Eco-Workshop Syndrome

Having had the good fortune to work in environmental management for some 20 years, it is pleasing to see the recent unprecedented levels of interest shown in sustainability. Driven largely by concerns over man-made warming of the atmosphere, rising waste and consumption levels and problems with water supplies, ‘eco’ has become a serious business issue rather than a minority sport. A measure of this is the value of businesses that operate in the environmental and energy efficiency sectors – waste management, recycling, pollution and energy monitoring, strategy, associated software development and other consultancy – which is estimated to be worth £107 billion per annum in the UK alone. The old adage, ‘Where there’s muck, there’s brass’ holds as true now as it ever has. However, what we also now see, along with the growth of legitimate environmental businesses is the inevitable burgeoning of eco-philosophy strategising that is too often purchased at great expense by multinationals and big public sector agencies looking for ways to be more sustainable and responsible. In the main, such offerings tend to preach to the converted, alienate those who could be persuaded otherwise and are an expensive waste of money.

A plethora of projects and ‘programmes’ designed to change attitudes to sustainability, reflect on our feelings towards the environment, measure our responses to climate change are packed full of emotion and big words but end up gathering dust on a shelf or sitting idle on a hard disk. While such initiatives can be from consultancies, NGOs or both, they can often carry a whiff of anti-capitalism and anti-business. A measure of this is the time taken before advertising is identified as the main driver of mindless consumerism and therefore the cause of society’s ills [which in the case of the banking sector is a deserved epithet]. To return to the creative community, an advert for underarm deodorant may be cited, until it is pointed out that everyone in the room buys and uses such personal hygiene kit. Perhaps a more questionable use of advertising is government campaigns that cheerily or chillingly tell us to ‘go green’. At least adverts for consumer products are, in the main, well targeted and engaging. I challenge any agency with an eco-brief to come up with something that is accurate, amusing and memorable to its audience. Otherwise, that money could be better spent putting a proper cycling infrastructure into our major cities.

Businesses do use resources and create waste, however, they act responsibly in the main and certain businesses are creating the means and technologies through which our natural environment is protected. Such environmental ‘sector’ businesses attract honest- to- goodness engineers, planners, marketers, technologists, biologists, chemists and many other legitimate practitioners. While all such experts have their own lingua franca, impenetrable to those on the outside, at least it is honest technical terminology. Not the impenetrable consultancy speak that eco-strategy programmes deliver through outreach and workshops.

Talking of which, Alexei Sayle had strong views on those whom are not involved in light engineering, but whom regularly attend workshops. If you do go to a workshop and you ARE involved in light engineering, you are not only excused, but you are a rare beast indeed [in the UK at least]. If you are NOT involved in light engineering, and you regularly attend workshops, you are the sum of too many Twitters.

As we continue to fight the challenges of climate change, decimation of bio-diversity and resource depletion, there is a pressing need for more straight-talking, backed up by common sense, knowledge and observation from those with the ability to communicate and influence. People such as David Attenborough and John Lister-Kaye for example. They have done more to inform us about the environment than any number of summer schools, workshops and ‘thought leadership’ programmes. James Cameron’s Avatar must also be credited for its straightforward message about the benefits of living in balance with the natural world.

So come on all you plain speakers with an interest in progressive environmental management and sustainability. Let’s hear your honest, knowledgeable and engaging rhetoric. Let’s filter out the overblown strategising and get everyone rolling up their sleeves to improve the environment for one and all.

We are all marketers now

You can build it, but can you sell it. That is the question that all channels and producers needs to ask themselves in a world where content is created for online and mobile viewing, paid for through brand alliances or micro-payments systems.

Where does this new market environment leave the established or budding commercial media company? They already stand or fall on the quality of their programmes and ideas. However, they will have to wean themselves off a reliance on commissioning fees from the broadcast channels. While some content will be commissioned in this way, other content may be self generated with a payback via online micro-payments or they will work directly with brands to create and distribute content. The producers therefore need to be more market orientated, while remaining true to their creative souls. They will need to embrace web and mobile marketing as a means of grabbing attention and sales and/or they will need to schmooze corporate marketers and convince them that their brand will be enhanced through an association with the brilliant new content – whatever the genre. It makes for a whole new subset of pitching!

How will the producer get their product to market, and what will it look like? For a start, they will need to re-evaluate their audience - numbers, geography, culture and demographics. In the online world, a content merchant can speak to everyone all at once, therefore they will need to learn how to maximise attention in the places where their audience browse. If the audience operates in different languages [and a single language version will just not do], all versions of the episode will have to be released at once – unless that is the creator does not want to alienate those whom are not catered for from the start. Going further than this, localised versions of a series may have to be made in parallel and released at the same time. This also creates interesting challenges for licensing of third party content.

Some content will of course be universal in tone, but even here, the web savvy channel and/or producer will need to have a secure and easy to use e-commerce engine. This ability to generate online, direct sales from the consumer will also impact upon format of programmes. Shorter episodes for mobile devices will become more prevalent. At the same time, the technology itself will influence storylines and formats, for example, the interactive possibilities online and the geographic location abilities of mobile. This is all possible, while retaining quality entertainment and drama.

To summarise, the shift to a pay per episode model for video content would be good for content creators and good for the consumer because:

Producers will have to take much more responsibility for their content.
Experimentation will still continue at the fringes of production – encouraged by the low cost of production and the ability to reach a mass audience through the web.
The channels will no longer be the ‘destination’ for a mixed bag of programming.
You and I will pay for that which we like at a time and place that suits us.
Producers can choose to work with ‘channel’ partners – be they TV channel brands or other brands with access to a ready audience.
While producers can interact directly with their audience, they will have to be much more web and market focussed. No more relying on the channel to hype their content.

For those broadcasters willing to face facts and face up to the opportunities, there is a strong chance that they can reinvent themselves for this new world. They just need to become web marketers.