I have always been puzzled by the allure of reality television. In trying to decipher a method to the madness of Survivor, the Bachelor or Joe Millionaire, I can imagine that viewers are partially intrigued by challenges that are presented and overcome. When seemingly “normal” folk accomplish this variety of tests, the viewers can better relate being there themselves. It’s why we watch game shows like Wheel of Fortune, Who Wants to Be A Millionaire or Double Dare. So if the challenge is what we like to see, why exactly can we not focus on the real challenges we have for ourselves, like the myriad of sustainable opportunities laid before us, and participate in something on the right side of the screen? Is it possible to blur the lines of tangible action and entertainment to promote involvement and produce better results for a movement like sustainability?
I recently had a reader write in with a discussion topic. Craig Michael Lie Njie offered some food for thought:
Will a kind of “infotainment”, incremental, crowd-sourced approach actually lead people to lead more sustainable lives? Are we right in our thinking as to why people don’t just do these things (like turn off the lights whenever they leave a room) because they don’t understand the aggregate savings? Can turning sustainability into a kind of worldwide competition or marketplace actually affect larger combined environmental savings?
The idea has merit in trying to speak the language of Americans: a lingo based on consumption and luxuries. After all, the U.S. is the “entertainment Mecca” of the world. Craig’s consulting company, Kismet Worldwide, is trying to attack the opportunity with an iPhone App called Waste Not that focuses on the sharing of environmental ideas between social networks. One could argue that many of us would rather be impressed than taught, but can the laissez-faire nature of just being entertained be bolstered with participation by incorporating games, contest and leaderboards into the goals we need to accomplish?
Perhaps it can.
The closest example to successfully combining sustainable activism and interactive challenges is probably Earth Hour, sponsored and run by the World Wildlife Federation. Since its 2007 inception in Australia, the international event has increased its participation year over year to include businesses, thousands of municipalities and millions of individuals around the globe.
Having just recently occurred on March 27th, the event’s website claims that over 50 million people took part in turning off their lights for an hour to help signal the desire for sustainable progress. Lights on monuments and buildings were turned off in cities like Rome, San Francisco, Toronto, Sydney, Hong Kong and New York. The dim skylines speak for themselves as a testament to the event’s success. Boston.com had some great shots of participation around the world.
Despite the fact that the event only lasts for one hour on one day, it could very well garner more active participation than any other sustainable campaign in the world. It begs the question as to why Earth Hour works and I think the answer is only a step or two away from Craig’s insight about active entertainment being linked to a cultural movement. Earth Hour may have some common traits with an information-based entertainment approach to activism.
Instant Gratification: Part of the reason we gravitate towards movies is how quickly our desire for intrigue, action or romance can be fulfilled. While reading a book can take days to weeks depending on your speed and dedication, in often less than two hours most movies can be begun and finished. Earth Hour revolves around instant, short lived action that translates into results that can be gauged the next morning. This also parallels our culture’s increasing fascination with real-time information that can be utilized by social networking tools like Twitter or Facebook. iPhone apps touch on this as well. Maybe we need to be making more real-time sustainable data public. How much gas are we pumping right now? How many kWh are being expended? How much sewage is being pumped in the ground?
Action in Numbers: To many people, there is something a bit more attractive about being part of something that everyone is doing rather than only pushing oneself to accomplish. Just as a prime time show will enrapture millions of people for an hour, so too can a sweeping measure to turn off lights for 60 minutes. Ten years ago, quick crowd-gathering was something that took planning and was difficult to count on. Today, a topic can cross millions of people on Twitter in hours. Social networking can help more people feel included and informed which can lead into more successful events that make a larger difference.
We’ll Take the Physical Challenge: This breed of event can find success for the same reason that American Idol was such a hit. When people feel like participants, they are more likely to listen to why the challenge is important and are more interested in the final result. Using new tools to craft opportunities for interactive scenarios with published results can help attract new attention.
Short Term Goals: As I mentioned, most of our entertainment options do not demand extended focus from viewers. Television, movies, theme parks—they all thrive off of short bursts of energy and effort. Despite how some of us may wish otherwise, for most Americans sustainability is still a very new and obscure topic that is overused and ill-defined. As many will note, the gravest effects from our lack of environmental stewardship will most likely come to pass long after a considerable portion of our population is already gone. Asking people to plan a century in advance can come across as a tall order that does not do much to gather support. Making more, shorter term goals that allow people to taste success and note progress can help. How many people would sit through a ten hour film no matter how good or important it was?
Some people may be stuck close to where we started asking, why do we have to jump through all of these hoops just to get people on board with something that is in everyone’s best interest? Are the environmental threats that we have already created not an exciting enough reality as it is—do we really need to add more intrigue and incentive? Baby steps, and any step forward is progress. For as capable as humans are to adjust, we are still notoriously resistant to change.
April 8, 2010 at 9:06 am
I think its nothing but escapism, people can’t be bothered to do things themselves, so will happily relax and watch someone else living their life for them..
good blog
April 8, 2010 at 10:53 am
I had an architectural colleague suggest that people were simply lazy and wanted something to look at instead of getting involved. Hopefully this is not universally the case, because it seems like lethargy or straight-up apathy is much more difficult to change.
April 8, 2010 at 10:27 am
Interesting post. Being encouraged by small steps is excellent advice.
April 8, 2010 at 1:43 pm
thank you so much
realy you are helpfull
chleuh.0fees.
April 8, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Yes please.
April 8, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I like your idea of “infotainment.” Why not? I think it would be preferable to some of the reality tv shows.
That said, I do enjoy certain of them – the proverbial guilty pleasure for some (Real Housewives of NY and OC), and no guilt whatsoever when it comes to Project Runway, Top Chef, or Top Chef Masters.
I think your point about more than a dose of attention deficit disorder when it comes to viewing habits explains a significant part of the reality tv phenomenon. But it’s much more complex than that. Life is hard; it’s human nature to seek distraction, and also to compare oneself to others and take solace in that. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, only that it is.
Theoretically, if you could package up a “green” message (or infiltrate reality tv even in ways that are less spotlighted) – perhaps it would be a good thing.
On that note, I wonder how Undercover Boss is doing, ratings-wise. While not green per se, a concept that feels like movement in a positive direction for the planet.
April 8, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Thanks for stopping by. I definitely hear you. I think it is certainly possible for sustainability to have a bigger presence in reality TV–some sort of neighborhood challenge to be as green as possible–but the question would be whether or not it would induce participation outside of the TV, not just make money by getting more people to watch.
The closest example may be Extreme Makeover, Home Edition. The show has evolved to incorporate a lot of green building and it uses volunteers to get each project completed. At the very least, this helps to publicize the issues. Hopefully it ultimately nudges some viewers into taking part in the discourse.
April 8, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Great post, and great response to my quesitons. Thanks for taking the time to dissect these incredibly important concepts of (1) how to effect maximum change, and (2) how to deal with the cultural realities of increasingly shorter attention spans and need for instant gratification with minimal (or zero) personal effort.
The first few weeks of WasteNot have been interesting to watch. Asking people to pay $0.99 (with nearly zero marketing) resulted in about 100 sales over the course of a week or so, almost all came from the US. Reducing it to free (after some generous donations allowed us to do that for a short time) jumped the downloads to 1,300 over a week or so, from around 40 countries on 6 continents. Re-raising it back to $0.99 when the donations ran out dropped our sales back down to a handful a day this past week, again only in the US.
But our App Store reviews have been outstanding. All have been 5-star, and include words like “amazing” and “game-changing”.
How do I reconcile all of this? Clearly people like the idea of small, incremental steps. And the “infotainment” feedback loop of seeing where ideas are being put into practice, and the worldwide aggregate statistics have kept users coming back (according to our privatized server logs).
But asking people to pay for it just doesn’t work. I believe the activation energy is too high, and the buzz is just too low. If someone like Rachel Maddow or Oprah were to like the idea and suggest to their audiences to participate, I’m sure the $0.99 price tag would be a non-issue. But for the casual observer, it’s just not worth it.
My key takeaways are this:
1. “Infotainment” models around activism — in this case environmental activism — clearly have merit. Something that entertains as well as informs will do better than something that just informs. But it’s a very new concept, and one that will take a while to find a large-scale foothold.
2. People aren’t interested in paying for the privilege to participate in communities around ideas unless there’s some larger personal reward. That reward can be bragging rights, or some sort of selfish reward like a trip to Hawaii, but they need to have a sufficient answer to “What’s in it for me?”. Sadly, the answer of “A better world for all!” just isn’t enough.
3. The environmental “market” is pretty much limited to the developed world. People from other countries will participate, but only if the cost to do so is free.
4. We’re clearly onto something, as our reviews and downloads have made clear. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to appeal more to the selfish nature of people to get large-scale participation. Appealing to the selfless, “do good by the world” ideals makes for good talking points and arousing rhetoric, but isn’t enough to push things through. I think your ideas of linking it to a “Survivor” or “Double-Dare” like model are smart, and a potential path forward.
5. Small communities can effect MASSIVE worldwide change. With WasteNot, 1,300 people have already committed to over 11,000 positive, waste-reducing actions in 40 countries on 6 continents. By our count, those actions have already saved up to 65,000 gallons of water, 17,800 kilowatt hours of electricity, 9,900 pounds of CO2 that weren’t emitted, and tons more. (You can see the full list on our KismetWorldWide.com website). It doesn’t take very many people to effect worldwide change.
What next? I think we need to get the word out and link onto the building Earth Day buzz. I think we learned from Earth Hour that people are interested in participating if the participation doesn’t massively distract from their daily lives (60 minutes is NOT a lot of minutes), and if their commitment can be short-term (“Turn of the lights for one hour on one day? Sure, I can do that.”)
I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on how we could effect more change with a larger community worldwide.
Thanks again for the great post, and for mentioning us and our efforts directly.
April 8, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Great insight, grabbed our attention obviously.. but wow this blog is long.
April 8, 2010 at 11:42 pm
I believe its just entertainment. It feed that hunger for all those things you’ve mention, so true. I’m a movie lover my self. Even when we ourselves hold the remote control, you are right in the fact that the profit for us as viewers “infotainment” could be of better interest on our grow or something. On the other hand I hate to seat on a tv to learn a lesson. For that I have my own plans. OR, maybe some day someone knock my door to invite me in one of those challenges…who knows? Kepping my hopes?
April 9, 2010 at 1:51 am
I somehow doubt it’ll work long-term, unfortunately. The first thing people tend to want from TV is entertainment–you can go ahead and stick the education and interesting tidbits int here, but it’s all going to be sandwiched between Human Interest. (And I’m thinking of shows on the Discovery Network when I say this, too.)
And, as issues cycle in and out of the public eye, executives might decide it’s not worth paying for, say, a show about ‘going green’ (I mean, people already hate that phrase).
April 9, 2010 at 10:10 am
I agree it’s an uphill battle and I think the real task is more than just educating people. As you point out, those TV/Movie options do exist for people who would rather learn than watch a spectacle (Discover, History Channel, Animal Planet… Planet Earth) but also turning entertainment into action by viewers.
Somehow, American Idol can get people to call in and take part–granted, that’s not a huge difference from just sitting on the couch, but it has actual results. Those calls could be to congressmen instead or pushing some kind of positive agenda. Maybe some kind of show/event/campaign can harness people’s interest enough for it to feel like entertainment but challenge them enough to produce something from their efforts.
Thanks for your comment!
April 9, 2010 at 2:53 am
Great insight! Well practically people just wants entertainment but I do agree about the Extreme makeover: Home edition that you mentioned!
April 9, 2010 at 3:35 am
hi, i like your posting
April 9, 2010 at 7:13 am
Speaking of short term goals–I’m currently living in a regional Australian town and here, Earth Hour was a flop. Like many other non-metropolitan areas that have no luminous landmarks to gain attention for the cause, Earth Hour came and went without a flicker–I like to believe that our house was not the only one in the area to switch off, but I can’t be sure.
In hindsight, we realised that promotion of Earth Hour this year had been distincly subdued compared to previous years, despite the organisers claiming success in the aftermath.
In line with the traits you’ve mentioned (instant gratification, short-term goals) it may be worthwhile for marketers of such causes to remember that some humans seem to be evolving with a short attention span. Has anyone worked out how long it takes for a recurrent theme/issue to register itself on the human psyche so that further promotion becomes redundant?
April 9, 2010 at 10:24 am
Interesting. I would have thought that Australia would be the hallmark of participation due to the fact that you all seemed to create the event. You make a good point though in that even if we are getting more famous landmarks and buildings to turn their lights off, if fewer individuals end up taking part then we are kind of taking one step forward and two steps back.
It is a bit frustrating, but it does seem like the themes/campaigns that can evolve enough over time to hang onto some level of appeal but continuously provide a new “edge” end up lasting longer in the public eye. Again, I find it troublesome that we have to perform all of the acrobatics, but options may be limited.
On the other hand, I think recycling in America is a great example of the reverse. Recycling is a bottom-up initiative. It is not mandated by the federal government nor does it provide funding. In the 90’s there was a big push to market recycling and since then participation has only continued to improve. Somehow, recycling became part of the cultural norm and not a green fad. How can we replicate that?
April 11, 2010 at 12:27 am
You are right. I think the solution to any environmental problem lies with a change in human society/culture. Earth Hour was a “success” in Australia–but mainly in the cities (e.g. Sydney, Melbourne)… it seems the event was largely forgotten outside the major metropolitan areas.
This is quite often the case with other issues. Recycling is generally a success in urban areas because (in most places) the local government provides separate bins, waste removal and disposal services–all we have to do is put the right object into the right bin (and even then, I have seen many, many people who find even that part too hard!). In some places there is also the option of getting money back for turning in recyclables. But in remote communities, there is no municipal waste removal–waste is simply incinerated out in the back paddock and recycling is pretty much non-existent (unless it’s able to be re-used onsite).
So basically, when we get something in return or don’t have to inconvenience ourselves at all, we will probably take up the “green” initiative. (http://manuelinor.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/all-hail-the-goddess-disposability/)
As you said above, we would “rather be impressed than taught”.
Which is why I think Earth Hour still has a few hurdles to get over. It is a “green” initiative which requires all effort and inconvenience on our part, but no (instant) gratification for us. Hopefully they can focus on using the event to promote a lifestyle-change, rather than it being an isolated success in itself. If we could sacrifice our reliance on convenience and learn to live without our appliances on standby 24 hours a day, without lights on in an unused room etc. etc., that would make a whole lot more difference than sitting in the dark for 1 hour a year.
April 9, 2010 at 9:28 am
If we focused on reaility how would we deal with the truths of such? Not everything real is reported on. We are living in Mississippi and nothing is real. The people of this state can’t deal with reality. Were victims of crimes by the courts and major corporations regarding the loss of our home and millions in awards being extorted. Reality would mean jail or worse for more than a few judges,attorneys, state officials and at least one senator. But yes lets have something real for a change it would no doubt be better for everyone.
April 21, 2010 at 4:51 am
Another interesting post, Tyler. In Australia, the last (final?) series of Big Brother (which I don’t watch, but saw bits and pieces of) had a number of prominent ‘green’ initiatives in the house. There was even a farm with a few animals which needed to be tended. I liked the idea, but there wasn’t really a push of any message or extra information associated with it – the show itself was all about infighting and drama as usual.
It’d be tricky to replicate that in the Idol-type area because it’s designed to be as polished and real-life-free as possible, with the exception of the participants.
My thinking leads to it being a horrible catch-22: Until sustainability becomes a norm in reality, entertainment which incorporates it will come off as preachy and people won’t bother, and when it does become a norm, there won’t be a need for entertainment to incorporate it because people will be doing it anyway.
A problem I see with Earth Hour is that it is noticeably gimmicky. Yes, it’s been great at raising the issue and garnering publicity and the like, but the actual incentive (for me) to participate is low, because I take other measures which are much more effective at reducing my resource use. It’s not necessarily aimed at me, but it’s easy to dismiss. Argh! Middle ground, where are you?
April 21, 2010 at 12:26 pm
David, great to hear from you again.
You’re certainly right that for many of us, using entertainment as an approach to try and convey values and knowledge is a bit of a long way around and perhaps “thin”. But on the other hand–for better or for worse–Americans have proven that dollars spent on marketing actually affect the way that they go through the course of their day. Getting consumers on board may require us speaking their language if we want the message to get through.
I agree that Earth Hour in itself is a bit of a gimmick given that it does not really change very much in terms of sustained difference. On the other hand, I’d like to think of it as an immaterial monument to sustainability. The monuments we build to people, or wars, or events are really things that stands as symbols that help underscore our values. Earth Hour is kind of like a monument-in-action. It is more of a symbolic gesture that promotes community and collaboration on a huge scale–in that sense, I’m for it.
April 27, 2010 at 12:20 am
Fair point. I guess if it came down to a choice between ‘hold Earth Hour’ and ‘not hold Earth Hour’ I’d be for it. I just wonder if it couldn’t be more ambitious; in Australia (and probably in other countries) there’s an initiative called the ’40 hour famine’ to raise funds for poverty, in which people go without food for the better part of a weekend. I think an equivalent initiative would be interesting and possibly more meaningful than Earth Hour.
Of course, it wouldn’t work exactly like Earth Hour or the Famine because it wouldn’t be functional or desirable to get people to ‘unplug’ totally for a weekend – it would be too much of a step from normal life that I doubt it would translate into long-term changes in habit.
Possibly something like a ‘carbon account’ for the weekend, in which different activities had different scores, and you keep track of what you do. People could pledge to donate depending on how far below the national average you ’emitted’ for the weekend (or given length of time), with the proceeds going to a worthy cause.
Building such an event around Earth Hour and promoting it alongside – a weekend event with Earth Hour as the key feature – would make me a happier camper! Maybe next year I’ll have to put my money where my mouth is and try to get such a scheme off the ground.
June 10, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Great post!! I think reality programming is definitely deterring people from addressing real-life, at-home problems that could be easily solved if we stopped fixating on who the rose will go to. I also think reality tv shows like Survivor are missing an amazing opportunity to show people the beautiful places in the world that are being ravaged and destroyed by rising sea levels and erratic weather patterns from climate change. They could very well easily mention at the end of every episode that all viewers should try their best reducing their consumption and wasteful use to preserve such beautiful remote tropical places.
I also whole heartedly agree that the answer lies in taking small simple steps which we aren’t doing! So much focus has been on a macro level focusing on government and big corporations but what about homes nad small businesses. There are so many resources out there too like the free calculators here (http://calcs.greenzu.com/light-savings) that could really boost homes nad offices into reducing their consumption. honestly, its just such a no brainer…
April 9, 2011 at 11:10 am
I found the blog really interesting but thought it really shouldn’t have ended on such a negative.Of course we can find a way around our resistance to change,we’ve managed to come up with so many sustainable ideas in the past.I don’t see why we should just assume that we’ll always be resistent to change.I think we should look more behind the reason why we’re resistent to change and try to change that.There are plenty of things that we are already doing that could be identified as environmentally friendly that we are not aware of.We should look at our lifestyles and identify what we would like to change and go for it.Fear is a big factor but like you said baby steps is possibly the solution for people who are resistent to change.My main point is that we should believe we are capable of not always being resistent to change.I think we are more capable than we think we are it’s just mind set.We should look at those who have gone before us and see how well they are doing and have done.I think we need this attitude more than anything to become a sustainble world.Yes we can do it,there is a way.