers, we just need to think about where the materials come from, where they go once they’ve reached the end of their useful life and how we treat the people who make them.
One doesn’t have to stop using air conditioners and heaters, as long as they are powered by renewable energy. Which is 100% possible right now. And yes, we do that at work or at home and offset where not possible.
Most of all, in response to the comments that suggest that either we are hypocrites for working with clients at all or that unless something is perfect, it isn’t good enough, I would simply say that if you let perfect be the enemy of better, we never go anywhere. No company we work with is perfect, but the people we work with in them are trying new things to be better then presenting them broadly within the company to show that positive change creates positive impact for the company – financially and in other ways. And it’s working. This is how change happens…you start with small things, prove the possibility, then grow the appetite and the ambition.
No company making effort in this space purports to be perfect. But they do seek incremental improvement and that’s what we need. Winning starts with beginning.
So if your criticism is that we or our clients are not doing enough and need to do more, good on you, but please first acknowledge the work that is being done. However, if your criticism is that anyone who isn’t perfect doesn’t have the right to make comment, then the question becomes what efforts are you making and so, what right do you to have to make comment either?
Let the comments on those comments begin!
Ben, you are awesome. Keep up the good work. Struggling to understand how an industry I assumed were intelligent and progressive, can be so hostile to facts, ideas and real world action.
https://bit.ly/2lX821s
“We will point out that we were approached to write this article, however, so if your point is that we are doing this for personal gain/publicity, then that would be incorrect.” Ben, this don’t make no sense.
Go team ROE. Agreed that it’s a complex issue only made more complex by ignorance and egos. Happy Friday everybody.
This article reminds me of earth hour.
To compensate Sydney then holds vivid.
Vivid is a carbon neutral event. https://www.powershop.com.au/blog/powershop-australia-helps-light-up-vivid-sydney/
If you believe that not one gram of coal is burnt to provide the electricity then there’s no hope.
I’m not sure you understand what carbon offsetting is
Purchasing the planting of a tree somewhere on the planet to offset your usage to signal that you’re carbon neutral is just a bullshit way of appearing clean when in fact you’ve washed your hands of the issue and taken the easy way out.
Carbon offsetting with no other actions – I guess that is a bit bullshitty.
Carbon offsetting along with reducing energy usage, using and supporting renewable energy sources – Not bullshitty.
Same as anything, it comes down to commitment.
True, but companies that need to purchase carbon credits are not known to engage or truly commit in those activities.
True, it’s not perfect but in many cases it is still best option available.
Consuming electricity and consumer goods isn’t the point of the climate strike. It’s about weening our economy off fossil fuels onto green energy.
Joining the march is not an exercise in virtue signalling, but the democratic actions of people mobilising in the face of government inaction…and, it appears, a startling ignorance within parts of the media industry.
Giving to charity is always a good thing. I just respect those who give without a major song and dance more than those who insist on having their name up in lights on the front of the building. In the end, they are both doing good but their motives are different. The former is simply trying to do good. The later is at least partly motivated by self promotion. If you want to save the world, that’s a noble pursuit. When you then PR the crap out of it, you are somewhat diminished.
The “Robbo” at the start of all this rediculous marlarky wasn’t me. Anyway, next time,”strike” on a Saturday. You’ll frighten the school children on Fridays. They won’t be there on Sat.
Why are all the “quiet Australians” SHOUTING SO LOUDLY!?!
It’s not opinion, it’s biology.
Structural MRI scans show conservative brains have less problem-solving capabilities and higher negative emotions laced with increased fear https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
Jumping at shadows without the mental capacity to process a solution is a terrible way to get through life.
Not so fast smarty pants. This study was based on each of the participants self assessment as to whether they considered themselves on a simple scale conservative or liberal. Not only is the whole study based on subjective interpretation of the very general and often changeable terms of conservative and liberal , the sample group was majority female. This study does not rest on steady ground at all. I wonder how would Frederich Nietzsche, Thomas Jefferson or Karl Marx rate themselves?
So stunning, so brave.
Leave the industry Ben. I did 10 years ago and never regretted it for a minute. You can channel your talent and good energy where its appreciated and more useful. and you don’t have to listen to the dribble and abuse from all the flat earthers in adland. The days of tree hugging greenies as the enemy are back as ‘virtue signalers’ cop it. Regressive, negative, visionless , conservatives a la Tony Abbott n co all come out in force when climate is mentioned. often religious, they don’t believe in science. God will save us if Gina & Clive don’t.
Bit late to the party but nice job ROE / Bravery / Garage Sale Trail crew. Reading through these comments it reinforces how empty things will become if the haters win this debate. Keep advancing and fighting the good fight.
This “strike” is even more pointless, narcissistic and will achieve even more nothing than the hysterical kids’ climate strike.
Just like the kids striking, you’ve wasted and expended more energy attempting to justify your “strike” and bringing it to people’s attention than simply staying home and not using heat or lights as per climate strikers’ standards of energy use.
Wow.
This is grotesque virtue signalling. Why don’t you close your doors permanently? Why keep “contributing to the problem” on an ongoing basis?