My wife and I were discussing whether we could put a milk carton in the recycling, like most people, we looked on the side of the carton to see what it said.
On the carton was a symbol: two arrows in a circle, one light green and one dark green intertwined, obviously to symbolise recycling.
So it must mean the pack was recyclable, but it turned out not to mean that at all.
I looked it up online on a website explaining recycling symbols.
The one we were looking at is called The Green Dot, the website said as follows:
“The Green Dot DOESN’T mean that the packaging is recyclable. It DOESN’T mean it will be recycled. It DOESN’T mean it has been recycled.
The Green Dot is a symbol that simply means the producer has made a financial contribution towards the recovery and recycling of packaging in Europe.”
But if the Green Dot doesn’t mean the pack is recyclable, what’s it doing on the pack in the first place?
The answer is, it’s there to make you believe that the company cares about the environment.
They want the image of being ecologically responsible without doing anything, as long as they’ve paid the money they’re allowed to use the recycling symbol.
This is a cynical (although admittedly clever) way to get the benefits of appearing to care while profiting from not caring.
Obviously it’s hypocritical, and yet we find it everywhere: politicians, lawmakers, education systems, it’s usually called green-washing or woke-washing.
People who state a higher purpose while ignoring the purpose in reality.
In advertising, of course, we see it all the time, ad agencies claiming to be creative on their websites while turning out any old rubbish just to make money.
Or ad agencies claiming to put the consumer first but actually just doing whatever will keep the client happy.
Or ad agencies claiming to prioritise strategy but actually just copying their competitors’ executions.
Or ad agencies claiming to prioritise effectiveness but actually just chasing awards.
This behaviour is summarised by the father of management cybernetics, Stafford Beer, in his acronym POSIWID – The Purpose of a System is What it Does.
In other words, the stated purpose of a system is irrelevant, the actual purpose is defined by the result.
In Stafford Beer’s own words: “POSIWID is a basic dictum.
It stands for bald fact, which makes a better starting point in seeking understanding than the familiar attributions of good intention, prejudices about expectations, or moral judgment.”
Put simply ‘brand purpose’ is meaningless waffle, you can tell what a brand’s real purpose is by how it behaves.
Coca Cola ran a huge poster and TV campaign showing their cans being crumpled, and asking people to recycle them, it won lots of awards.
Meanwhile statistics show the Coca Cola company is the number one polluter.
Coca Cola’s stated purpose is environmental responsibility, but their actual purpose, according to POSIWID, is making money regardless of pollution.
In almost every brief that’s issued by an ad agency strategy department you’ll find a brand purpose that has nothing to do with what’s actually wanted.
The brand purpose is simply there to claim a virtue, to pretend to be a good guy.
As Stafford Beer says, purpose is judged by the result NOT by the stated intention.
As they say in New York “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”.
Imho, any commercial enterprise that pushes cause related comms is ‘full of crap’.
Thank you for introducing me to the concept of POSIWID, which is one of those glorious concepts that you know to be true the minute you hear it. Thanks, too, for the introduction to Stafford Beer, whose name writes its own jokes. Wikipedia claims he had a daughter named Vanilla.
I came across your writings while rambling around the internet with no clear purpose, as one does. Some of your comments remind me of Bob Dylan’s attitude in his Ballad of a Thin Man.