Greenpeace Ad

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by regulator75

sea sheppard crazier than greenpeace

fyp

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

The conservative media pundits have done an excellent job of smearing environmental groups as "radicals". And you can see the fruits of that in this thread.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I don't get my information from conservative media (e.g. Sun News), nor do I support Harper's government. Greenpeace have smeared themselves as a radical group through their own over-the-top publicity stunts that seem to be more about generating attention for themselves than actually solving environmental issues.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Muta

An ad company should never be in the business of caring about pissing people off. An ad company should be in the business of generating the most view, traffic, discussion, etc. regardless of the message. This, to me, is damage control for the oil industry.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, either. It just sucks that a message, whether you like it or not, is being censored, and likely because of outside influences.

Eliminate the 'ad company' aspect of it and put it in the most universal terms:

Every company should be in the business of not pissing off clients.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

First part: Absolutely an ad company should be worried about pissing people off. If they have clients that will be offended by this ad, and could potentially pull business from them, then as a responsible business they should not run the ad, as it could very well hurt their bottom line.

A successful ad company is one that can generate interest. Controversial ads, whether you like them or not, generate that interest. It appears Pattison is not in the business of that, and to me that's a shame. I think people can form their own opinions about the oil industry without having to be hidden from organizations that oppose oil production.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Third part: An ad agency is under no obligation to put this up, nor are they stoppoing Greenpeace from getting thier message out in some other manner. This isn't censorship, it's a private company making a decision about what messages they want to be associted with.

Yeah, I know.. I've stated that several times. Its just unfortunate that this decision has been made. What if it had been BP opening up a solar power division, and they wanted to put up an ad for it? Or is this just a middle finger to Greenpeace?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Every company should be in the business of not pissing off clients.

Its not as simplified black and white as that, but you're entitled to your own opinion for sure.

[Resolute 14]

Yeah, sorry Canuck-Hater, but when Greenpeace does stupid things like climb the Calgary Tower to perform a stupid stunt (which, ironically, caused major gridlock and therefore increased pollution), then they will not be respected, nor will many care what their message is. That isn't on the "conservative media", that's on Greenpeace itself.

Greenpeace is the PETA of the environmentalist set. Not worthy of respect, attention or my money.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by wookster

Im not disputing your point but Im just wondering that if a lot of them pride themselves on their anti-hippie stance then why does Greenpeace always just show a radical side to the public? Whenever I hear of Greenpeace on the news its always because they've done something thats usually over the top to try and get a point across. The original post about the billboard is probably the Calmest thing I've ever heard of them trying to do.

I assume that being radical is the best way to get on the news but to me when its way over the top it usually paints a negative picture for Greenpeace in many people's eyes as well.

The news is in the business of showing good television? Something radical -- and I'm sure that definition changes person to person, and especially depending on the industry they're involved in -- makes better TV.

Personally, I don't find something like this particularly "radical." Not to say that Greenpeace Canada doesn't do some things designed to grab attention; the fake oil spill they made recently being one of them, and there are dissenting opinions, at least when I was there, within the organization. But, obviously, you won't hear about the letter writing campaigns like the Musqueam First Nation thing in the news, either.

Personally, when I hear the term "radical" thrown around, or things like "eco-terrorists" (ha) I think of the Sea Shepherd, and that sort of group. Though, someone's definition of a radical act, especially when it comes to something like the environment, probably depends a lot on the industry they are involved in, for and against.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I agree that Greenpeace was going to win either way: Get the billboard up or get the pub from it being rejected. Pretty smart strategy actually. I think had Pattison thought this would be a continuing relationship (i.e. Greenpeace keeps posting billboards) they probably would have put it up, but as a likely one-shot deal, I can see why they didn't.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

A successful ad company is one that can generate interest. Controversial ads, whether you like them or not, generate that interest. It appears Pattison is not in the business of that, and to me that's a shame. I think people can form their own opinions about the oil industry without having to be hidden from organizations that oppose oil production.

No it isn't.
A successful ad company is one that can generate the most revenue for itself.
If putting up ads that piss off your bigger clients generates a lot of interest for a minor client that's great, but it doesn't exactly pay the bills.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Muta

A successful ad company is one that can generate interest. Controversial ads, whether you like them or not, generate that interest. It appears Pattison is not in the business of that, and to me that's a shame.

You are describing the goal of an advertising agency. Pattison is not serving that function here. It is in the business of selling advertising space.

Compare it to a newspaper. If the Sun or Herald was asked to run an ad it expected might piss off its customers, do you think it runs?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

With all I've said so far, I think it's worth noting that actually agree with Greenpeace on this one. It's actually quite a clever billboard.

However, what grinds my gears about Greenpeace is that instead of putting out a message that will make people give their position some thought and potentially change some minds they seemingly intentionlly put out messages that do nothing but make the people who could do the most good, get angry and dig in their heels.

That's my biggest problem with Greenpeace, they don't seem to realize that you can accomplish a whole lot more with cooperation than you can with confrontation.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No it isn't.
A successful ad company is one that can generate the most revenue for itself.
If putting up ads that piss off your bigger clients generates a lot of interest for a minor client that's great, but it doesn't exactly pay the bills.

Actually, you're technically agreeing with me here. Greater interest = greater revenue. Doesn't really matter the 'interest' - or the message - is.

You're also assuming Pattison has a large collection of oil and gas clients, or has some sort of vested interest in the industry. That's possibly true given the economic climate in Alberta and the size of Pattison's empire, but it's not necessarily proven.

Plus, I don't think the billboard is THAT controversial. Ford used to sell its products to Nazi Germany, did that ruin them?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are describing the goal of an advertising agency. Pattison is not serving that function here. It is in the business of selling advertising space.

Compare it to a newspaper. If the Sun or Herald was asked to run an ad it expected might piss off its customers, do you think it runs?

I know the difference, but really, thank you for the clarification (I may have started to unintentionally grey the area between the two). I wish a billboard like this would go up - not because I agree with it, but its a billboard that generates discussion about the topic and its not a typical billboard you see everyday.

I'm all about free speech. Pattison is obviously looking at a damage control issue here, unfortunately. I'm not a huge Greenpeace fan, but I do hope they find another outlet who will take the message and post it up.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Actually, you're technically agreeing with me here. Greater interest = greater revenue. Doesn't really matter the 'interest' - or the message - is.

You're also assuming Pattison has a large collection of oil and gas clients, or has some sort of vested interest in the industry. That's possibly true given the economic climate in Alberta and the size of Pattison's empire, but it's not necessarily proven.

Plus, I don't think the billboard is THAT controversial. Ford used to sell its products to Nazi Germany, did that ruin them?

No I'm not agreeing with you.
It doesn't matter how much interest a single billboard generates if it alienates the rest of their clients and reduces their revenue. Getting more interest for your clients is one thing. Doing it at the expense of your other larger clients is another, and totally contrary to what any well run business should be doing.

As to whether or not Pattison has a lot of O&G clients, it's not really relevant anyway, it's just for the sake of argument.
What is relevant is that they chose not to run the ad for what can safely be assumed are resons of greater economic impact than a single billboard.
Or it could be that who ever is in charge doesn't like Greenpeace for some reason or another.
Either way, it doesn't matter.

Either way, I agree, it's not particularly controversial, but it's being proposed by a group that is, using methods that a lot of people don't agree with, so if come company doesn't want to run it, that's their choice.

[MarchHare]

I'm all about free speech.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Pattison is a private business and can pick and choose which clients to deal with, or even refuse to run invidual ads.

Freedom of speech protects citizens from government oppression for voicing unpopular opinions; it doesn't play a role in regulating private commerce.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Muta

You're also assuming Pattison has a large collection of oil and gas clients, or has some sort of vested interest in the industry. That's possibly true given the economic climate in Alberta and the size of Pattison's empire, but it's not necessarily proven.

I think Bring_Back_Shantz's entire statement is that Pattison predicts that it would lose more revenue than it would gain as a whole by placing up this ad. If they predicted that they'd get a small profit by putting it up and no losses from other offended customers (or even a loss of other customers, provided they were smaller losses than the gains from this), then they'd run it. If they lose big customers who pay (let's play with small numbers) x+100 dollars a year, but were only paid x dollars for this job, they wouldn't accept it because it's a net monitary loss for their action...even if they got this opportunity on an annual basis.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No I'm not agreeing with you.
It doesn't matter how much interest a single billboard generates if it alienates the rest of their clients and reduces their revenue. Getting more interest for your clients is one thing. Doing it at the expense of your other larger clients is another, and totally contrary to what any well run business should be doing.

I hate arguing, but you said this yourself:

A successful ad company is one that can generate the most revenue for itself.

What you're agreeing with here is that success = revenue, and revenue = interest. That's my point. I'm talking about individual marketing campaigns, not long-term growth strategies. A successful advertising campaign is one that generates a large number of views.

Pattison is thinking long-term, or atleast not about Greenpeace.

Exposing your other client relationships because of this, however, is another story. And that is part of the crux of the argument in this thread - especially because its in an oil-based economy with lots of oil money here.

We all agree though, that Patison has every right not to run the ad if they don't want to. Simple as that.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Pattison is a private business and can pick and choose which clients to deal with, or even refuse to run invidual ads.

Freedom of speech protects citizens from government oppression for voicing unpopular opinions; it doesn't play a role in regulating private commerce.

I think you're missing the point... I selfishly want Pattison to run the ad (without any concern for their bottom line, I admit) in order to generate discussion on the topic. That's what I meant. I thought that was implied. I am fully aware Pattison doesn't have to do anything they don't want to, I've mentioned that several times over already in this thread.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Muta

I know the difference, but really, thank you for the clarification (I may have started to unintentionally grey the area between the two). I wish a billboard like this would go up - not because I agree with it, but its a billboard that generates discussion about the topic and its not a typical billboard you see everyday.

I'm all about free speech. Pattison is obviously looking at a damage control issue here, unfortunately. I'm not a huge Greenpeace fan, but I do hope they find another outlet who will take the message and post it up.

I'll admit... my problem here is the messenger rather than the message. Unfortunately, as noted, this is really about the messenger promoting itself rather than promoting change. I'd bet they submitted it hoping and expecting it would be rejected, simply so they can play the "woe is Greenpeace" card. The slogan is just a tool designed to help their efforts at self-promotion.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Muta

To play devil's advocate, there'd also be alot more solar energy researchers and scientists. It evens out in the end.

No it doesn't.