Going Green
On our way back from lunch today, Bay and I walked past a troop of kids alongside Adam Saab, holding up signs and handing out flyers for the Green party. I noticed this from a distance and commented to Bay that this situation was one that I found upsetting, and she said the same thing. However, we're not jerks, and we weren't about to wreck the day of a kid who's probably just doing something that they've been set up to by their parents or their brother (but seriously, why are kids handing out flyers?)
When we approached the throng, a kid approach me and handed me a flyer. I confirmed that they were with the Green party, and asked if there was someone that I could get in touch with about this. The kid indicated that Adam Saab was standing right there, and so we moved on to talk with him.
Before I go further, I'll state for the record that I'm a fan of the Green party. I would like to see our society move towards a much more sustainable state of existence, and I'm willing to accept that that will come at a cost. That cost means that initially, things will probably cost more, and we, as a society, will need to be willing to invest in products and practices that, at least initially, will cost more then their less-sustainable counterparts. This is just a facet of the way economies of scale and setting up infrastructure works.
Although I have not voted Green recently, the choice between where my vote goes has both times come down to them and another party. In each case, the other party has simply won by virtue of offering more in the way of a comprehensive platform, or having more satisfying answers to the questions I want to see answered. As far as a party is concerned, there is none other that I would like to see grow more than the Green.
Flyers? Really?
So, Bay and I walked up to Adam, and we waited for him to finish his conversation. I started out simply asking if there wasn't a better way to campaign than to hand out flyers printed with colored ink. Bay added in that the optics of doing so are quite poor, which is a very legitimate complaint.
Adam responded by saying that he could appreciate our concern, but that it was, frankly, part of the cost of being in politics. Although they would like to minimize their use of paper and flyers as much as possible, it's just a part of being in the game, and there's nothing they can do about it. He added that all of their campaign materials are printed on post-consumer recycled paper, and that they attempt to re-use their signs as much as possible.
I noted that for every couple like Bay and I that came to him to tell him how we feel, there are many others that will feel the same way, but, rather than talking about it, will simply shake their head and ignore the Green party as a legitimate voting option. He effectively dismissed our claim about the optics by suggesting that if the voting trend in previous elections is any indication of optics, people are clearly seeing the Green party in a more positive light and that the optics can't be that bad (the implication here is that the Green party have been getting more votes over time, and so they must be doing something right).
Bay and I thanked him for his time and walked on for the rest of our lunch. As we talked things over, we both agreed that we found Adam's responses to our questions to be unsatisfying. How come?
Flyers and the way the game is played
Commenting that handing out flyers is simply "the way the game is played" strikes me as a cop-out. If that is the way the game is played, perhaps the Green party should be looking to the game for ways to innovate. Is there a reason that a more reusable solution cannot be used? Why is that the way that the game is played? Is there not a better solution that we just need to look for?
If this is "the way the game is played", isn't this an opportunity for the Green party to innovate and differentiate themselves from other parties?
What can we use the flyers that we have been handed after we read the information on them? Nothing. I suppose we could get creative and wash windows with them, but that isn't the point. The Green party has done nothing in this instance to provide us with a convenient way of reusing the flyers that they are handing out. This is simply unacceptable. Shaking your head and saying "Well, we just have to play the game" may be sufficient for some people, but this will never be a satisfying answer for me. If there is any party from which I want to see innovation in this area, it is Green.
My friend Jason once said that the way that you do one thing is often the way you do everything. This phrase rings very true to me, and if the Green party cannot innovate in their campaigning, why should we believe that they are going to be able to innovate when they are sitting in parliament?
Here are some thoughts that I had on my way back to work that could be preferable to the flyers they are handing out:
Adam's comment that voting trends may serve as an example of optics is really missing the point. This is like saying "Well, more people are voting for Green, so that's good enough". Good enough, should never be good enough. I want to see parties that strive for improvement and progression. If the Green party are willing to make a compromise in this area of politics, where is the line drawn?
Should we accept the Liberals engaging in sponsorship scandals and then telling us "Hey, that's the way the game is played"? No, we shouldn't.
I really believe in the ideals behind the Green party, and I certainly feel that sustainable living is the only way to go. However, I just don't feel like they have the implementation figured out. Until I start to see evidence that this has changed, it's going to be tough to win my vote.
On our way back from lunch today, Bay and I walked past a troop of kids alongside Adam Saab, holding up signs and handing out flyers for the Green party. I noticed this from a distance and commented to Bay that this situation was one that I found upsetting, and she said the same thing. However, we're not jerks, and we weren't about to wreck the day of a kid who's probably just doing something that they've been set up to by their parents or their brother (but seriously, why are kids handing out flyers?)
When we approached the throng, a kid approach me and handed me a flyer. I confirmed that they were with the Green party, and asked if there was someone that I could get in touch with about this. The kid indicated that Adam Saab was standing right there, and so we moved on to talk with him.
Before I go further, I'll state for the record that I'm a fan of the Green party. I would like to see our society move towards a much more sustainable state of existence, and I'm willing to accept that that will come at a cost. That cost means that initially, things will probably cost more, and we, as a society, will need to be willing to invest in products and practices that, at least initially, will cost more then their less-sustainable counterparts. This is just a facet of the way economies of scale and setting up infrastructure works.
Although I have not voted Green recently, the choice between where my vote goes has both times come down to them and another party. In each case, the other party has simply won by virtue of offering more in the way of a comprehensive platform, or having more satisfying answers to the questions I want to see answered. As far as a party is concerned, there is none other that I would like to see grow more than the Green.
Flyers? Really?
So, Bay and I walked up to Adam, and we waited for him to finish his conversation. I started out simply asking if there wasn't a better way to campaign than to hand out flyers printed with colored ink. Bay added in that the optics of doing so are quite poor, which is a very legitimate complaint.
Adam responded by saying that he could appreciate our concern, but that it was, frankly, part of the cost of being in politics. Although they would like to minimize their use of paper and flyers as much as possible, it's just a part of being in the game, and there's nothing they can do about it. He added that all of their campaign materials are printed on post-consumer recycled paper, and that they attempt to re-use their signs as much as possible.
I noted that for every couple like Bay and I that came to him to tell him how we feel, there are many others that will feel the same way, but, rather than talking about it, will simply shake their head and ignore the Green party as a legitimate voting option. He effectively dismissed our claim about the optics by suggesting that if the voting trend in previous elections is any indication of optics, people are clearly seeing the Green party in a more positive light and that the optics can't be that bad (the implication here is that the Green party have been getting more votes over time, and so they must be doing something right).
Bay and I thanked him for his time and walked on for the rest of our lunch. As we talked things over, we both agreed that we found Adam's responses to our questions to be unsatisfying. How come?
Flyers and the way the game is played
Commenting that handing out flyers is simply "the way the game is played" strikes me as a cop-out. If that is the way the game is played, perhaps the Green party should be looking to the game for ways to innovate. Is there a reason that a more reusable solution cannot be used? Why is that the way that the game is played? Is there not a better solution that we just need to look for?
If this is "the way the game is played", isn't this an opportunity for the Green party to innovate and differentiate themselves from other parties?
What can we use the flyers that we have been handed after we read the information on them? Nothing. I suppose we could get creative and wash windows with them, but that isn't the point. The Green party has done nothing in this instance to provide us with a convenient way of reusing the flyers that they are handing out. This is simply unacceptable. Shaking your head and saying "Well, we just have to play the game" may be sufficient for some people, but this will never be a satisfying answer for me. If there is any party from which I want to see innovation in this area, it is Green.
My friend Jason once said that the way that you do one thing is often the way you do everything. This phrase rings very true to me, and if the Green party cannot innovate in their campaigning, why should we believe that they are going to be able to innovate when they are sitting in parliament?
Here are some thoughts that I had on my way back to work that could be preferable to the flyers they are handing out:
- Hand out business cards with a web address on them. Smaller, and thus less waste.
- Hand out something that can be used again in some other manner. Even if it's a napkin, at least I can wipe my face on it when I'm done.
Adam's comment that voting trends may serve as an example of optics is really missing the point. This is like saying "Well, more people are voting for Green, so that's good enough". Good enough, should never be good enough. I want to see parties that strive for improvement and progression. If the Green party are willing to make a compromise in this area of politics, where is the line drawn?
Should we accept the Liberals engaging in sponsorship scandals and then telling us "Hey, that's the way the game is played"? No, we shouldn't.
I really believe in the ideals behind the Green party, and I certainly feel that sustainable living is the only way to go. However, I just don't feel like they have the implementation figured out. Until I start to see evidence that this has changed, it's going to be tough to win my vote.
In Japan, a common advertising technique on the street is to hand out small packets of tissue paper with advertising on them. I always found this cool because the handout was actually useful. Fliers I receive are junk and they always end up in the trash. Like you said, they could do something like handing out tissues (something useful) with a web address on it.
Fine points. While he says that flyers are part of the game, he has to understand their purpose. The flyers serve as a promotional take-away. But with the stance of the party and the shifting physics of promotion in this day and age, the thing people will be taking away is a sour taste in their mouth as they realize that the Green Party is talking the talk but not walking the walk. I also like the Green Party and what they theoretically stand for, but like yourself I am disappointed by this lack of imagination on their part. When they have a quality conversation on the street with people, the memory of the conversation should be what people take away in the future, not dead trees and ink. There are only three parties in the election, people are not going to forget who the green party is.