Europe

Nivea CEO – “we don’t do gay”

LGBTQ Nation has reported that Nivea CEO rejected a campaign from its ad agency – FCB Global – which involved two men holding hands with the words, “we don’t do gay at Nivea.” This has led to a social media backlash showing offended users binning their products in protest. The laugh is that the advertising agency wants to dictate to the client how it runs its business. Nivea just doesn’t wish to promote “woke.” A choice that it should be entitled to make, just as Nike or Gillette are.

Nobody asked in what context “we don’t do gay” were said? Was it in reaction to the disastrous Gillette (note P&G reports Q4 results on July 30th) campaign on toxic masculinity? Did Nivea merely not want to reference specific minorities where it didn’t feel sufficient market gaps or opportunities would be found or was it a venom filled homophobic tirade? CM is willing to bet it was the former. Some corporations don’t wish to mix politics with product.

Nivea got in hot water in 2017 when it promoted a skin lightening cream in Africa. After much success with such products in Asia (where lighter skin is deemed more beautiful and brands make a fortune selling cosmetics based on this) it tested the African market. Unfortunately it got into hot water despite demand. The skin whitening industry was $10bn in 2009 and expected to grow to over $23bn by 2020.

Should Nivea be bashed for supplying products to a market demand that clearly exists? If Africans wish to lighten their skin, shouldn’t that just be a question for that individual? No one is forcing Africans to use their products. Nicole Amartefio is rightly proud of her skin hue so she can choose, like many others, not to buy into the ‘insecurity.’ If Nivea sales tank, they can blame the marketing department for inadequate due diligence.

Maybe CM should protest the sunscreen market for heightening insecurities over skin cancer because whites have less melanin? Do people realise that sunglasses lower the risk of tanning because the eyes regulate melanin production based off the glare the eyes receive? Why doesn’t Nivea promote the use of sunglasses instead of selling expensive sunscreen?

However this is where the Nivea story gets stupid.

FCB Global has been Nivea’s as agency for over 100 years yet its CEO Carter Murray said it intends to end the relationship with Nivea at the end of the contract.

FCB is within its rights to bin a century of business development but if the client wants to follow a mainstream campaign rather than get woke, surely isn’t it Nivea’s prerogative to do so? Does it require Nivea to meticulously follow the social diktat of its service providers? Who does FCB Global think it is? Why does it seek to throw its client under the bus? So much for respecting a century old client relationship.

LGBTQ Nation argues that one of the agency staff who proposed the campaign was indeed gay himself. Presumably he was offended.

Sadly Nivea felt the need to make an irrelevant statement to defend something completely unnecessary,

We are an international company with more than 20,000 employees with very different genders, ethnicities, orientations, backgrounds and personalities worldwide…Through our products, we touch millions of consumers around the globe every day. We know and cherish  that individuality and diversity in all regards brings inspiration and creativity to our society and to us as a company.”

Do consumers honestly ask themselves how “woke” every brand they buy? It is not dissimilar to ANZ preaching about Maria Folau. Is that in the forefront of the 5 million customers it serves? That is not even taking into account the hypocrisy of a bank which was admonished by the Hayne Royal Commission for unethical behaviour.

If Nivea believe that advertising to the LGBT community is a winner, let it decide because it has far better information than FCB Global about markets, products and segmentation. It shouldn’t feel guilty. Subaru America ran a campaign that targeted the lesbian community. Clearly the brand felt its market position had to differentiate away from the monsters of Toyota and Honda.

Talk about FCB Global cutting off its nose to spite its face. Expect its business to be affected more than Nivea. #GetWokeGoBroke . Interested to see how Gillette’s Q4 trend has been since the disastrous Q3 when P&G reports.

The moral of the story is to let the free market weigh Nivea’s decisions. It hasn’t called for anything other than defending how it serves its client base. Nivea parent company, Beiersdorf AG, has not experienced a share price backlash.

Greek conservatives win in landslide

Image result for greek flag

Seems that sustained high unemployment and forced belt-tightening by Brussels has finally led the Greeks to elect a conservative government – New Democracy – that wants to lower taxes and invest more in the nation. Prime Minister-elect Kyriakos Mitsotakis party is expected to win between 155 and 167 seats in the 300 member parliament.

 

Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech

What troubles CM is that the soon to be Dr Thunberg (she will be given an honorary doctorate from the University of Mons in Belgium) will be abused even more by those pushing the climate change narrative. She is the perfect human shield to the divisive machine that lurks begins her. It is hard to criticize a movement when the face is a child.

She faces either nothing happening with the climate and being exposed as brainwashed. Or the policies she espouses will lead to such a miserable existence that life will be even more terrible than it is now.

This is not to criticize Thunberg per se. She is undoubtedly a very brave girl to face world leaders and celebrities with such scripted messages.

Here is the transcript of Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech. The socialist imprints are all over the language. Especially when the 16-yo tells the audience they are simply “uninformed.” Watch out for the coming “carbon budget” which will mean you have to turn vegan, stop flying and take on your moral duty to stop spending other’s carbon credits!!

——

Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.


That is unless, in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of industrialized society have taken place. Including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale.

Furthermore, these scientific calculations do not include most unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops.

Nor do these calculations include already locked in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale.

And these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.
These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC.

So if we are to stay below the 1,5 degrees of warming limit, which is still possible within the laws of physics, we need to change almost everything. We need to start living within the planetary boundaries. This will be a drastic change for many, but not for most.

Because most of the world’s population is already living within the planetary boundaries. It is a minority who are not. 

The richest 10% of the world’s population emits about half of our emissions of greenhouse gases. The richest 1% emits more than the poorest 50%.

And this is not about glorifying poverty, this is about the laws of physics and the remaining amount of greenhouse gases that we can still emit into the atmosphere to be in line with the Paris agreement.

It is not people in countries like Mozambique, Bangladesh or Colombia who are most responsible for this crisis. It is mostly down to people like you here in the audience.

Entrepreneurs, celebrities, politicians, business leaders. People who have a lot of power.
People who consume enormous amounts of stuff. Who often fly around the world, sometimes in private jets.

Your individual carbon footprints are in some cases the equivalent of whole villages.

But the worst part I think is that you are normalizing this extreme lifestyle. Because people look up to you. You are the role models, you are setting the standards. People aspire to be like you.

About 100 companies emit approximately 71% of our total emissions of CO2. And yes I know, we need a system change rather than individual change. But you can not have one without the other.

If you look through history all the big changes in society have been started by people at the grassroots level. No system change can come without pressure from large groups of individuals.

And no, I don’t blame you. I know you are not acting like this because you are stupid. You are not ruining the biosphere and future living conditions for all species because you are evil. At least I hope not. I know that almost everyone of you are simply uninformed. Just like the rest of the world’s population.

I know that you here in the audience didn’t travel here to see a sixteen-year-old girl who says strange and uncomfortable things.

But you know what? We need to dare to be uncomfortable. We need to be brave enough to say and do things that may not increase our profit or our popularity. Because otherwise, we won’t stand a chance.

We need to start thinking outside the box. To acknowledge that we don’t have all the solutions to the climate and ecological crises yet unless those solutions mean that we simply stop doing certain things.

We need to accept that the market and new technologies will not solve everything for us. We need to admit our common failure. And then we need to act, while there’s still time

At meetings like these, you love to listen to entrepreneurs, new ideas and new inventions. But when it comes to the climate crisis the time for those magic new inventions has just about come and gone.

And even though we most certainly need to embrace every bit of new clean technology – we can no longer look away from the obvious fact that we also need to change our behaviour. Some more than others.

The theme of this year’s Brilliant Minds conference is “Fluxability Quotient”. It’s what the organizers call “a symphony of big-picture thinking”.
Well, here is some big-picture thinking for you.

If you regularly fly around the world, eat meat and dairy and are living a high carbon lifestyle then that means you have used up countless of people’s remaining carbon budgets. Carbon budgets that they will need in their everyday life, for generations to come.

And if that wasn’t enough, those whose carbon budgets we are stealing are the ones least responsible and the ones who are going to be affected the most by this crisis.

According to climate scientist Kevin Anderson, if the richest 10% of the world’s population would lower their emissions to that of the average citizen of the European Union, then the world’s emissions of CO2 would be cut by about one third.

I think we can safely say that everyone in this room belongs to that 10%. Including me.

Everyone and everything needs to change. But the bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. The bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty.

To make the changes required we need role models and leaders. People like you. I am certain that most of you sitting here will have the wisdom, the courage and the common sense to take a few steps back. To see the full picture. To make the sacrifices that are necessary. And to become the leaders we need you to be.

The question is, will you do it in time?

Future generations are counting on you. Don’t let us down.

British Airways places order for 200 Boeing 737 MAX

Nothing like a confidence boosting 200 plane order for the highly criticized Boeing 737 MAX jet at the Paris Airshow. British Airways CEO Willie Walsh said,

We have every confidence in Boeing and expect that the aircraft will make a successful return to service in the coming months.

There is no doubt Boeing offered a competitive price to generate some positive news spin since the crisis erupted. As CM always contended,

Ultimately the market will decide on the 737MAX. The plane has a 4,000+ unit backlog. Even if airlines wanted to change to A320neos, the switching costs would be prohibitively expensive in terms of pilot certification, maintenance and joining the end of an equally long queue. The order book is unlikely to suffer widespread cancellations.”

The mainstream media proves again its proclivity for sensationalist journalism without understanding the industry dynamics or the facts.

Bjorn Lomborg points to cold facts of global warming

Bjorn Lomborg has written a powerful piece in the Weekend Australian which looks at the “cost” of climate emergency driven policy. It makes a complete mockery of the people who tell us we must save the planet with their prescriptions. Although CM has made the assertion many times that politicians make promises which are so unaffordable for so little return that it makes no economic sense. The hypocrisy of signatories is also telling.

Some of the choice quotes,

After New Zealand made its 2050 zero emissions promise, the government commissioned a report on the costs. This found that achieving this goal in the most cost-effective manner (which strains credulity because policy seldom if ever manages to be cost efficient) would cost more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defence, environment and every other part of government combined. Each and every year.

To replace a 1ha gas-fired power plant, society needs 73ha of solar panels, 239ha of onshore wind turbines or an unbelievable 6000ha of biomass...We often hear that wind and solar energy are cheaper than fossil fuels, but at best that is true only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. It is deeply misleading to compare the energy cost of wind or solar to fossil fuels only when it is windy and sunny

Most people think renewables are overwhelmingly made up of solar and wind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Solar and wind contributed only 2.4 per cent of the EU total energy demand in 2017, according to the latest numbers from the International Energy Agency. Another 1.7 per cent came from hydro and 0.4 per cent from geothermal energy…In comparison, 10 per cent — more than two-thirds of all the ­renewable energy in the EU — comes from the world’s oldest ­energy source: [burning] wood.

Today, fewer than 0.3 per cent of all cars are electric, and even if we could reach 200 million electric cars in 2040, the IEA estimates this would ­reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent. That is why, in the face of years of failure, politicians have continued doing one thing: making ever bigger promises.

The promises made in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in the Kyoto Treaty in 1997 fell apart. A new study of the promises made under the Paris Agreement finds that of almost 200 signatories, only 17 countries — the likes of Samoa and Algeria — are living up to them, and these are succeeding mostly because they promised so little. But even if every country did everything promised in the Paris Agreement, the emission cuts by 2030 would add up to only 1 per cent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2C.

Pro-Trump crowds in London?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4kjp8irRw&feature=youtu.be

CM was asked to provide proof that there were more than a few people supporting Trump on his visit to London. Naturally the mainstream media just covered the angry mobs and the baby balloon.

Of course many pro-Trumpers prefer to drink, not wear milkshakes. Or as BBC comedian Jo Brand suggested to people of his ilk (i.e. Nigel Farage) that battery acid should be thrown instead. Great joke in a city where acid attacks are almost a twice a daily occurrence.

Nazi scum?

Just a day before the 75th anniversary of D-Day, where 156,000 allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy to defeat the Nazis, unhinged protestors in London can scream at a person with different views as  “Nazi scum”. We can always count on the tolerant left to engage in thoughtful, respectful and open debate. Their generosity has now spread to offering unsolicited milkshakes to those they disagree with.

What is striking within all of this, is 1) the police did absolutely nothing (no surprise in Mayor Khan’s London and to be honest the constable looked riddled with fear);  2) every other grievance of the left seems present at the march from the Extinction Rebellion, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism (ironically practiced by numerous members of the Labour Party which aligns with many of their protests), a call for a general election (which would likely see even bigger swings against this lot) etc; and 3) so many protesters hiding behind masks. What is it with these people who can’t own their protest?  Maybe the Univesity of Mons can hand her an honorary doctorate for standing up to Trump?

Welcome to 2019. To think of the 4,500 poor young allied soldiers who lost their lives on that fateful day 75 years ago trying to defend against the very tyranny these people wish to reintroduce. Those calling others Nazis should take a long stone cold look in the mirror to see what true fascism looks like.