Cognitive dissonance. I seem to experience it more often these days, and it's not limited to my perceptions of brand and marketing.
Have you see the pictures coming out of Beijing?
That milky soup in the air isn't an early-morning, dewy haze. It's air pollution. Toxic gases and chunky, gritty particulates floating in and out of people's lungs.
These images run headlong into my understanding of the global warming issue, and my perceptions of the Kyoto Accord in particular.
China signed the agreement, but has claimed some special status that requires it only monitor/report emissions vs. do anything about them. Lots of the propaganda coming from China is directed at daring the U.S. to sign, most likely without the capacity (or gall) of claiming such similar dispensation. The language from the environmental lobby avoids the messy bickering between nations altogether, in lieu of simple math: agreement equals good.
Only tell that to the Olympic athletes coughing and wheezing in Beijing.
My dim bulbish affliction requires that I challenge branding that doesn't reflect reality...or makes that reality easier or better understood. Conversely, I think that one of the main reasons that brand marketing fails is when it either tolerates or actively promotes a gap between the two. Where gurus see "brand value," I tend to see "irrelevance" or, more egregiously, cognitive dissonance.
There are reasons why trust in corporations is at an all-time low, and why lots of marketing doesn't do much beyond enrich the agencies and media who produce it. I'd say one of the key drivers is this disconnect.
So, maybe that's why the global warming issue has failed to fully connect with everyone?
Think about it: the language, or branding, on the issue is marvelously dire and compelling. Though poorly named -- colder winters are hard to reconcile with a trend toward a warmer earth, so climate change or distruption would have been better brand names -- the concept is easy to grasp, and it has lots of inspired, talented people promoting it.
Yet lots of people have nagging doubts.
Sure, there are the small group of dedicated political or ideological fanatics who can't separate facts from their rabid hatred of other political or ideological fanatics, but there's a larger group of consumers who, in spite of all the great branding, can't connect-the-pollutants.
Even though China looks bad, how is America somehow a worse polluter?
- China has a thriving manufacturing economy, so what's the connection between emissions and business growth?
- What good is an agreement if countries that sign it don't sign-on to the same commitments?
- How is it that Chinese citizens tolerate Beijing (and other cities) wherein you can't take a deep breath?
- What does it say about their capacity for embracing and living up to global contract?
It would help the case for addressing global warming debate if these complexities were at least acknowledged, let alone discussed.
Simply declaring the issue a fact, and support of Koyto an obvious good thing...thereby implicitly labeling those opposed to either point nothing better than Luddite contrarians...isn't smart branding. It's not compelling. And the images coming out of China make the debate seem oddly disconnected from reality.
Link to original post