World Wildlife Foundation bags it in new promo

I may have been a bit tough on World Wildlife Federation in my last diatribe. (Though it’s fascinating how many people search for “should we let the tiger go extinct?”) So instead of slamming their new direct mail deck, I’m going to assume there was a bit of slippage between the creative brief and the execution and suggest some ways they can tighten it up.

WWF outer envelope

On the front of the OE (the most important part of the entire package by far) we have the teaser, “Say no to plastic bags! See inside to learn how….” There’s a WWF logo as a corner card but it could just as easily have been WTF since it’s a complete disconnect with the teaser. On the back we have…. Plastic bags! Four of them, your gift when you “Show the World You’re Helping to Save the Environment” (note the Needless Use of Title Case, a telltale sign that nobody is minding the store).

I can see the copywriter and designer brainstorming this concept… sort of like the songwriting team in Smash, sticking index cards on a board then standing back and regarding them with furrowed brow… while the account director mutters in the background like a hapless Greek chorus.

Back of WWF envelope

Copywriter: “Here’s an idea. Lots of people would like to stop using plastic bags but they have no idea how. Let’s show them!” Designer: “I love it! Plus, we’re giving away our own plastic bag as a premium. Since we know they’re into plastic bags, let’s send them four instead of one.” Account director: “Doesn’t that send a mixed message? And what does that have to do with saving wildlife anyway. Oh, never mind…”

Inside, it comes together somewhat. There’s a buckslip that explains when you get your totes you’ll “carry them everywhere and help reduce the use of plastic bags.” And if you’re looking for the connection between wildlife and plastic bags, you’ll find it near the bottom of the first page of the letter, sort of: “The average American uses 350 plastic bags each year. And they don’t just end up in landfills… they end up in oceans, too. Every year more than 100,000 whales, seals, turtles and birds die as a result of plastic bags.”

Inside the WWF "plastic bags" promo

I turn the letter over, looking for details, and there are none. I know about the ghost sea of floating plastic in the Pacific off Hawaii, larger than Rhode Island. I imagine there are some ghastly Greenpeace-type tales to be told of birds getting their beaks caught in plastic bags, or animals choking on them. But the WWF copywriter does not bring it home with these details because they seem to have taken a vow about saying anything that may seem too harsh or negative. But wait a minute. Aren’t we raising funds for an environmental not-for-profit? Isn’t making people feel the pain what it’s all about?

I think the original assignment was “build a package around our free tote bags”. This is already a challenge because there is not an obvious and immediate connection between tote bags and wildlife. Somebody then decided to make it “educational” by helping people “learn” how to stop using disposable bags… that’s a rather condescending message to this audience which I expect is already environmentally savvy. And education in general (this package also has a “special insert” I am supposed to read called “10 Simple Things YOU Can Do to Help PROTECT the Earth”) is a deadly tactic for direct response. They aren’t going to stick around till the end of class, so you better ask them to reach for their wallet as soon as the tardy bell rings.

Really, the only way to make this package work is the simple logic of a/plastic bags kill animals b/here are some grisly ways c/you can stop the suffering by accepting our free gift. But the WWF’s creative team is into happy talk so they can’t do that. Time to bring in a new game warden.

Should we let pandas go extinct, or tigers? World Wildlife Federation wants to know.

Pandas, tigers, bears... oh, my.
Pandas, tigers and bears... oh, my.

In the Biblical Book of 1 Kings, Solomon must judge which of two women is the mother of a baby and, as a marketing experiment, he offers to split it in half. The bogus mom says “go for it” while of course the real mother says “she can have it, spare my child!”

This lesson was not lost on the new crop of marketers who seem to be in place at the World Wildlife Fund. They worry about which species you might like to support, so they give you a choice. Select a panda, polar bear or tiger, and to hell with the other two.

Of course, that’s not exactly what is happening. WWF wants you to “choose your favorite species” and they will send you a “symbolic adoption kit” consisting of an adorable stuffed panda/tiger/polar bear, matching tote bag, adoption certificate and “information brochure” when you make a commitment of $8 per month.

What is wrong with this campaign is a tone deaf absence of common sense. If you are a person committed to supporting threatened nature, “choose your favorite species” is fingernails on a chalkboard or a punch in the solar plexus. And as an adoptive parent I can tell you the concept of “symbolic adoption” is like that turd in the pie in The Help—gag-inducing repugnant. Adoption is like pregnancy. It is or it isn’t, no qualifiers allowed.

The devils that infest this package do more damage in the letter, whose first paragraph in its entirety is “You hear it every day:” Holy endangered pythons. Can you imagine a worse way to begin a letter than by acknowledging I am going to talk to you about something you already know? Then the final and fatal self-inflicted wound is delivered in the response device which, after all the lead-up in the letter and doubtless the campaign planning, reassures on the panel the recipient sees when opening the envelope that this is a “one-time gift”.

I actually have some inkling where this misbegotten concept originated. When my older son (not the “symbolic adopted” one) was about 4 years old, his big sister gave him an adoption certificate for an Asian tiger he was going to save through her gift. He was bummed because first, he wanted a stuffed tiger and second, he did not think he was up to caring for a real tiger.

You can see the wheels turning at WWF’s marketing department, before they came off. Great idea for grandparents! The kids are confused by the idea of “adoption” so let’s make it “symbolic”. And since polar bears, pandas and tigers are all just so cute, let’s give them a choice which they want to protect!

Sorry if I am on a bit of a high horse here, but we are not selling Bass-O-Matics®. This is a legitimate and well established not-for-profit with a very clearly defined mission. The sin, and let’s use that weighted word rather than just calling it a boneheaded mistake, was in forgetting a/who we are and b/who our audience is and c/where our mission and message intersects with their passion and desires.

If you’re a copywriter with recurring clients, you know this. An experienced WWF copywriter never would have come up with this concept because you have your client’s brand statement stapled on the wall of your studio if not tattooed on your brain pan. Pandas, tigers, polar bears, there’s room for everyone. Can we all get along?