The Distance Project

Entry Points: Why Live Earth Mattered.

Posted on July 18th, 2007 by Zach.
Categories: Sustainability, Systems of the World, Pop-Culture.

I managed to watch a fair amount of the Live Earth extravaganza, here are some quick thoughts:

- Maybe time has marched on, but I didn’t get the same cultural buzz off the concert that the African Relief shows did in the 80’s. Not sure why, but the whole thing felt a little hollow. (Except for Wembley, see point 3)

- The transition sequences, little movies, and statistics were awesome. Not sure who did all of them, but they rule. They felt like they had tangible significance. Loved it.

- It was so obvious how the venue setup matters. Giant stadium seemed energyless for most the most part. The floor area all had seats and they were FAR from the stage. In contrast Wembley looked so impressive. It had huge energy and just seemed crazy cool. Even the smaller venues seemed to work better than Giant Stadium - Brazil looked so fun. But then a free concert on the beach in Rio? How is this not fun?

- Foo Fighters ripped it up. Those guys put on the best set of the concert - by far.

- Bob Geldoff is grumpy someone stole his idea. Check this bit from Treehugger. Love that picture. When did he last sleep?

Ah Live Earth - concerts for the planet. Such an easily ridiculed concept, with such huge implications for the future.

It’s just hard. Hard to watch Madonna tell me that it is time to pay attention to the planet. It has the feel of being chastised by your Mom for not cleaning your room. You know you probably should listen, but this Xbox…is just…sucking…your attention…away…

Time Magazine has a good piece on the concerts - both the good and the bad. An interesting argument comes up in the piece, one that is growing I think. It’s surmised by this quote of Arctic Monkeys’ drummer Matt Helder: “We’re using enough power for ten houses just for lighting,” Arctic Monkeys’ drummer Matt Helder told AFP. “It’d be a bit hypocritical [if we played].”

Hmmm, I wonder if they feel hypocritical every time they play, or just this particular time when highlighting climate change. Sorry I digressed there.

The truth is he’s right. In some ways it would be best if this concert didn’t go on. Massive reduction, conservation and efficiency are the greatest sources of potential energy in the world - especially in the US. Reducing our consumption - less travel, fewer products purchased, reduced electricity use - these things would make the planet we live in fundamentally better.

I started wondering why this quote bugged me so much. I realized it’s because the issue hits so close to home. We produce a product that we call “green”. The Juice Bag incorporates a solar panel for charging your phone, iPod, etc. In our ES line we source recycled fabrics for the bags. But like the Live Earth concert, it is partly true that the world would be less impacted if we didn’t design, produce, or ship a Juice Bag to you.

The flaw in this logic is that as a society we are not consuming less. Concerts for entertainment go on - the Arctic Monkeys will tour all over the world, come climate change or not. People camp out for the “Must Have” gadgets like the iPhone. I drove to work today. These are the realities of our world. These are the systems we live in.

It’s what we have, and while it is nice to dream of consumption disappearing into thin air, the reality is that our consumption is getting worse not better.

So the question is how do you begin to make that transition from where we are, to where we want to be? To a less consumptive place.
I think it begins with systems we use every day. Around Reware we dream of the day where every bag bought is made from recycled materials. Where the process Nau is using is the norm in clothing manufacturing. That it would be expected by the consumer. Sure we would still be buying too many bags as a society, but we will have begun the transition to reduction.

Recycled fabrics and solar panels create what we like to think of as an entry point for consumers to expect this type of thing from their products. We are still buying too much, but we have at least started to think about our system. This sets the stage for the next set of changes we have to make. Recently the New York Times had a good piece looking at this concept.

The crucial point, I think, is at the end of the article. Entry points (done well) really work in this context of transition. Central to the argument, there are a set of social marketing studies that show people who are consuming organic products, are attempting to incorporate other climate mitigation strategies into their daily lives. I can’t find a link to the one I was reading, if anyone has one of these studies send it my way and I will post it.

From our own experiences (and I may have used this anecdote before); we once sold a Juice Bag at a solar show in Arizona. The guy came back the next day and said “This thing works great for my phone, do you think I could power my house like this?” That is a good day for us, and a successful entry point into sustainability through consumer goods.

Entry Point theory is a tricky marketing business though. EPs have to be easily accessible to a wide market regardless of politics, socio-economics, or geographic location. They have to make transition strategies fun and engaging for people who live busy lives. Entry points have to create the same feel for consumers that the iPhone has - A sense of belonging, of identity, of excitement, in product - a hard thing to create in any context. If only we could get Apple on board with some of the eco-theory…

But, this is where pop-culture can be such a powerful tool. And this is where Live Earth matters. Now it wasn’t perfect, some of the artists were annoying and self rightous, but when is that not true? For one day the words “climate change” were on millions of peoples collective minds - whether they liked the idea, or hated it. Climate Change was everywhere. And that is an amazing feet. Amazing.

Like Reware, like Wholefoods, like the Prius, the concert had its impact on the environment that was not ideal. The critical debate should not center around this, the debate should be more around Bob Geldoff’s grumpiness. Did the concert create a successful entry point for people wanting to find out more about sustainability, or did it fail to capture the imagination?

Now that is a question which matters..

0 comments.

Tags: Live Earth, Entry Point Theory, Marketing, Green Products, Arctic Monkeys