It is rare for a simple advertising campaign to provoke controversy to the point of dividing a country’s executive branch. However, this is the effect produced, in France, by the “Let’s save our resources” campaign, run by the Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME). In four advertisements, we see someone, who initially behaves like a salesman, advising customers to refrain from buying. In fact, this person is a “reseller”, who suggests, rather than acquiring a new product, to make those you already have last, to rent, to repair or to turn to second-hand goods. But, as this profession does not exist (yet), advertisements suggest consumers to ask themselves “the right questions before buying”.
Since its launch shortly before Black Friday and the holiday period, this campaign, a priori relatively innocuous, has aroused the ire of economic players. We speak of a “slap in the face of traders”, of stigmatization, of discrediting trade. To the point that, in a joint press release, the Commerce Alliance, the Union of Textile Industries (UIT) and the French Union of Fashion and Clothing Industries (UFIMH) requested its immediate withdrawal, “failing which [ils] will consider[t] legal action for commercial denigration. These criticisms were echoed by the Minister of the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, who spoke of a “clumsy campaign” and a “regrettable” effect. For his part, the Minister of Ecological Transition, Christophe Béchu, supported the campaign, despite all the criticism.
The (artificial) antagonism of the economy and ecology materialized in Paris, ministry against ministry, right bank against left bank.
This controversy highlights the malaise in 21st century civilizatione century. To fight against global warming, this new scourge, there are two main ways: efficiency and sobriety. Produce and consume better; produce and consume less. The first path poses no problem to anyone. Commercial companies are making apparently considerable efforts to negotiate the ecological shift. They offer us ever more products that are ever greener, that consume less energy, that produce less greenhouse gases, that pollute less, and, on top of that, are socially responsible. Consumers generally willingly purchase products that include these promises among their features. This allows them to transfer the responsibility of doing well to commercial companies, to delegate the effort to them. Consumers only have one responsibility, that of choosing (well).
But, unfortunately, everything indicates that effectiveness is not a panacea. Not only does the speed with which we gain in efficiency seem very far from being sufficient in the face of the emergency, but above all the hope of energy efficiency gains as a preferred way to fight against global warming is called into question by a phenomenon called, in economics, substitution effect. Each gain in this area produces a psychological effect: it constitutes an authorization to continue consuming as much as ever. The effect is inevitable, although only within the current ideological framework of consumer society.
Effort, a new marketing argument
The disappointment of economic players in the face of ADEME’s advertising campaign is indicative of the ideological impasse in which our civilization finds itself. Faced with its call for sobriety, the Commerce Alliance highlights “the commitments of fashion players in favor of environmental transformation”, that is to say its past, but especially future, progress in efficiency. The ITU, for its part, affirms that the Minister of Ecological Transition “once again ignores the considerable efforts being made by transport companies. [sa] sector to remain competitive while respecting environmental standards. This same organization dodges criticism so that it only affects certain economic actors, judged morally less worthy, since they make less effort.
This is the implicit message in any eco-friendly or responsible feature that is included in the products we buy every day: “we are trying”. Even if it is obvious that these efforts can never be sufficient without real concomitant sobriety, we are sensitive to this type of message. It is very reassuring to know that producers and traders spare no effort to be as responsible as possible, and therefore that our civilization will suffer the slightest harm. But above all, commercial companies say what we want to hear: despite the ecological reality, we can continue to consume much as before.
Choosing between economy and ecology?
The four campaign messages were designed and produced according to the rules of the art, by the French communications and advertising group Havas, a company founded in 1835, with nearly 20,000 employees and a turnover of more than 2 billion euros. It has never been a problem to use proven marketing techniques — and public funds — to promote responsible consumption. Responsible consumption does not threaten the capitalist economy. On the contrary, it nourishes it, allowing it to reproduce in ever more subtle, and therefore acceptable, forms.
On the other hand, the shift in the responsible message towards real sobriety, which simply consists of not buying, is much more problematic. Taken seriously, it almost automatically implies degrowth, this taboo word that we tend to associate with deprivation, the reduction of pleasure, the deterioration of our living conditions, and regression towards a pre-modern era. The alternative of economy or ecology seems insurmountable. This is exactly where green products have their full effect: allowing you to get by, that is to say, not to choose, paradoxically. This is why they are so popular. But the solution they offer is mainly psychological or symbolic. They constitute an escape from reality, but change it little.
Are we condemned to this alternative? Yes, in the current economic system and its concomitant ideology. No, if we change the system and, first of all, our mentalities. We must stop thinking that ecological reality is an obstacle to our quality of life. If reality cannot be changed, our definition of a good life cannot.
A clue to the path to achieving this is found in the following reply from the French Minister for Ecological Transition: “Let 0.2% of advertising airtime be devoted to asking whether all purchases are useful, frankly, given the stakes ecological transition, that doesn’t seem unreasonable. » The reality is that 99.8% of advertising airtime, during the three weeks that the campaign lasted in France, will have been devoted to stimulating demand. The rest of the time it’s 100%, like most countries in the world.
We will only be able to calmly consider the inevitable decline from the moment we stop seeing it negatively. To do this, banning all forms of demand stimulation, and in particular all commercial advertising, would be a big step. They would be replaced with advertisements promoting sobriety. These would be fun and entertaining, and perhaps also annoying, like the ones we know today. We would use all the marketing techniques developed over decades, which have changed mentalities. But we would go in the opposite direction.
As they have been terribly effective in convincing us that we need a lot of useless things, they should be at least as effective in convincing us that we do not need these useless things. Rather than reselling, 0.2% of the time for 6% of the year in a single country in the world, we would see demarketing, everywhere and at all times.