Viral Video Gone Wrong: Eugenie Harvey

By The Lost Motorcyclist, April, 2011

I am trying to make sense of an awful video advertisement produced by an environmental group called 10:10, which was trying to get people to reduce their carbon footprint through video public service announcements (or ads). So here I have written my own opinion on the post mortem of that train wreck.

One of the trends in advertising today is viral videos. Instead of running your ads on TV, at huge cost, you can leverage them by putting them on Youtube, and hope they become "viral", meaning millions of people forward links to their friends. Ultimately, popular viral videos even make it onto the regular TV news programs. This gives them high impact and advertising for little cost. Unfortunately, in order to go "Viral", your ad must have a big enough impact on a viewer to make them want to tell their friends about it. So your ad needs to be extra edgy, with content shocking beyond what you can see on network TV. And there may even be slight temptation to not seek everyone's approval of the ad before posting it, for fear of losing that edge. But there is a possibility of a backfire, which can destroy your campaign, with no hope of ever pulling the viral video back out of circulation. Because a viral video, if it takes off, can be like an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

This is a story of a young, inexperienced, environmental PR group, directed by Eugenie Harvey, trying to run an ad campaign with a shocking video advertisement. They obviously were looking for a certain Monty Pythonesque humour, and they did achieve that, but it was completely at odds with the goals of the campaign.

Ten-ten realized very quickly that the ad was a mistake. They lost some important sponsors over the release. Because they were an environmental group, they also damaged the credibility of other the people working for the environment. In the end,  Fox News caught up to the ad and broadcast it to America. The propaganda value from something like this is so valuable to the anti-environmentalists, that Fox News risked going over the bounds of good taste to make sure everyone saw it. And of course, Fox would need to mention that everyone in the environmental movement is really like this underneath their fake exterior disguise. (in case you didn't know, Fox News is anti-environmentalist)

The Fox news bit starts with the typical call to "Outrage!" and shows the clip, with appropriate conservative anti-global warming commentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqTd0g48ZY4 (there is a graphic violence warning)

Full original ad here. (contrary to Fox's statement, they probably did show the worst of it.)

http://artthreat.net/2010/10/1010-campaign-heads-explode/#

Here is an article about 10-10, the group that launched the ad. It is a British environmental group I never heard of before this Fox News video, which appeared on October 10 last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/31/eugenie-harvey-10-10

This "humour" may pass as funny to the younger generation in Britain, I suppose. But, humour does not travel well. I have had discussions with some of my kids (even while adults) about "too much violence on TV" and they think I'm an old fuddy duddy.

Given the huge negative impact of ads like this, I am a little bit tempted to think it was a set-up by a covert anti-global warming operative. But the only suspicious background I could dig up was that Eugenie Harvey, the director of 10:10, had earlier worked for FoxTel (Owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News Channel).

My own final verdict is it was probably a genuine attempt at making a pro-environment video go viral, but that backfired big time.

Picture: Randi Zuckerberg (of Facebook) and Eugenie Harvey (of 10:10), ironically discussing ways of leveraging small non-profit advertising impact back in June 2009. On this blog:
http://www.chroniclebooks.com/blog/2009/06/22/all-for-good-arianna-huffington-randi-zuckerberg-and-eugenie-harvey/

What We Learn From Traveling Extensively

A few nights ago, I listened to a speaker who was introduced as having "traveled extensively". Very interesting phrase, I thought, and a phrase that I do not think has ever applied to me. It's not that I have never been away from home, but more like I "moved extensively" instead of traveled. And now I realize I have not moved for 19 years since I lived in this house, and before that I lived one block over for another thirteen years. Looks like my days of extensive moving are ended.

But now about the extensive travel. There is something about extensive travel that does not appeal to me, but I could never put my finger on it until I read this blog. "Left Turn at Albuquerque", the entry titled "Europe Eon".

http://www.tracyberna.com/ltaa/?p=177

A quick read through the blog and all my worst nightmares of travel are made real. Waking up at 6:00 AM every morning to get in a bus with a class full of teenagers to see another tourist sight. Being herded around in a group all day long until you are wiped out. It's like having a job, except you don't get paid.

Don't get me wrong, the person who is on the tour actually loved it. But as for me, I would rather go for a walk through Kitchener (25 minutes from my house) than spend two weeks on a tour of Europe like the one described in the blog. You may call it apples and oranges, but objectively, what is the difference between Paris and Kitchener? I have actually talked to people from Paris visiting Kitchener, so it can't be all that bad here. Frankly I don't know what attracted them to Kitchener. They stopped me on the street (many years ago) to ask if I could recommend a good restaurant. Back then, Kitchener didn't have any good restaurants, so I could only suggest they try some other town. I am generally not the most helpful person to ask for directions, because I don't think fast enough respond to the strange questions you often get from tourists. I am more the type of person who would give up and say "You can't get there from here".

The mind can be broadened from travel but often it doesn't happen in the rush. There is a very interesting quote from the author's mother. Upon being told it took 200 years to construct Notre Dame cathedral, she said "How do you care after 200 years?". Exactly the right question. Our present governments (Canada and the USA, I mean) are facing the prospect of climate change and running out of oil over the next 200 years. And really, why are we doing practically nothing? The real truth is because we don't care about anything that goes on for that long. Parisians, many years ago were willing to take 200 years to build a cathedral that none of the designers would ever live to see completed. Today, we are willing to let our entire planet be ruined through our wasteful use of fossil fuels, and climate change, because 200 years is too long for us to even care. There's a lesson in there somewhere, but I don't think it is getting through to most people, even the ones who travel extensively.

You would think that the lesson best learned from visiting Europe might be to appreciate that human civilization was not built in a day, and that one short-sighted generation does not have the right to put an end to it. It is no excuse that 200 years is apparently inconceivable to us. The lesson is there, in every cathedral, in every building dated before 1800 A.D. But was anything learned from this travel experience? I don't think so. Instead they were more concerned about their asses going numb sitting in the bus.

Well so much for the joys of learning from traveling extensively. The author notes, possibly with thinly veiled irony,

"...from the second we landed in our first destination, Paris, every spare second was completely scheduled.) Traveling with this company is about achievement, not appreciation-—you must have completed as many tasks as possible, who cares if you remember them. If you ask me, you want to see more stuff? Come back. Many times. Lots."

When I was 22 years old, I spent a week in Paris pretty much on my own, and simply wandered around the streets whole time. Forty years later, what do I remember? That there were five flights of stairs to my cheap hotel room, and a standing toilet with raised foot islands and a hole in the middle. And I remember asking for coffee and getting "cafe au lait" which I never heard of before. I was corrected a few times for saying things in French with a French Canadian accent. I learned that Parisians are very fussy about the pronunciation of French. I climbed the steps to the first floor of the Eiffel Tower, which was free, but the trap door was closed at the top, so that was disappointing, but at least I got the view. My other most exciting experience was trying to cross the traffic roundabout to get to L'Arc de Triomphe. Afterward I found out there was a safer underground passage.

Picture: Imagine running across all that traffic. I got the pic from this website because you need to see it from high up to appreciate the wonder that I am still alive: http://atourofparis.blogspot.com/2011/02/larc-de-triomphe.html

Coalition is not a Dirty Word, Steve.

Canada is going to have a federal election, and why exactly? For the last several years we have had a Conservative minority government. It looks like we are going to get another one. But wait! I see a strategy forming here on the part of the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, to consolidate his position by making sure that no coalitions can ever form against him. To do that, he is spreading the message that coalitions are un-Canadian, that they would undermine everything that we hold dear, that they would destroy motherhood, apple pie, and the pursuit of happiness. Sorry, I'm taking that a bit too far up the backside of America. But for sure, Stephen wants us to think coalitions are bad.

Nobody would ever form a coalition with the Conservatives anyway, and not because Stephen didn't try. It's because the Conservatives are the only right wing American corporate/religious based party in Canada. All four other parties are busy splitting the left wing moderate vote.

On the other hand, a good solid coalition could defeat the Conservatives. So it's best for the Conservatives to spread the idea that coalitions are unfair and treasonous.

Now we come to the part that I find very frustrating. Liberal leader Ignatieff decided to counter this tactic by declaring that he would never seek a coalition, and repeated it very loudly in a "read my lips" kind of tone. I consider this to be a blunder, especially since almost half of Canadian voters now think Ignatieff is lying. In baseball, this is called an "unforced error". I don't think that even Stephen expected this good luck to fall in his lap.

In my opinion, as well as the opinion of the majority of Quebecers, coalitions are good for the country, not bad for the country. They are part of our heritage and tradition. It is the American two-party system that loathes a coalition, not the Canadian multi-party parliament.

Ignatieff did not need to say a thing about a coalition, although I suppose he could have stated that it was part of Canada's tradition, and that he was not presently interested in one. And then explained why Harper was so scared of coalitions, and moved on to why we should vote Liberal.

Picture: From this blog "Proroguing Parliament and Conservative Crime Legislation: A Cagey Stephen Harper Takes Two Steps Back" at Informedvote.ca

Buying a Handbag is Not Like Buying a Motorcycle

I like to examine my motivations in buying a motorcycle, which goes a long way toward explaining the type of motorcycles I buy, but also how many and how often I buy them. I need to know this, because buying motorcycles could easily become an obsession for me. I have spoken to people who said they owned more than 50 motorcycles. If they were lying, their stories held up well under cross examination.

I think of it this way. Do I buy a motorcycle because I need one, or want one?

Let me break it down further. Do I buy a motorcycle for the same reasons a woman would buy a handbag? These reasons, as I understand it are:

- because putting stuff in pockets makes her look fat
- because it goes with her (current) outfit
- because it is the latest thing
- because everybody wants one
- because it is made by the most popular French fashion designer
- because it will make her the envy of all her friends
- because owning one will make her the centre of attention every time she enters a room
- because people will notice her with it on the street.


Or do buy a motorcycle for all the reasons a woman never buys a handbag, which again, to the best of my knowledge are

- because it holds the stuff she wants to carry with her
- because the bottom fell out of the last bag or the hand strap broke.
- or, because the last one was stolen

So one of these sets of reasons would be practical, and the other set is wishful thinking. The wishful thinking reasons are promoted in all advertising, whose main goal is to part me with my money. If this is why I am buying a motorcycle, no price is too high, and I must have a new one at least every year.

But because I think of myself as a practical person, not easily duped, I try to think before I buy (usually). I think about whether I need this motorcycle or not. And by thinking this way, I usually manage to avoid having more than six motorcycles in my garage at any one time.


Picture: One more reason to buy a handbag, to wear it on your head. From the Isaac Mizrahi Fall 2009 Fashion Collection. Women do not usually like to be told to wear a bag on their head, except by famous fashion designers.

University of Guelph Economics Department Spreads Corporate Propaganda

My title may be a little unfair, as I have only really heard the opinions of two of its professors, and maybe there are many more who do not spread corporate propaganda. But still, something is going on at the University of Guelph Economics department. For the second time this year I have found out that one of the professors is committed to the anti-global warming cause. A month ago, I wrote about a lecture I attended by Glenn Fox (also a professor in the University of Guelph Faculty of Economics), this blog:

http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2011/02/glenn-fox-phd-lectures-seniors-on.html

Now I read an article by Ross McKitrick in the Vancouver Sun, about Earth Hour "Why I will leave my lights on".

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Earth+Hour+will+leave+lights/4498889/story.html

He also wrote a book "Taken by Storm" skeptical of global warming.
http://www.takenbystorm.info/

So at least two outspoken critics of global warming or use of green power sources on the UoG faculty of Economics.

Here is McKitrick's CV page at UoG

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cv.html

And, in case you could not predict, it lists him as Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Vancouver B.C.

I find McKitrick's piece in the Vancouver Sun "Why I leave my lights on" to be about as offensive as the drivers who tell bicycle riders "Good thing you ride a bike, it leaves more oil for our Hummers." By the way, I am not accusing McKitrick of saying that, because that would be a "straw man argument" and unfair to him.

But McKitrick did say this: "The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity." Now that is straw man argument. In fact his entire argument against Earth Hour is one long straw man argument, that people who turn off their lights hate electricity, instead of showing respect for our resources. I have never seen one single person who turns out their lights for Earth Hour who "hates" electricity, or is trying to demonize it.

Such arguments are not only illogical, but unworthy of university professors. The University of Guelph is letting itself become a source of corporate propaganda, instead of an institution for learning.

And in case you were wondering, I can tolerate debate and discussion. But neither of these professors seem to stick to logic, nor do they seem to consider both sides of the issue. That's why I think they are propagandists.

The First No-Fly Zone Was In 1776

This is a comparison of the Libyan No-Fly zone to a similar policy in the American War of Independence.

Back in 1776, the navy was like the air force today. There was no such thing as an air force back then. The equivalent force would have been the navy. A navy was able to move freely, and relatively speedily across water, was able to bombard cities and carry troops and supplies.

Think of how the Libyan struggle is like the American War of Independence. The obvious parallels (though unflattering I suppose), the British forces in 1776 as the equivalent of Gadhafi's forces, and the American forces as the equivalent of the Libyan rebels. The Americans would have been less professional, and would not have had a navy for support, while the British had a professional army, and naval support. The Libyan rebels are less professional, and have little or no air power, though I suppose they have popular support.

Another similarity would be that some Americans, possibly one third of the population, supported the British, like some Libyans (I don't know how many) support Gadhafi. The fact that many Americans supported the British is not well known to Americans today, however it is very well known to Canadians. One of the founding groups in Canada was the Americans who were forced to flee after the defeat of the British in the American War of Independence.

So now we come to the philosophy of the no-fly zone. There was no United Nations in 1776 to declare a "No Sail" zone. So the French decided to send in their navy to neutralize the British navy off the coast of the colonies. In a sea battle called "The Battle of the Chesapeake", the French navy drove off the British navy, and allowed Washington's army to force the surrender of the British army at Yorktown. Shortly after, King George signed a deal to allow the American colonies to go free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake

If this history is anything to go by, Gadhafi will eventually step down. But the rebels will show very little gratitude to the people who stepped in to help them, just as the Americans largely turned their backs on the French, once independence was achieved.

Picture: Battle of the Chesapeake from Wikipedia, with my own red circle superimposed in Photoshop.

Why There is a No Fly Zone Over Libya

Is there any way to make sense of Canadian and US actions in Libya?

A few nights ago, I watched a panel of experts discussing Libya on TV Ontario, "The Agenda" with Steve Paikin. A serious question was asked. Why take the trouble to bomb Libyan forces and ground installations, when we are not doing the same in Yemen or Bahrain, where protesters also have been killed? And why do people who opposed the invasion of Iraq support this? From what I heard not one person on the panel had the obvious (to me anyway) answer.

If the question is "why are we bombing Libya, but not Yemen and Bahrain", the simple answer is "Because Libya is the only government using the air force to bomb their own cities." To me, it seems fair and even reasonable to deny the dictators the use of air space when it comes to bombing their own people. But that is only the first part of the answer. Second part, possibly even more important, is that the United Nations agreed to a no-fly zone to protect the Libyan people from their own air force. It is very difficult to get the UN to agree on taking forceful steps. In Iraq, the UN did not agree. For Libya, the UN agreed. Of course, if you hate the UN, as many conservatives do, this approval means nothing.

Now, if the uprising in Libya fails, it is at least going to fail on a more level playing field.

To summarise, the two main reasons are: 1. Libya is the only government bombing its own people using its air superiority. 2. Libya is the only country that the UN placed in a no-fly zone.

Both these reasons carry a huge amount of weight with me, I cannot understand why most commentators in the US and Canada downplay them. Even Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, who I normally agree with, seemed to ignore these reasons for bombing Libyan facilities.

If only one country, or one isolated group of countries tries to attack another country despite widespread disapproval at home and internationally, that smells of warmongering. That's what happened with Iraq, and it was a big mistake, regardless of excuses.

If just about every country in the United Nations, (including in this case Libya, but that would not be typically necessary) agrees to use force on Libya, to establish a no-fly zone, this attack is not warmongering.

Now for the people who said Obama did not act fast enough. I never heard any mention of the many US and Canadian citizens working in Libya when this protest broke out. What do you think Gaddafi would do to those people if air strikes were called before they could be found and evacuated?

With this type of discussion going on on TV, its no wonder people can't make sense of anything.

Just another example of what I call mindless babble on TV. I saw an ABC news show this morning, with a picture of the downed US jet, and the News Anchor commenting that "when you see the pictures there, of just the damage from the crash, the fact that these two pilots are OK this morning, that's just incredible." Given that the crew bailed out, what does the condition of the plane after it hit the ground have to do with their survival? Then the expert, Martha Raddatz, talked about how the crew knew very well how to eject. Exactly how much training is it supposed to take to know how to hit the red eject button? I'm thinking the tricky part is knowing *when* to eject.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/target-libya-us-fighter-jet-crashes-13191340

Once we used to say "You know it's bad when the Comedy Network does the best news reporting on TV." Now, "You know it's a lot worse when even the Comedy Network News can't get it right."

Picture: F15 from the Internet