The advertising wrecking ball : How a traditional ad model is bad for our planet
By: Fabiana Copelli
Tags: Advertising, Economics, Consumerism, Sustainability, Climate Change

The economy is based on consumption; advertising creates artificial demand within it.

Primitive economies, like the agrarian economy, are based purely on (real) demand. You want tomatoes, I want rice, let’s grow them, find a way to normalise ‘value’ and then trade.

But with post-industrial technological advancements, companies have become so efficient at producing goods that, in order for them to sell what they can produce, they need to create an artificial, often irrational, layer of demand.

… Enter the advertising industry.

Trillions of pounds per year are spent on planning, creating and delivering ads, with one single purpose: to create demand for goods and services. The advertisers prey on a most primitive evolutionary instinct: social inclusion.

So as well as an environmental impact, it also messes up our biology. Energy that could be spent being kind, humane, innovative and hard-working is wasted on caring about the next purchase you’re fooled into thinking you need.

This seems like a damning synopsis of the advertising industry so far, and to be honest it has been. But it gets worse…

Artificial demand also creates more waste. Instead of two pairs of shoes, people need twenty. Fifteen of which are rendered into fashion obsolescence within twelve months. So companies are forced to continue manufacturing… And, by the way, manufacturing as cheaply as possible. Bringing us neatly to the next point.

The incentive baked into our free market economy is to make money. Supply chain decisions are based on the bottom line as opposed to environmental or social impacts. When you consider that part of ‘making money’ is reducing costs, and part of reducing costs often leads to depleting the earth of valuable resources, it’s clear the model is doomed from the outset.

How bad is it really?

Well here’s the kicker: it’s a self-perpetuating problem. The companies who reduce their costs the most, scale their businesses the widest, and convince the most people that they need their product, make the most money! And the companies with the most money have the biggest advertising budgets.

Quite simply, advertising ‘real-estate’ is sold to the highest bidder — not the most sustainable company. Google accepts cash for being put at the top of their search results, not CSR strategies. TV, billboards, social media, that ad above your head on the tube… they’re all paid for with money.

And even with the advent of social media, a free way for brands to advertise, the problem has only worsened. Social media giants quickly took steps to adapt their algorithms in favour of those who spend money on their platforms. These, of course, are invariably the companies that have the budget to do so.

So what can we do?

There are some companies who don’t spend money on advertising at all. A bold and awesome move. Please leave examples of these companies in the comments below; we’d love to reach out to them and express our gratitude.

There is one strategy that we have began to adopt at wherefrom, it’s called reverse marketing. Rather than sell advertising real-estate for money, we use our ad space to promote companies that we believe are contributing positively to the world — irrespective of size.

On that note. Please let us introduce you to…

HuskeeCup, a reusable cup made from husks generated during coffee production. Not only would you reduce your use of disposable coffee cups, but you would also combat agricultural waste.