Poor branding will kill us all
Have you ever wondered why most of the planet doesn’t give quite a big enough shit about global warming?
I mean, we can all see this huge disaster coming, we know what we’re supposed to do to prevent it, and yet we just kind of shrug and feel we can’t really do any more than a bit of recycling (which doesn’t really make any difference anyway).
But why is this the case?
Well, I’ve given it a bit of thought and come to the completely unscientific conclusion that it’s down to branding.
The main name given to the environmental problem is Global Warming, that’s where the whole thing has gone wrong.
‘Global’ just means it happens all over the world, but ‘warming’ is the real problem. Warm is good, we all like warm weather and when we see those maps that show what temperatures will be like in 2035 it seems like much of the world will be a few degrees hotter.
Nice.
Most of the people who are ruining the planet are lucky enough to live in a temperate climate, so making London as warm as St Tropez is something most of us would actually like to contribute to, just as long as it doesn’t come wrapped up with the extinction of the human race.
So here we are sitting in a bath with the hot tap running ever so slowly and few of us are feeling the need to turn it off. Well, that’s us screwed then.
I think we should have gone straight to the American Military on this one. They know that naming things properly makes a huge difference: ‘The War On Terror’ gets you right in the thick of what has to happen… we’re in a motherfucking war, fighting motherfucking terror. That sounds really serious, despite the fact that it’s about as much of an immediate threat as global warming. ‘Operation Desert Storm’? Shit… A storm in a desert! That sums it all up brilliantly, bringing the whole stupid, one-sided farting contest to vivid life in just three words. ‘Norman Schwarzkopf’ is the name of a somewhat nebbish dentist until you add ‘Stormin” to the start of it.
Anyway, we’re stuck with cute, cuddly, not-quite-worth-giving-a-shit-about Global Warming, and that’s the way it’s going to be until we all fry to death in a desert just north of Edinburgh.
(By the way, if any of you wanted to come to the introduction to the Landmark Forum I mentioned a few weeks ago but were unable to make it, there’s another one tonight at 7:30, 203 Eversholt St. Let me know if you want to come (bwmkay@gmail.com) and I’ll see you there.)
True.
Global catastrophe.
Defcon 1….the Yanks are v-good at naming stuff.
Defcon 1 is amazing.
Why?
The Yanks are great at naming stuff:
IMHO “The Tomcat’ ‘The Warthog’ and ‘The Wild Weasel” beats ‘The Harrier”.
The Pentagon is also brilliant. Or have they just made it seem brilliant through years of movies and wars?
‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ is very good.
Stick this in your water water everywhere pipes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nITLob098W8&feature=player_embedded
Stealth bomber. Amazing.
We lost the thread somewhere along the way…..
Spitfire (Grrr) vs Mustang (Horse) ?
Centurion (The might of the Roman army) vs Sherman (some General somewhere)?
I blame focus groups….
Most of my clients would worry that naming a fighter aircraft ‘Spitfire’ or ‘Lightning’ might upset Mumsnet.
Global Incineration Event?
Dateline World Scalding?
Future Unavoidable Cauterisation Kick-off?
Death Burn.
Earth Melt.
Stink Badger.
Not sure about the last one, maybe go to pre-testing?
I wish more people would watch that Penn and Teller clip.
We were in LA when they shut a road down to rebuild a bridge. They called it ‘Car-mageddon’. I’m thinking enviro-genocide works quite nicely.
World Burn.
(Inspired by S.O.G., that one. It’s a team game, innit?)
OPERATION: SAVE GOD’S GOOD EARTH!
job done.
I want to live on God’s BAD EARTH.
Agree with you that ‘global warming’ sounds quite cosy, but there’s actually a long history of corporate interests trying to replace the term ‘global warming’ with the more neutral ‘climate change’.
The theory being that ‘global warming’ sounds continuous and gradually more threatening, whereas ‘climate change’ is more neutral and contained.
The UN used to talk about ‘global warming’ in all its resolutions, but in the early nineties, ‘climate change’ took over after specific objections from oil-rich states.
There’s a good book about it – Unspeak by Stephen Poole. Also covers phrases like intelligent design, collateral damage, war on terror, etc. General point is tht naming an issue is a political act in itself, and often a very calculated one.
Hijacking the next big global event maybe we could have the Olympic rings on fire as the logo.
In fact there is counter argument that thinks messing with the environment will result in an ice age so maybe there should be a five ringed ice logo too.
The Earth Scorch Phenomenom ?