Manifesto

7 Comments »

1. 

   Snyggt! Ser fram emot utställningen,

   Comment by Agnes — Thu, April 8, 2010 @ 13:45

2. 

   You say, “Because if we don’t tell the truth, why should anyone listen?”

   I say, simply because people will listen and prefer all sorts of lies as long as these lies have more to offer than whatever it is you call the truth.

   Logically, it´s only within a context where people (the market) demands or expects a true transparancy in communication – that a transparent and a sustainable communication will have a value, i.e. be asked for.

   And if the market does not expect or demand this and if the byers don´t feel morally indignated for whatever is regarded as “BAD” at that specific time and place – there will probably not be a need for what you call “a sustainable communication”.

   Or to put in reversely; pragmatically, “a sustainable communication” can probably only be a the results and knowledge about the specific “do´s and don´ts” of a certain market. And these “do´s and don´ts”, or what we could refer to as “BADS”, seems to differ from time to time…

   I´m looking forward to the exhibition and to listen more closely to how you intellectually have interpreted your mission of creating a sustainable communicative plan!

   Comment by Max Kern — Sat, April 10, 2010 @ 15:18

3. 

   It is probably not far fetched to ask wether the actual project is dealing with the issues of: a sustainable communication?

   Or with a communication that deals with questions of sustainability?

   Which are, of course, two completely different ways of approach and meaning!

   Comment by Max Kern — Sat, April 10, 2010 @ 15:39

4. 

   It’s a good point. However it’s not a question of whether or not people WOULD listen to “convenient truths”, but rather if they should. We feel that we as communicators have a responsibility to tell the truth, to be one step ahead of critical inspection tv-programs and social media bashing. Not because all consumers care about sustainability in every product or service, but because the ones who do care and make an effort and an active choice deserve to make an informed one. Nobody wants to find out that their good deed was a waste of money.

   The fastest way to kill your brand is to lie to your consumers about what they’re buying. That’s why our exhibition is about communicating sustainability. Because when people stop believing in brands, what good will advertising do?

   Comment by oskar@studentbyran.se — Mon, April 12, 2010 @ 14:39

5. 

   Yea right! But… Personally I still can’t see and don’t really understand your “twin” approach here.

   (That is not to say I disagree with the actual message and the importance of transparent communication in order to be able to correctly address a certain market!)

   My experience is that you (Studentbyrån) are actually speaking with two tongues… Or let’s put it this way: Which side are you actually taking? Michelin, Cloetta and all the companies that ignorantly believe they can get away with “greenwashing”??? Or… are you taking a moral standpoint together with what you refer to as “the truth”, the importance of “sustainability” and all the truly “good guys” with “good agendas” in society?

   In other words, are you morally judging companies that are untrue? Or are your aim to be there as facilitators to actually help them do what is the best thing to do? This is actually a rather crucial question that I hope you will be able to give a transparent answer to. I hope you understand that I’m not critical – only concerned.

   Comment by Max Kern — Wed, April 14, 2010 @ 09:12

6. 

   Our purpose with A Sustainable Plan is NOT to morally judge companies who act in a way that can be considered “bad”. As you say, right or wrong change with the times, and who are we to make that judgment? We will not question companies who act in an unsustainable (“bad”) way as long as they don’t communicate the opposite.

   What we DO want is to make these companies understand – from a business perspective – that they can’t talk one way and act another way. They will be caught, their brand will lose credibility and the ones communicating the brand (us) will lose credibility as well. The “twin” approach as you call is that we also have to make our own communication industry understand this, that we/they have a huge responsibility too.

   Comment by oskar@studentbyran.se — Wed, April 14, 2010 @ 11:19

7. 

   Fine! Case closed!

   Comment by Max Kern — Wed, April 14, 2010 @ 12:35

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website