The latest crop of Chevron television and radio spots speak to us with all the moral certitude of a young Jesus Christ—back before Gethsemane, when he was still so certain. They mix that in with a dollop of Naderish hectoring, topped off with a big scoop of fulsome piousness. The result, tagged with the sweetly wheedling, “Will You Join Us?” is about as unlovely a call to arms as anyone has heard in the last fifty years.
Note to the Chevron Marketing Department: Peeps, I feel your pain.
Chevron is widely hated because it is perceived as a relentless gouger, which has managed to turn the “mysteriously” high oil prices and difficult economics of the last two years into the largest quarterly profits in its 129-year history: $7.89 billion in Q3 2008. It can’t be easy crafting a campaign to speak to consumers who see you as one of the chief minions of Lucifer*, especially now that you’ve forced them out of their SUVs.
But, please, take a memo.
Applying the zeal of the recent convert to your advertising and speaking over your shoulder to the mass of Americans who are suddenly behind you in the race for ultimate greenitude is just plain obnoxious. This may be news to you, but you can’t seize the moral high ground by force: You can only be wafted there on the huzzahs of others, generated by your own good deeds.
Perhaps, like Eric Cartman, South Park’s resident sociopath, you’re unsure of the difference between doing something good and putting on a spiffy new sweater that looks good. So, for the record:
- Patting yourself on the back is not in itself a praiseworthy act
- Simply declaring that you are environmentally conscious doesn’t make it so
- Lecturing Americans will not make Americans like you better
If you want people to join you, try this: Say something real.
Truth is powerful. Truth reaches people. Truth cuts through the clutter. As that young Y’Shua fellow was fond of saying, “The truth will make you free.” What can Chevron say to America, and the world, that can free the company of its taint, and begin a real conversation?
Only you know that. Only the people in power at Chevron know that. But I assure you, everyone would love to hear it. Whenever you’re ready, we’ll be here. Will you join us?
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆
*Cheney.
See some of the latest Chevron advertising.
©2009 Christopher St. John.
——————————-
To readers: If you have any corrections or criticisms, I’d love to hear them!
ya, rilly, like BP = “Beyond Petroleum” ?
What’s with these companies trying to pretend they are not what they are?
Chevron is a predator, pure and simple
when I saw these commercials, I was like , “That’s SOME nerve.”
I think they are trying to do some green stuff, but I agree it comes across pretty snotty on the TV and radio I’ve heard. But I don’t want to get into the attitude of ‘Corporations are bad per se’ because I dont think they necessarily are.
I don’t think these spots are overshooting the mark. Tonally, they are basically 21st century Hal Riney (the man, not the office building). They want to connect with people, so they are serious and straightforward. They do seem a little self-involved but I don’t think it overwhelms everything else.
San Francisco’s Muni actually had Chevron’s bus-wrap campaign taken off buses because the people thought the “hand-written” type in ads looked like graffiti.
Here’s a Contra Costa Times article about the flap:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/traffic/ci_11033625?nclick_check=1
Feh, these people are pigs. But we should take any ally we can find. Maybe they are finally feeling the pressure, but I would not trust them with a burnt out match. Any claims should be verified. I’m not holding my breath for Chevron to come clean.
A Friend of Our Planet
I think the tone of this campaign can come across as patronizing, which is a pity. Chevron Energy Services has actually been doing a lot of good for the environment, helping institutions across California reduce the amount of energy they consume and switch to renewable sources of power, mainly solar. And I know for a fact these efforts are not mere “greenwashing.” They’re good for the schools, colleges and governments in this state, they’re good (financially) for Chevron, and they’re good for the planet.
I swear, Chevron needs to hire ME to come out with a better campaign.
The problem is that two groups of people have preconceived notions about Chevron. One thinks Chevron (along with Exxon et al.) is evil because the company often comes down on the wrong side when it comes to pollution, human rights abuses abroad, and tax evasion, while the other camp reflexively supports Chevron because it is seen as anti-treehugger (the enemy of my enemy thinking).
So who is the campaign’s target audience? Both camps? (Nearly impossible considering the pyschographic divide.) It seems a little to Prius-y to satisfy the supporters and a little false to the detractors.
I’m not even sure what the end goal is. People have to buy gas if they drive, and usually they go for price and convenience. For all the “shop local” talk you hear now, I haven’t heard anyone suggest it’s better to buy Chevron gas versus BP if you live in the Bay Area.
Is part of a bigger, more meta lobbying campaign? To influence the electorate into not thinking Chevron is evil and thus not put up a fuss when the company deals with legislative matters? I really don’t know.
Anyone who worked on the campaign have insight?
Beautiful commercials, but the underlying energy lacks integrity. It’s one thing to bravely face the future. Doing so without facing up to your past leaves those around you feeling ripped off. The mantle of authenticity you wish to wear will constantly slip off your shoulders until you make proper reparations.
I’d love to see a Hurlbert campaign for Chevron.
And maybe you could get your friends at Landor to help Chevron with the “1992 Reader’s Digest” look they have going.
I don’t have any inside info on this campaign, but I worked on “People Do,” back in the day. If you’ve never been exposed to Chevron internal culture, it’s hard to really grasp this, but many people at Chevron REALLY BELIEVE they are more socially and environmentally conscious than other energy companies. They think they are unfairly under siege by “tree huggers.”
In my little corner of the machine, we laughed at this idea, but of course, we pumped the crap out.
The “People Do” campaign (and probably this one) was aimed at “opinion leaders” (same reason ExxonMobil sponsors all those PBS programs) with the idea of blunting the lefty/educated/affluent (what we would now call “blue state”) opposition to Chevron’s programs. Basically, they know that there is going to have to be SOME regulation from the Feds and the states, but they want to dial that down as much as possible. The less grassroots “noise,” the better.
Not only is the message a slap in the face, the campaign is derivative and poorly executed. They can’t speak the “truth”, because that would be ugly. Like Allen explains above, you and I aren’t really the target of this advertising. It’s the regulators.
I wish I had an answer, or even a course of action. Other than riding my bike a lot more and continuing to boycott them whenever possible (i.e. any time I pass there pump not on empty, or stranded in the desert).
Chevron Nader Christ: “I will leave the car at home more” has absolutely zero credibility coming from an oil company. When the wholesale cost of a material goes up, the profit margin becomes squeezed — doesn’t do the opposite and set a record. Something is rotten in Denmark, and it’s not just the refinery odors. But $7.89 billion quarterly profit is beginning to sound small compared to the Wall Street bailout with no accountability.