Tsunamis, Advertising And Our Future

On December 26, 2004, the Southeast Asia Tsunami struck, leaving over 160,000 people dead in 12 countries bordering the Indian Ocean. Tsunami is a Japanese term, which has been universally adopted to describe waves (not tidal) caused by underwater earthquake or other large-scale disturbances of the ocean floor. It is also known as seismic sea wave, and usually occurs in certain coastal areas.
Most of us are ignorant of the impact we are making on the natural world. Let us consider advertising for example. In order to successfully provide information that we consumers find helpful and increase our understanding of the product choices available to us, marketers around the world are investing billions of dollars annually in market research.

In reality, advertising is a valid component of modern life. Paradoxically, however, all products, packaging and services have some environmental impact, although the degree varies from one to the other. We live in a market- driven economy, which is constantly fuelled by advertising - from television to radio to billboards to print ads to "pop-ups" on the Internet, etc. That way, advertising drives consumption on the assumption that the more that is produced (imported?) and purchased the more we experience progress and prosperity.

In the same vein, the gross national product (GNP) is widely touted as a measure of how successfully a consumer society consumes. Ironically, it is estimated that worldwide expenditure on advertising has been surpassing the world gross product. But all kinds of things are being said about advertising, e.g. that it encourages waste, and a throw- away mentality contributing to the destruction of the earth and its natural resources. Some also have a strong conviction that advertising is the most powerful and sustained system of propaganda in human history and unless quickly checked, will be responsible for the deaths of a lot of people.

The process of manufacturing and disposal of the items we buy lead to other environmental problems, including ocean pollution, ozone layer depletion, habitat loss and increased air and water pollution. It is noteworthy that Indonesia, with at least 100,000 dead, by far recorded the largest number of victims among the countries recently hit by the tsunami. It is, however, interesting that the natural hazards associated with that country are: occasional floods, severe draughts, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes and forest fires. Studies have also shown that alcohols, household cleaning products, floor polishes, charcoal lighter fluid, windscreen wiper fluid and hair styling spray or gel may actually threaten the ozone layer. It is even posited that billboards amount to visual pollution! Yet we are endlessly bombarded with messages, courtesy of advertising and public relations companies that depict major polluters as environmentally conscious organizations that donate to charity and sponsor worthy endeavours. A look at the operations of petroleum companies for example, will reveal that drilling generates billions of tons of mud and cuttings that degrade bottom- dwelling life. In addition, air pollution by rigs, tanker traffic and spills all adversely affect ocean and ecosystems. Experts have confirmed the result of oil industry's operations in Nigeria as extensive degradation of the country's land and ecosystems. It is again remarkable that Indonesia, the world's largest archipelago (17,508 islands, with 6,00 inhabited) is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC, to which Nigeria also belongs). Indonesia produces 1.451 million bbl/ day, while environmental challenges associated with the country include: deforestation, water pollution from industrial wastes and sewage, air pollution in urban areas, smoke and haze from forest fires.

But for advertising, how would companies, including oil marketers and those in the food and drink industry, make their products known? Take cattle rearing for example. Though it requires clearing of rain forests, the primary goal is not to feed local people, but to serve fast food restaurants. Sustenance of the environment is not only affected in the process, the economies of entire regions are equally stunted. Meanwhile advertisements lead us to such restaurants and even encourage us to have our breakfast there! A typical example of our abuse of the eco- sphere of the planet can be found in the way we extract and use natural resources (wood, ore, fossil fuels, water, etc.). Establishing factories and factory complexes also takes its toll on the environment, while the use of commodities, e.g. automobiles, creates pollutants and wastes. According to William Rees, an urban planner at the University of British Columbia, it requires between four and six hectares of land to sustain the level of consumption of the average person from a developed society. However, as at 1990, there were, globally, 1.7 hectares of ecologically productive land for each person.

If the earth is under stress now, with less than 20% of the population consuming 86% of the world's resources, what will happen by the time China, India, Africa and South America (World market) follow the example of the rich? There is a broad consensus among environmental scholars that the earth can no longer sustain the consumer vision as more nations struggle to join the feeding trough. They further state that with the current economic disposition of "uninhibited growth", we may be trapped in a mode of development that will eventually be destructive to the environment. What is the way forward? In a television commercial produced by New York office of McCann Erickson on the relief efforts in places affected by the tsunami, Bill Clinton, while exhorting viewers to donate, is heard saying, "No one can change what happened. But we can all change what happens next". Great oratory! But why is the United States the only developed country in the world that has failed to endorse the Basel Convention (a UN environmental treaty which adopted a global ban on the export of hazardous wastes from developed countries to the Third World)? It still exports hazardous electronic wastes such as old computers, old computer monitors, etc., to less developed countries thereby harming their environment.

Is it a case of "guilty conscience" as America's Advertising Council funds the tsunami advertising campaign? The relief effort has also received a boost from the WPP Group, world's second largest advertising holding company, the Publicis Groupe (fourth largest), Havas (sixth largest), Interpublic (the third) and the largest of them all, the Omnicom Group. These organizations have, so far, committed between $300,000 and $1,000,000, each to the effort. Can these sophisticated marketing communicators and creative, talented professionals help us with how not to buy and consume, but to learn and do? Can we (consumers) on our part want less? Lately, the Union of Concerned Scientists (representing 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including a majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences) warned that unless we shun materialism and be ready to sacrifice for generations after us, we might just be heading for a catastrophe before the end of this century. Reality, however, is, advertisements will remain and continue to talk to our conscious, rational mind and to our subconscious desires. Ridding marketing in an economy based on free enterprise is almost an impossible task. However, we should remember that Nigeria shares many things in common with Indonesia!

Is our advertising capable of steering us away from a possible tsunami in future years?