Ford Escape Hybrid SUV–example of sham green marketing? (credit: Fordvehicles.com)
I periodically do blog posts about corporate advertising campaigns that are particularly smarmy, hypocritical and self-serving. Now, Ford Motor Company has entered my marketing Hall of Shame. The company has rolled out its new “green” Escape Hybrid SUV and it’s yelling from the rooftops how great it is. In the New York Times, April 7, 2004, (pages C12-13), it trumpets this ad text (please excuse the poor quality scan):
What kind of environmentally aware consumer believes that by driving their SUV into a previously remote or inaccessible backcountry site that they’re helping to preserve it?? The very act of driving to such locations helps to destroy–not preserve–them.
I haven’t been able to find this ad anywhere on the internet so I’ll quote the ad copy here (if anyone knows how I can locate an online version of this ad, please send me an e mail):
Introducing Earth’s first hybrid SUV. As the first and only gas/electric SUV, the Escape Hybrid compromises nothing…[It] deliver[s] engine performance that makes it the most fuel-efficient SUV ever…Which means that this SUV, by nature, is kinder and gentler on nature. Greener vehicles. Cleaner factories. It’s the right road for our company…
So let’s examine what’s problematic about this text. Who believes that the new hybrid SUV “compromises nothing?” If you do, I’m afraid you’re being quite gullible.
What can we say that’s positive about this new product? Well, it’s better than the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of the gas guzzling behemoths that constitute the bulk of Ford’s SUV/truck sales and profits.
But how many of these “green” SUVs will be sold compared to the gas guzzlers? 100? 1,000? What good is the Escape Hybrid’s being “the cleanest SUV ever” when the vast majority of Ford SUV sales will continue to be some of the most environmentally damaging (not to mention dangerous) vehicles on the road? What kind of “green” statement is the company really making? Ford wants to take credit for being “green” by selling a handful of environmentally “friendly” vehicles, while overlooking the fact that its other vehicles completely obliterate any environemental benefit provided by the new Escape Hybrid.
Anyone planning to buy this sucker will be helping to validate Ford’s self-serving “green” marketing campaign and sticking a undeserved feather into the company’s environmental cap. And whatever you do, if you buy it don’t follow the stupid advice of the ad slogan by taking to into the remote back country and helping to ruin previously unspoiled vistas.
In addition, Henry Clay Ford announced with great fanfare a few years ago that Ford was improving fuel efficiency for its SUVs by 25%, only to withdraw this statement shortly afterward. So where’s the much-vaunted Ford commitment to environmentalism? I guess it just went up in smoke. I don’t think this commitment is worth the paper the press release is printed on.
For more Ford smarminess and environmentally conscious marketing, visit its Environmental Initiatives site. Geoffrey Johnson of The Green Life has written a very sharp analysis of the Ford marketing campaign in his ‘Greenwashing’ Leaves a Stain of Distortion.
Ford’s website on Hybird Escape Model
http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/index.asp?bhcp=1
Would you rather me drive a Hummer??? Who listens to advertising to make an auto purchase anyway, not me.
I just bought one and I might not be perfect – perfect enought to drive an insight or whatever else I believe your suggesting here but I do believe ford by being first to market with a “FULL” hybrid is not “sham”.
I get the point this is not perfect and everyone should get rid of thier SUV’s or whatever else but dont you think they should get any credit for doing this ?
I’m not a ford fan as per sae, I would have bought whatever larger vechicle had the best mileage and also satisfied my transportation requirements. Perhaps after I get the car I wont be so inspired but I have been waiting for almost a year.
anyway I’m inclined to support whatever efforts are made to reduce fossil fuel consumption the motives disinterest me. If enought people demand them – I’m sure they will make them. If they make a bunch of gass guzzeling trucks – like you I say shame on them… but unlike you (I’m speculating here) – it’s really shame on me.
Dismounting soapbox.
http://portal.arnao.com/sites/www/HybridWorld/pages/Discussions.aspx
I thought I’d do the right thing for the planet and buy a Civic. But then I realized that I had to leave one of the kids at home all the time so I bought another one so my wife and two kids could follow me and the other two around. Now we burn more gas than if we drove one Suburban. Maybe SUV’s ARE the right/only choice for some. Of course I’m being sarcastic. But I don’t get all the animosity toward SUV’s. Of course they are the wrong choice for a lot of people but there are also a lot of people who move big families or equipment or tow boats for whom an SUV is actually the most economical choice. I personally have a full size pickup. Do I really need one? About 10% of the time I do. I move a lot of hardware, furniture, tools, lawn equipment, and tow stuff for work and recreation. Am I supposed to own a four banger and a truck just in order to burn less gas? How do I afford both payments or the insurance or depreciation and maintenance? In the face of these considerations, a little extra gas is cheap. Where would I park the extra vehicle? Should I use some of Earth’s resourses to add on to my garage so I can park it? What about the energy and resourses used to create the unnecessary car? That is not an attractive solution for anybody but the auto manufacturers.