Comments on: P&G Expands ‘Future Friendly’ Marketing Effort http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/15/pg-expands-future-friendly-marketing-effort/ Environmental Leader Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:25:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: vwenzel http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/15/pg-expands-future-friendly-marketing-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-256612 vwenzel Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:09:32 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=33455#comment-256612 When I suggested the term future friendly to my friend who runs BDS marketing, I suggested the term be used for a company like meyers soaps or seventh generation, not P&G. I was appalled when I started seeing P&G using the future friendly slogan as well as almost verbatum the words I had sent to my friend suggesting the slogan for a green company that wanted to move beyond the "green" bandwagon. The idea and slogan which the marketing CEO used and probably contributed to himself, as he has not replied to me since he told me "I was on fire" with the idea,was truly meant for a green company, that he could not get beyond the mainstream mentality of mass consumerism or that he probably made more money selling to a big co like P&G is sad. I feel that my idea was ripped off in the worst way. So all of you that recognize the irony of the slogan and who is using it, it was meant for a sustainable company that walks the walk. Sorry if people actually fall for the slogan and buy into the destruction of the earth that chemicals and disposable products are creating. When I suggested the term future friendly to my friend who runs BDS marketing, I suggested the term be used for a company like meyers soaps or seventh generation, not P&G. I was appalled when I started seeing P&G using the future friendly slogan as well as almost verbatum the words I had sent to my friend suggesting the slogan for a green company that wanted to move beyond the “green” bandwagon. The idea and slogan which the marketing CEO used and probably contributed to himself, as he has not replied to me since he told me “I was on fire” with the idea,was truly meant for a green company, that he could not get beyond the mainstream mentality of mass consumerism or that he probably made more money selling to a big co like P&G is sad. I feel that my idea was ripped off in the worst way. So all of you that recognize the irony of the slogan and who is using it, it was meant for a sustainable company that walks the walk. Sorry if people actually fall for the slogan and buy into the destruction of the earth that chemicals and disposable products are creating.

]]> By: LOUISE http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/15/pg-expands-future-friendly-marketing-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-205420 LOUISE Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:46:00 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=33455#comment-205420 P & G promotes disposables. P & G promotes disposables.

]]> By: LOUISE http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/15/pg-expands-future-friendly-marketing-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-205419 LOUISE Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:43:11 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=33455#comment-205419 Proctor & Gamble promotes disposable products to the utmost. need i say more? Proctor & Gamble promotes disposable products to the utmost. need i say more?

]]> By: Roberto Strajjio http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/15/pg-expands-future-friendly-marketing-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-189796 Roberto Strajjio Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:55:31 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=33455#comment-189796 So if other big CPG companies all start coming up with their own versions of so-called eco-friendly brand labeling we'll end up with such labels confusing customers and meaning nothing at all. There should be one (or two?) labels that CPG brands can earn from an independent testing source that has strict requirements for approval. Not some made up effort backed by millions of dollars in advertising spending. So if other big CPG companies all start coming up with their own versions of so-called eco-friendly brand labeling we’ll end up with such labels confusing customers and meaning nothing at all. There should be one (or two?) labels that CPG brands can earn from an independent testing source that has strict requirements for approval. Not some made up effort backed by millions of dollars in advertising spending.

]]> By: Sofia Ribeiro http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/15/pg-expands-future-friendly-marketing-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-185302 Sofia Ribeiro Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:08:07 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=33455#comment-185302 I think this is a great initiative for P&G. Sure, they still have a long way to go, but any step towards environmental sustainability is a step in the right direction. As long this represents an actual shift on P&G's stand regarding the environment (and not just a marketing stunt), I believe we should applaud this kind of initiatives. After all, we do need big corporations on board if we're serious about climate change. I think this is a great initiative for P&G. Sure, they still have a long way to go, but any step towards environmental sustainability is a step in the right direction. As long this represents an actual shift on P&G’s stand regarding the environment (and not just a marketing stunt), I believe we should applaud this kind of initiatives. After all, we do need big corporations on board if we’re serious about climate change.

]]> By: Julie S http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/15/pg-expands-future-friendly-marketing-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-185116 Julie S Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:07:18 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=33455#comment-185116 If a product is to be considered as "earth-friendly", then it should include being environmentally SUSTAINABILE... produced in such a way that it does not damage the environment (like rainforests) or cause species extinction. I wonder... does P&G consider their contribution to the rampant deforestation of precious rainforests and the brutal, mass slaughter of orangutans (& other wildlife) "future-friendly"? Sure, why not? Many other companies do. Thousands of products are labeled or certified with the following: "cruelty-free" or "animal-friendly" and the horribly disgraceful "no animal-testing on this finished product" (this admits that 1 or more ingredients WERE ANIMAL TESTED before being added to final product). For information about P&G's connection, please visit this site - http://www.greenthefilm.com/ Be sure to check out the menu list. Other, more shocking companies (believe me, if you are an animal or earth lover, you will be outraged) are also to blame. If a product is to be considered as “earth-friendly”, then it should include being environmentally SUSTAINABILE… produced in such a way that it does not damage the environment (like rainforests) or cause species extinction.

I wonder… does P&G consider their contribution to the rampant deforestation of precious rainforests and the brutal, mass slaughter of orangutans (& other wildlife) “future-friendly”?

Sure, why not? Many other companies do. Thousands of products are labeled or certified with the following: “cruelty-free” or “animal-friendly”
and the horribly disgraceful “no animal-testing on this finished product” (this admits that 1 or more ingredients WERE ANIMAL TESTED before being added to final product).
For information about P&G’s connection, please visit this site – http://www.greenthefilm.com/
Be sure to check out the menu list. Other, more shocking companies (believe me, if you are an animal or earth lover, you will be outraged) are also to blame.

]]>