15
Bizarre ad: greenwash, or just a guy in a bear suit?
I'd skipped this article when skimming Slate today, but directed toward it, I watched the HSBC ad on YouTube with the same puzzlement that both the article's author John Swansburg and Joellen Easton, the editor of this blog, expressed.
Neither of them can see how the ad's story and banking are related. I almost can if I squint really, really hard.
Accepting that there's no connection between banking and the storyline here, what is HSBC trying to say about itself?
The ad shows no allegiance to the logging protesters, nor to the loggers, nor the police. And it does an incredible job of maintaining absolute neutrality about the "issue" addressed.
Maybe HSBC is saying that their value is to not judge?
But if that's the case, then aren't they also saying they don't have any values, but they're tolerant of the values of all their customers? Plausible -- and they just lost me as a customer. I use my economic choices to reinforce actions -- which stem from values -- that I think should be widespread. I want a bank that hires from the neighborhood, that serves all communities and customers regardless of income, that invests locally, that recycles and sources environmentally preferable office supplies.
Here's another possible interpretation -- it's a stretch, but in a void as large as this, why not argue something outlandish?
Maybe they know people view stories through their own lens, and hope that when we watch we'll "see" them mirroring back our own values. If that's the case, they're trying to tell me that they're a fan of environmental protection (while also maintaining respect for local economic activities).
In this interpretation, they're actually abdicating all values, while trying to appeal to the values of potential customers. One of those interpretations is a sustainable one. If this is their game, it's greenwash, because by the very nature of this scenario, the other values they're transmitting (law and order, local economics trump the environment) are opposing values.
What **are ** they trying to say about themselves?
Pages
Maybe this is cynical, but the purpose of advertising is to make you remember the name of the company. there really is no 'message' in 99% of advertising, other than 'remember our name'.
How? making a controversial or 'bizarre' ad is just another strategy, just like having a smiling baby, or a jingle, or a slogan. Or two people hugging (which is what this ad ends with)
Controversial ads get people talking about them, posting them on sites like this, and discussing them, and they all want to know what 'parent company' was 'intending'... parent company was intending you to remember their name and their logo!! And then to go spread the word! That's what advertising is!! And congratulations, you fell for it!
There is no 'message', other than 'HSBC'.
The only 'conflict' is how to be controversial without being disgusting or offensive. That's why they have the hug at the end, and there is no blood. I bet they had ad people and PR people arguing for days on end about whether or not to show the dog growling.
Here is their conversation before shooting.
"Let's do a controversial ad, drum up word of mouth."
"What's controversial?"
"Politics."
"OK, so.. what... a protest?"
"Nice... but ... could be too polarizing..."
"How about civil rights?"
"Are you crazy? Too racial"
"Anti-war?"
"Alienate half the country? No..."
"OK.. logging?"
'Logging... I like it... it'll be in Oregon, everyone will be white..."
"We can drag old white people out of a Norman Rockwell painting... maybe a few babies..."
"Yes yes... and then we can have hugs and kisses at the end..."
"I'm on it. Storyboard by noon."
"Good work, Jensen!"
Lyrics (complete):
"Clam, Crab, Cockle, Cowrie"
That means no
Where I come from
I am cold
Out waiting for the day to come
I chew my lips
And I scratch my nose
Feels so good to be a rose
Oh don't, don't you life me up
Like I'm that shy
No no no no no
Just five it up
There are bats all dissolving in a row
Into the wishy-washy dark that can't let go
I cannot let go
So I thank the Lord
And I thank his sword
'Tho it be mincing up the morning, slightly bored
Oh, oh morning without warning like a hole
And I watch you go
There are some mornings when the sky looks like a road
There are some dragons who were built to have and hold
And some machines are dropped from great heights lovingly
And some great bellies ache with many bumblebees
And they sting so terribly
I do as I please
Now I'm on my knees
Your skin is something that I stir into my tea
And I am watching you
And you are starry, starry, starry
And I'm tumbling down
And I check a frown
It's why I love this town
Well, just look around
Just see me serenaded hourly !
And celebrated sourly :
Dedicated dourly
Waltzing with the open sea
Clam, crap, cockle, cowrie
Oh will you just look at me
Wow, this was a tough one.
They are displaying an incredibly complex issue that doesn't have clear winners and to some extent you could argue that all of us lose something in the bargain. Balancing issues and making choices isn't easy, and I would argue that the piece's neutrality echoes the bank's viewpoint that it is not their business to take sides, especially when the 'right' choice isn't clear, and their customers are on all sides. I can value their remaining neutral where it isn't clear which position to take.
While it certainly is a moving piece of micro-documentary on a complex issue, is it greenwash?
They end the piece with:
We recognize customers value things differently.
So what we learn from one customer helps us better serve another.
I can see truth and value in their first statement. What does concern me is that while I believe the innate potential of truth in the second, they haven't shown it. How is this issue helping them better serve their customers? Or said another way, how are they changing their services because of it, and their customers' involvement, beliefs and interactions with it? At first I was going to argue for them not to simply be taking advantage of its emotional pull, they either had to prove their case or at a minimum be doing a public good. Now, I have a different take:
In the opening scene, many of us could take sides with whomever we more closely identified with, but by the end we see that, _we_, not just the couple, can come and work together. The real value was in their raising difficult issues for us to wrestle with showing they're not simply paint black and white. All of the participants in the video are valued and welcome at HSBC. Better understanding yields better appreciation, and they're arguing better service.
Is it greenwash? No. While I still might argue they didn't prove point 2, they didn't need to.
Fascinating. Thanks to Slate and thanks to you guys, I think the ad is doing a good thing. People are talking about it, and we're asking about the advertisers' intentions, and we're wondering about how to reconcile, and those are good questions and good thoughts.
Nice - I think you're right that it's about you mirroring your views in what you see. I saw this as siding with the working man who supports irresponsible greens. At the end of the day, the working man makes the system work. Seems like they are truly a bank for all seasons.
I've long thought that this is the position that corporations should take. Corporations should be sensitive to all of their stakeholders, who are almost always a politically diverse group. I don't like when a corporation uses its power and influence to push its owners' or management's political views. It doesn't matter whether they are liberal or conservative. HBSC is saying that everyone is welcome, and doing business with them does not entail endorsing any set of political views.
That said, this is a separate issue from a corporation's own behavior. While corporations should remain neutral on environmental laws (the coercive part of environmentalism) that does not mean that they should not try to be as environmentally sensitive as feasible with their own corporate activities.
And for those politically correct types, when I call environmental laws "coercive," that does not mean that I oppose them.
LOL, am I the only one who gets it? The tree-huggers are the small investors, the evil loggers are the banks. The small investors are pissed off now, but the banks don't hold a grudge and in the end, the small investors will hug the formerly-evil banks again, happy ending for all.
It's pretty clear to me that the advertisement's narrative is about the fact that one of the loggers and one of the protesters are a couple, and despite the fact that they're on opposite sides of the issue, they're still a couple, and still love one another.
To me, HSBC's point is pretty clear - that the bank serves all of its customers better by seeking to understand each of them as individuals, and what they want, and then applying those lessons universally. The alternative that they put forth is effectively becoming involved in their customer's disputes, which requires engaging with issues in such a way as to justify being on one side or the other.
This isn't a "green-issue" spot. You could have subbed any two adversarial groups.
Question, though - doesn't the equation of Tolerance = Lack of values contribute to polarization and a general attitude of "if you aren't with us, you're against us?
Pages
