It's interesting to read the strategy (exec summary) and recommendations made to DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) by its agency, made public in these pdfs.

I'm coming at these documents cold but I notice how apprehensive I feel. Here's why.

The opening paragraph of Exec Summary says:

This strategy includes a series of recommendations to change attitudes towards climate change in the UK. It is an evidence-based strategy drawing upon the extensive research, consultation and experience of the specialist communications consultants FUTERRA.

I think it's always a bad sign when an agency insists on spelling its name in capitals everywhere. Smacks of rampant egotism to me. And what's with this awkward jargon of "evidence-based"; are they afraid we'll think they made it up in the bath last night? Why do they have to labour the concept of "extensive"?

Then it says

• This is an attitude change and not a behaviour change strategy. Evidence shows that these recommendations are unlikely to have any direct impact on specific public behaviours.
• However, attitude change is extremely valuable in itself. We can generate support for policy changes, and use growing awareness of climate change to open the door to behaviour change.

This is weird. There seems to be some kind of subtext here. I wonder if this means "Actually, this isn't going to work but, hell, you want to spend money on it, spend it with us." The assumption that behaviour change always follows attitude change is the pretext for this government wasting a lot of money on patronising advertising. I fear more of the same.

From the recommendations:

Recommendation 8: Branding
A branded statement, aligned with the BHAG, be used across the activities of
the strategy and all the communications.
Recommendation 9: Ownership of Brand
We recommend that Defra ‘own’ the brand, supported by the existing Working
Group members. This group should also develop the criteria and terms for its
use.

Big alarm bells ringing here. Yes folks, all the tell-tale signs of top-down communications at its most presumptuous.

Futerra (sorry FUTERRA) sum their plan up in this baffling diagram.

I've got a thing about diagrams like this. They are meant to simplify and summarise but I find them utterly confusing. There is a ton of information in a visual image but I don't think they've given any real thought to it. Like what's behind the choice of shapes and sizes here? Are they really just saying "Oh, there's lots of elements to this and they're all inter-related somehow"? Beats me.

These are just my top-of-mind responses. They're based on my own experience of watching too many uninspired ad campaigns - always preceded by this kind of laboured argument. If I'm being horribly unfair, put me right.