Filtering the truth about whales – Should environmental organizations fight fire with fire?

Despite cries over the unsustainability of Icelandic whales the science simply tells us that this is not true. The statistics show that there is an abundance of whales around Iceland and it would take far more that the issued quota to have a dangerous effect on the whale population in the region.
Through the years NGO’s have cried foul over companies and governments using their PR practioners to spin or filter the truth, and rightly so. Many practices have not only been unethical but illegal. But does this justify fighting fire with fire?
A reputation is the most diffucult thing to build, just ask a PR practitioner. It can take a lifetime to build and a second to destroy. There are indeed several reasons against Icelandic whaling such as humanitarian and even economical. But the reasons need to be clear, are they emotional fears or rational ones? In a recent South Park episode this topic was explored. As scenes of Japanese killing whales disgusted people, the boys of South Park tricked the Japanese into killing cows and chickens instead. The final scene shows the Japanese running around killing cows and chicken with one of the characters saying “finally, they are normal like us”.
Trying to relate to emotional fears simply stating false claims does in some cases gather the support they need, but is it good in the long run? There are a lot of issues that organizations such as Greenpeace do that are worth fighting for, to they want to sacrifice their credibility on this one?

Fear marketing: Kellogg’s can save your child from a deadly flu

Kellog’s recent ploy to market their sugar drenched cereal as vital to health is nothing new. Marketing tricks have tried to relate to our fears for decades to sell products such as deotorants and shampoo (fears of not attracting the opposite sex), to make us quit smoking , to promote private healthcare, to sell cleaning products. Is this any different?
Trying to cash in on the fears parents have of the safety of their children certainly seems unethical in times of a massive outbreak of a deadly virus that has already killed almost four thousand people in the USA alone. But this also happens in the middle of another epidemic that is far more deadly: Twenty five percent of children in the US are overweight and 11% are obese.
Spinning the truth and “sugar coating” the nutritional benefits is not illegal but is it morally right? Kellogg’s still stand by their statement, but is it right to claim that products that have a high sugar content are benefitial to children’s health when they are part of the cause for another epidemic?

Malaysian palm oil propaganda hits Nestlé too close to home

Although Nestlé’s actions can simply be looked on as damage control or issues management by their PR department, it will be hard for them to distance themselves from openly propagandic lobbyists such as MPOC. Being a member of RSOP is indeed not the same thing, but to claim that there is not connection is stretching it. MPOC lobbies on behalf of many RSOP members and therefore it shares many common interests.
As lobbyists, MPOC will pounce on any news they deem to fit their agenda(). With the will of many members of RSOP to commit to sustainability in doubt, it will take some time for people to deem it trustworthy.

Ethical advertising: How do you increase consumption of your unhealthy product?

The junk food industry is using the same tactics as the tobacco companies because they are, in many ways, in the same steps as the tobacco industry was a few decades ago.

While tobacco did use the same tactics it is not exactly the same scenario. Cigarettes are of not essential to survival as food is and are addictive unlike Big Macs.

People might point out that the industry is doing everything in its power to fight it by promoting exercise and a balanced diet, but is that enough? Certainly the arguement of free choice will inevidably also be be highlighted, but does the same apply to children who are being promised toys with their high fat, high sugar meals?
These companies are in the business of making money as everybody else and therefore their goal is to increase consumption and revenure. In the end, the tactics are understandable because laws being set by governments will always be more stringent than their own voluntary codes.

Obesity around the world is reaching epidemic levels, with figures from the WHO from 2005 revealing that 1.6 billion people on the planet were overweight and 400 million obese. And the numbers are rising.

The spinning of Scottish Salmon

Scottish Salmon will do anything to show you how healthy their produce is and how much it is worth to the Scottish economy, just look at their website.

However, the truth is that the Scottish Salmon industry is mainly owned by Norwegian and Dutch owners that have through the years on-farm employment has been reduced despite expansion in the industry.

The image of sustainability is a a trecherous one as well. Despite fish farming itself being sustainable, the means to feed them might not be. Massive amounts of fish and fish produce is fished every year to support fish farms. As Stirling University's research was initially focused on, palm oil is also used as feed despite huge worries over the palm oil industry's record of deforistation and unsustainability.

Is the FA fighting or fuelling obesity?

The FA’s newest PR campaign might be branded ironic by some, evil by some. It is no secret that sponshorships such as these work, otherwise the FA would not be getting paid £78 million to align themselves with the brands. While fighting obesity with one hand, they inevidably fuel it with the other as consumption of the products, much in the line of fire of nutritionists for their part of the obesity epidemic, is bound to rise.
In the end, the FA does adhere so the same principles as a corporation in the end. It has directors that get paid massive amounts of money to maximise profit for the organizations. It is therefore logical that it will sell itself to the highest bidder.
One thing differs though: Companies do not have millions of fans cheering for them on every occasion, linked with national pride. But if results off the field, such as money gained through sponsorships, contribute to results on the field, to English football fans feel it is worth it?

Thank you, thank you, thank you (for leaving)

The food industry’s most recent PR move is an audacious move given the media coverage that has been given to tax avoidance recently. Patting their own backs despite avoiding paying what they owe to society is risky, but given people apathy over cases like this in the past it is not strange to see why they think they are capable of basking in a holy glow while showing the taxpayer the finger.

According to the FDF, the timing of the campaign is due to the general elections next year to influence politicians. Will the politicians listen?