Surely brands can do something more interesting in the context of Nature Deficit Disorder?
There’s a criticism coming my way a bit at the moment, that my stance on these issues tends to be more academic than pragmatic. It’s fair, up to a point. So, given we are where we are, what do I suggest we do about it? Part of my answer is that we simply have to do less advertising in total, regardless of what it’s for. But I’ll save that for another time, and start with something a little more positive.
I recently met Richard Louv, the American author of ‘Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder’. Louv’s concept of Nature Deficit Disorder states both that we have lost a fundamental connection with the natural world, and also – vitally – that this is causing us emotional, clinical, immediate damage as human beings.
The first part of this is easily ignored in an economically obsessive world; the latter less so. As an RSPB report called ‘Natural Thinking’ highlighted in 2007, the costs of Nature Deficit Disorder to the NHS (not to mention the police and other taxpayer-funded services) are enormous. There is abundant evidence that our disconnected relationship with the natural world is responsible for everything from ADHD in children to depression in adults; that outdoor exercise is significantly more effective in combating obesity than indoor; and even that access to quality green space can significantly reduce crime rates.
Now this is surely something brands can do something about – for several there is an obvious brand fit. Innocent, for example, could surely do more for their languishing Coca-cola-tainted brand by taking on this cause than having rabbits tell us their veg pots contain three of our five a day. Even in the less glamorous loo roll category, not often the most fertile territory for interesting brand work, Velvet’s ability to claim they plant three trees for every one they cut down should give them the licence to get involved, and get past that slightly terrifying baby.
And although I still think restrictions on advertising badly need to be introduced, from the world we live in right now, I think brands getting involved here would be a good thing.
This is because of what Louv calls ‘ecophobia’. With the ever-increasing health-and-safety culture of recent years, we are telling children that nature is dangerous. When we then teach of climate change and deforestation and so on, we tell them it is dying and dangerous. How do we expect anyone to form a visceral connection with something that’s dying and dangerous? The NGOs certainly haven’t been great at creating a more positive narrative.
Brands, with their obligation to tell happy happy joy joy stories, can play an important role. They can reinspire children with a love for the natural world on their doorsteps; a love that has been shown to be a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for the less materialistic outlook we need to get through the serious challenges ahead.
In my head, it’s a Trojan horse thing. Brands can serve their own short-term purposes better by doing this now, so they win. Of course, in the long run, they’ll screw themselves over by making the next generation less Consumerist and so less in need of them. But there’s two ways of looking at that – one is that brands are businesses, staffed by us the people, and we’ll go with it because we all intuitively know we need to get away from Consumerism even if we’re too tied into our mortgages to do anything about it today; the other is that brands aren’t exactly great at long-term thinking, and so probably won’t even notice.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Very interesting article, there is also a huge body of evidence that shows the real physical and psychological benefits of interaction with nature. We would love to help brands to do this in cities all over the world, the question is do the brands really want to do it? Ant, CURB.