I am currently holding a delicious piece of irony in my hands. I'm thumbing through a 58-page (plus two covers) glossy, four-color guide purported to help Treasure Valley residents live green. It's official: the word "green" has jumped the shark. Or, at least, killed it off with upstream drainage.Head in hands, brow furrowed, I just flipped through Meridian in the Middle magazine's "The Green Issue". Ho boy. A magazine, arguably one of the most wasteful forms of communication in existence, has published a green issue. A complimentary magazine that you will never find in short supply on the racks at coffee shops, supermarkets, and the like because it's such a waste of time. It is, in fact, media pollution. It's no distribution miracle that issues of publications like these are always plentiful. There isn't a diligent delivery representative restocking them as they fly off the rack. Why, then? They're terribly written and trivial and pointless. How do I know? I just read it.
Like any good magazine of its ilk, it's chocked full of advertisements for really green products and services like health spas, country clubs, and Tony Roma's. When I think eco-friendly, the first things that pop into my head are ridiculous portions of meat and vast, underutilized expanses used exclusively by the elite for recreation! Meridian in the Middle, you've satisfied my need for ribs AND supplied reassurance for my superficial environmentalism. Thanks!
And the articles. Oh, the articles. Topics covered range from telecommuting ('cause employers would be more than happy to let you stay at home and screw off), socially responsible investing (abbreviated "SRI" so acronym freaks can throw that around like it's a whole different level of transcendent investing. Formerly known as "due diligence" or "common sense".), and some art gallery (huh? Why?). Additionally, you'll find a few other articles included for no particular reason including a "Gear Guide" that highlights common outdoor gear, like a $3,200 bicycle for the everyman. Each piece of gear is conveniently linked with a Valley outlet that will totally hook you up and it's green because the page is COLORED green! Wicked. (Though, I do have to admit that the headline on a blurb for a tent - "Tents & Tentability" - made me laugh.)
The most mind-blowing piece of all, however, is an article entitled "Emission Statement: Green options let you have your car and drive it too." (I'm convinced that the contributors to the mag spend more time on titles than they do on the articles themselves.) Basically, it mentions three performance vehicles (yeah, a whole shitload) that the author considers green. Two of them are SUVs and one is a V12 Lexus. The Lexus sedan gets an astronomical TWENTY TWO MILES on the highway. Wowza! Just like a 1982 Honda Accord! Truly revolutionary gas-miser technology coming from Lexus. The others are a Toyota Highlander, which gets a respectable 25 MPG highway and a GMC Yukon. The latter, while never mentioning the actual gas mileage (it comes in at a staggering 20 MPG highway), have engines described as "just as green as those in the diminutive [Toyota] Prius. Who would have thought?" Well, to answer your question, Steve Schutz, NOBODY. That's an absolute lie! In what way is that hulking road-tank "just as green" as a Prius? I'm going to sheath the green thumb in favor of the green middle finger on this one.
Ignoring the reality that this publication is an uninspired rag produced solely to sell advertising, I am still astounded. On its cover, MitM proudly gloats that this issue was "PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER." Wow, this truly is a magazine that cares about the environment. Disregarding the contention that the jury is still out on whether recycling paper is efficient or not, do you really think that lessens the impact of printing 58 pages (plus two weighty cardstock covers), half of which is ads, the other half sparsely filled with obvious tips on "going green", of pointless drivel? Seems inconsistent, to me. If you're going to propagate a lie, you're going to need to live it 100%. The paper didn't come out of the recycling plant glossy and the four-color ink isn't derived from berries the printer found in the wild. Not to mention the fuel used in manufacturing, distribution, maintenance, and, most sickening of all, disposal. This isn't Time or Reader's Digest, in which "THE GREEN ISSUE" would make exponentially more sense because they're more efficient and have a high circulation. In MitM, the concept comes off as sad bandwagoning; a half-assed attempt at catching the casual environmentalist's eye by riding the green wave.
So, what could MitM have done for "THE GREEN ISSUE"? First, this is supposedly a special issue, so think creatively. Instead of the usual 58-page snoozefest, print an 8-page supplement on heavy, fibrous recycled paper with teaser articles to drive readers to its website to read more. Save paper, print less, be different. Let this GREEN ISSUE tangibly BE a green issue! Second, worthwhile, you know, CONTENT to help people live green, not these trivial life changes that are nigh-impossible to implement. They can still keep the ads; put them online, stick a few premium spots in the supplemental, and give discounts for current advertisers. Build, you know, READERSHIP. Ad rates and survival are based on actual readership, not how many racks you stuff every other month. Live that green lie and make people curious. The moment any potential reader opens this issue and sees that the first 7 pages are ads, you've probably lost him or her. At the very least, you've thrown the whole green thing out the window. Third, include ads, not just articles, that are consistent with the message. If you have to turn away a few advertisers, it might come to that, but I'm certain any company interested in advertising in this particular issue would comply to make its firm seem green. I mean, that's the concept right? That green is so awesome and it's our choice, NO, RESPONSIBILITY, to make that effort? It is. Otherwise, why dedicate an issue to it? Make it awesome, because what you've got is underwhelming and unconvincing.
Sorry, this is way too long. I'm just fed up with the faux green panderers. Eco-marketing specifically, and eco-communication generally, is powerful right now. I expect it to be exploited, but marketers need to focus on goodwill and be CONSISTENT. Tell your story and then live it. Don't be a walking contradiction; it won't resonate. Hell, it won't even get noticed. The only thing that attracted me to it was morbid fascination. Now, though, I'm going to return it to its rightful place among the other 20+ copies where it will surely collect dust until the time comes to be "recycled" again. What an efficient process. Green exists, but it truly needs to embody the concept. Be green, otherwise you'll just look it. That's not green, that's AstroTurf.
BJB
Posts
