Should Agencies Work With Oil and Tobacco Brands? Consumers Are Split

After a concerted campaign against Big Tobacco beginning in the mid-1980s, many ad agencies stopped working with cigarette companies. Now, some activists want the marketing and public relations industries to cut ties with fossil fuel companies, too. But a new survey from Adweek and Morning Consult shows consumers are split on the issue of legacy energy brands and advertising—something that experts say is unsurprising given both the realities of climate change and society's reliance on fossil fuels. Despite their divergent convictions—the public still largely supports agencies blacklisting the tobacco industry—the survey indicates a shift toward greater eco-consciousness. For example, consumers expressed low confidence in the veracity of ads from fossil fuel companies. And respondents evinced similar skepticism with regard to their own abilities to identify campaigns that "greenwash" fossil fuel companies' environmental impact. A split consumer base While most (60%) agreed that agencies definitely or probably shouldn't work for tobacco companies, nearly a quarter (24%) said they probably or definitely should. Another 16% said they didn't know or didn't have an opinion on the issue. For other industries it was a more even split. On fossil fuels, 41% said agencies should work for companies that extract oil, gas or coal—slightly more than the 38% who said they shouldn't. Consumers' split response shouldn't come as a surprise, according to Linda Ferrell, professor of marketing and business ethics at Auburn University. "We look at the energy companies and we have mixed feelings," she explained. "Some are saying they're the future, because they've got to help us get out of this mess, and some are saying they're the cause of our current situation." Turning Agencies Against Fossil Fuel Brands Harkens Back to the Tobacco Wars A much higher percentage (63%) of respondents agreed that agencies should work for renewable energy companies, though 19% were against it. To better understand consumers’ conflicting views on which industries are more or less deserving of advertising assistance, consider consumers’ take on embattled social media brands like Facebook and Instagram. An equal number of respondents—41%—said advertisers should and shouldn’t provide advertising to social media companies. (The remaining 18% didn’t have an opinion.) Further evidence of consumers’ marketing schism appears when it comes to another divisive industry: 40% agree that agencies should work with Big Pharma, while 41% told Morning Consult they shouldn’t. When it comes to political campaigns, 48% said that agencies should not be involved, while 36% said they should, and 17% said they didn't have an opinion. Greenwashing is hard to spot Only a third of respondents (33%) said they're at least somewhat confident of being able to identify a greenwashing campaign, which the survey defined as "presenting a company’s operations as more environmentally friendly than they actually are." Another 30% said they're not too confident, and 17% said they're not confident at all. That a majority don't feel confident about their ability to identify greenwashing campaigns makes a lot of sense, according to Solitaire Townsend, founder of the environmentally focused U.K.-based ad agency Futerra. "If greenwashing was easy to spot, there’d be no point making it," Townsend explained. "Experts in psychology and crafting persuasive messages are paid a fortune to make these campaigns feel reasonable, rational and agreeable—even if they aren’t true. "It's unfair that average people, trying to make good choices for their family and the planet, can be lied to and misled with so few consequences," she continued. Most survey respondents agreed that agencies bear a greater burden when it comes to greenwashing. A majority (67%) said agencies have a responsibility to know when they're working on a greenwashing campaign. A slightly smaller majority (58%) went a step further and agreed that agencies have a responsibility to stop working on greenwashing campaigns. Half said that agencies and brands share the legal responsibility for ads that misrepresent a company's environmental impact. Trust deficit Despite the ambivalence over whether agencies should work with fossil fuel companies, most consumers agreed they have some responsibility when it comes to the environmental impact of their clients. Nearly a third (30%) of respondents said agencies have a responsibility to stop working for companies that are known to have a negative impact on the environment—even if the ad is transparent about that impact. That statistic "disturbed" Ferrell. "We want advertising to be truthful and transparent," she explained. "Even if it doesn't present bunnies and flowers. Even if the message is, 'We're working on things.'" Just over a quarter (27%) said agencies only need to stop working for companies that are covering up their negative environmental impact, while 20% said agencies have no responsibility to let a company's environmental impact determine who they work with. A plurality of respondents (47%) said they didn't trust fossil fuel ads to be transparent about the environmental impact of their operations. Just over one-quarter (26%) said they somewhat trust fossil fuel companies to be transparent, 10% said they very much trust those companies to be transparent, and 16% said they didn't know. When described as an issue of sustainability, respondents were even more skeptical. Just 8% said they very much trust fossil fuel companies' claims about sustainability. Under one-third (28%) said they somewhat trust those claims. Nearly half (47%) said they don't trust those claims much or at all. European Ad Agencies Targeted by Spoof Posters Calling Out Their Fossil Fuel Clients