Love Food Hate Waste Creative Campaign - Client, Supporting Agencies, Strategy and Plan - Example

Analysis of Love Food Hate Waste Creative Campaign Author’s Name Grade course Institution Tutor Date Campaign Overview The Love Food Hate Waste is a campaign in New South Wales was launched by Environment Protection Authority in May 2010 (Environmental Protection Authority 2012). The main aim of this campaign is to help NSW households familiarize with and tackle the issue of food waste as a result of food disposals due to various reasons (Environmental Protection Authority 2012). More particularly, the ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign focuses on reducing the amount of food that goes to waste all across the NSW. The inception of the campaign brought forth the disturbing statistics of food waste in the NSW as it was reported that an estimated 1.2 million tonnes of food stuffs and drinks annually (Environmental Protection Authority 2012). Of this 800,000 tonnes come from households while 400,000 tonnes come from businesses. This costs households about £2.5 billion not to mention the environmental damage caused by such wastes (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). Below is a list of the food stuffs households in NSW throw away: $848 million of fresh food $694 million of leftovers $371 million of packaged and long-life products $231 million of drinks $231 million of frozen food $180 million of take-aways. The diagram above shows the percentage of food waste according to food type. It is thus clear that largest food type that is wasted is the vegetables and salads. The target audience for the campaign has been primarily households and more particularly the 18 to 34 year olds, households with high income (> $100,000) and families that have young children. The secondary target market for the campaign is the partners and stakeholders such as small and medium businesses that are involved majorly in the food and hospitality industry (Environmental Protection Authority 2012). Campaign Client The client was the LFHW campaign itself and the it was to be managed by the EPA with support from other government agencies, corporate agencies as well as not-for-profit organisations that are obligated to reduce food waste in NSW. Being the lead government agency for protecting the country’s environment, EPA was tasked with the responsibility of seeing the campaign is well publicized throughout the country so that it reaches every household of the target audience. Supporting Agencies A good number of green agencies joined the campaign to ensure that it became a success (EPA 2014). EPA considers any organisation supporting the campaign a business partner who could benefit greatly from the support they offered (EPA 2014). It works with partners from corporate, government and not-for-profit organisations sectors including, but not limited to education institutions, local community clubs, community groups cafes and kiosks, environmental expo agencies, sports clubs, recycling agencies, cleaning companies, shopping centres and malls, the local government authorities and health organisations (EPA 2014). In the roadshows, members of the public were invited to compete in contests where they participated in preparing recipes from leftovers and the winning recipes got published in a cookbook (EPA 2014). It is imperative for campaign programs with a cause to have the best public relations agencies working for them if the campaign is to achieve its long term goal (Gregory 2010). EPA was the body that was supposed to handle all public relations and advertising for the Love Food Hate Waste campaign. This was important to convince other stakeholders to participate in the campaign. Through EPA’s campaign strategy, the campaign was able to prevent an amazing 5,000 tonnes from going to waste (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). This was a sound beginning for ‘Love Food Hate Waste’. Their creativity got a positive feedback from consumers and this was evident from the increased consumer recognition of food value that led to considerable behaviour change shift (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012). Strategy and Plan The client being Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW), EPA developed a strategy that would see important stakeholders such as other government agencies, businesses and local authorities join the campaign as well as substantially reduce the amount of food that went to the landfills within the first year (EPA 2014). EPA thus had to fulfill the following objectives: Raise awareness of the cost of wasting good food and its impact on the environment. Promote new habits with regards to food shopping, menu planning, servings and storage techniques. Encourage action through basic and easy to cope with changes that can be done at home or at the office while still deriving benefits. In order to reach these goals EPA had to: Work with the community directly; Develop creative and striking marketing materials; Offer accessible assistance to the target market; The program for the campaign that EPA came up with was aimed at reaching the target audience within the shortest possible time given the fact that finding a solution for the food waste issue was matter of urgency (Parker 2013). The authority first developed a website that worked as its principle communication platform. The EPA LFHW website was meant to provide background information about the campaign as well as tips and food recipes that would help visitors of the page to avoid wasting food as much as possible. The next step for EPA was to partner with the government, community groups, corporate businesses, and institutions of learning all across NSW (Love Food Hate Waste 2012). Thus road shows were organized, posters and banners created, print advertisements and research reports. Broadcast over audio-visual media was also incorporated in the campaign. To finish off this marketing strategy, EPA promoted food events and expos such as the Good Food and Wine Show and the Sydney Festival so that it could connect directly with the community (Environmental Protection Authority 2012). Of utmost importance, EPA team tasked with this campaign had to consider the fact that the task before them was not easy because it was new to them since such a campaign had not been carried out before. There was no data available with which they could build a platform on and the team did not have the slightest idea of how the target market was going to react at all. EPA also had to contend with the fact that the environmental impact of food wastes had in the past, received very little media attention, if any at all. It was however clear that the campaign had to grab the attention of consumers and the media as well through the amplification of a few high-impact messages that would resonate well with the target audience (Environmental Protection Authority 2012). This was followed by personalization of the campaign by recruiting suitable ambassadors, supporters as well as local community groups. Other marketing materials included promotional kits from partners, photos and images as well as fact sheets releases. Once these steps were taken the campaign was officially launched and commenced in May 2010 and this marked the beginning of an aggressive media campaign. The launch was graced by the minister together with the program’s inaugural partners (Environmental Protection Authority 2012). Analysis of the campaign strategy Food waste being a major issue globally, had prior to the LFHW campaign, received very little media coverage and this was the cause for the low level of consumer awareness. EPA took a bold step and made difference in their campaign (Gregory 2010, p. 69). A closer look at the strategy applied, it is clear that the application of ‘shock tactics’ worked magic without scaring and pushing away the target audience. Researchers have shown that finger-wagging tactics when looking for solutions always have negative impacts. What set the campaign apart was EPA’s use of different media and the top government agencies persuade other partners to join in the campaign as well as encourage households and businesses to reduce food waste. More fundamentally, EPA team made sure it leveraged on the support from the government by ensuring that its media communication reached everybody within the campaign’s target audience. Despite this advantaged on its side, the message to be communicated to consumers was still too strong to succumb even if government support was missing or minimal. It is however important to note that considerable behaviour change takes a long time to acquire and maintain and its achievement relies heavily on the amount of continued engagement with the target audience; this is the challenging part (Gregory 2010, p. 83). Aspects of failure in the campaign Despite the great leaps and bounds made by the campaign, certain aspects of the campaign did not have considerable impact (Gregory 2010, p. 102). By EPA focusing majorly on households, they failed to take note of the hundreds of food stores in the hospitality sector. These stores continue to throw away leftover food at alarming figures. For instance, Coles released figures showing that at one point in time, there was an oversupply of baked beans as a product line was pulled away. This meant that the excess baked beans had to be thrown away as waste. The overwhelming amount of food that supermarkets and other small scale food retailers throw as wastes has been a hot topic ever since the launch of the ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign. By concentrating only on consumers, the campaign failed to factor in large food supply chains that contribute significantly to the total amount of food wasted globally. Individualized campaigns and activities meant to appeal at the consumer level such as ‘leftover recipes challenges’ could not relate to these supply chains. Why EPA? Since this were unchartered waters that the LFHW campaign was to tread in, it was important that the campaign was to kick off in the right way. Several factors were to be considered before both EPA could embark on the rigorous task of the campaign process. Some of the factors that EPA had to look into include; nature of the message to be communicated, the target audience, technology to be used, urgency of the message, and possibilities for future reference. a) Nature of the message – The message that EPA wanted to put across was not familiar with almost 90% of household consumers and this posed a serious challenge. Consumers were aware that throwing way food was wasting food but it had no idea that it was an issue or that benefits could be derived from avoiding wasting food. It was thus important that the message be passed in a manner that would raise the curiosity of consumers as well as the media (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 137). Application of ‘shock tactics’ by releasing to the public shocking fact sheets about food waste helped as the mind boggling figures of food wastes and the equivalent net worth of the wasted food got attention from the public. These two tactics helped amplify the message. b) Target audience – Primarily, the target audience was the NSW household consumer. However, this target market is composed of different demographics and different techniques had to be employed to cater to all households. The recruiting of volunteers of all ages ensured that EPA had the workforce to tend to all demographics without any one feeling left out. (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 141). c) Technology – Possibilities in decoding messages by the recipient is a major determinant of whether the sender achieves the set goals and objectives. EPA wanted all demographics of the target market to be able to decode the message with ease and its marketing strategy made this possible by employing all sorts of media to relay the Love Food Hate Waste message. d) Urgency of information – Statistics reported by EPA in its study of food waste issue heightened the need to find a solution or the impact of waste food on the environment would reach irreversible levels. EPA was thus determined to have these statistics passed to the consumers by any means necessary to make them understand the weight of the issue at hand (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 152). Its degree of urgency was so high and it could be read from EPA’s objectives, the major one being to raise awareness of the cost of wasting good food and its impact on the environment. EPA made sure that both print and audio-visual media ran the campaign over the course of the campaign period. It is estimated that almost all households in the NSW have access to some kind of media technology like TV, radio, newspaper, magazines or the internet. e) Future references – Possibilities for future reference was also another factor that EPA had to consider before making a decision on the type of advertising to choose (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 157). Since there was no data of any kind prior to the one conducted by EPA, it was pretty difficult and expensive to start from scratch. Data that was to be communicated to the public would be of great importance for future research in the same or related field and therefore the medium to communicated it was supposed to be an easy medium to archive (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 163). All fact sheets given to media agencies were thus also archived for future reference. After considering all these important factors EPA, settled for majorly print and audio-visual media (Gregory 2010, p. 131). EPA however concentrated on using print media by printing reports, questionnaires, consumer leaflets, in store magazines, shelf talkers, as well as mushroom bags. Print media ensured that the message could be written on any medium that was within the reach of consumers (Gregory 2010, p. 147). In the first few months after the launch of NSW LFHW campaign, it was found that print proved the most favourable medium as it could be placed anywhere for everyone to see. From these findings, it shows that EPA had made the right decision and personally, I would have made the same decision, considering the low costs and speed involved in print media compared to audio-visual media and the fact the that only £130,000 was available for spending in the campaign (Gregory 2010, p. 149). Subsequent campaigns through partnerships with retailers such as the ‘Love Your Leftovers’ and ‘Great Taste Less Waste’ followed the ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign have all employed print media as the key means of communication (Environmental Protection Authority 2013). Additionally, product manufacturers have gone further to replace the ‘sell-by date’ tags on products with temperature information labels that show consumers the best environments to store food to so as to prevent them from going bad quickly (Environmental Protection Authority 2013). Measurement and Evaluation During the campaign run by EPA, more than 222 media items reached print, visual and audio media. There were also organized 197 LFHW events and seminars in NSW over the 2011-12 period. The calculated AVE by EPA team was found to be in excess of 1.5 million. Evaluating these figures, it was clear that 100 per cent coverage through key titles was achieved with 99 per cent of all print media found to be favourable. Results The campaign run by EPA, has led to the campaign getting more than 170 partners from different organisations. A quantitative evaluation by EPA found that households that were exposed directly to the LFHW campaign had decreased the amount of food that they would have otherwise thrown away by 2.1 litres (EPA 2012). When translated this amount would translate to average weekly savings of $19.50 and $1000 annually. With these statistics available for the EPA, they have gone on with communicating the campaign via print media. ‘Love Your Leftovers’ and ‘Great Taste Less Waste’ campaigns have all been driven by print media communication (EPA 2012). The Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW) campaign has since adopted other modes of communication to continually pass its message to consumers (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 172). More specifically, it employed the use of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook in its campaigns. Aside from these communication means, LFHW has also employed the services of its vehicle livery, posters and bus and outdoor advertisement (Falcon and Gray and Virtue 2008). All these subsequent forms of communications have had a profound and direct effect on the number of household and food supply chains that have been reached so far. More households are now aware of the benefits of not wasting food and they have even felt the benefits directly with LFHW. The creative nature of the campaign did have a significant and positive impact on the industry standards (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 187). A good example would be the removing of the ‘sell-by date’ tags that was characteristic of almost all products in stores and replacing them with temperature information that would help consumers store food stuffs in favourable conditions (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 187). Push-trolleys and carts in stores have also been fitted with LFHW campaign tips on how to save food. Another aspect that has changed as a result of the creativity is the number of volunteer consumers willing to take part in the campaign. All across the NSW there have been massive numbers of volunteers looking to communicate the message as well as give real life testimonies of the benefits they have experienced since following the LFHW recommendations (Neijens, Hess, and Van Den Putte, 2004, p. 191). Government’s action has also seen improvements as it is now, more than ever, committee to support the local community’s effort to minimize the degree to which food is wasted. Since its inception, NSW LFHW through EPA, the NSW government has issued $880,000 worth of grants to approximately 52 local community education programs. Such projects have competitions in film and design, development of cookbooks focusing on leftovers, celebrity chef events as well as workshops (Harris 2014). Agency-Client Relationship LFHW campaign and EPA has a relationship that continues to date. The food waste issue being a global issue needed the backing of the government and what better way for the campaign to get EPA as its major driver. Over the four years that EPA has been managing the LFHW program, several milestones have been reached; the number of partners has risen and government’s support has intensified to see that the program achieves its objectives (EPA 2012). It is thus my opinion that the LFHW-EPA relationship is a really important symbiotic relationship where one party cannot do without the other. Recommendations Up until this point, EPA has managed to bring on board so many partners to help it push on with the cause. In my opinion, I would continue applying the use of social media platforms to reach young adults. It is a difficult task to change the behaviours of this target market as they still trying to discover themselves and portraying radical behaviour is part of search. The reason why I would use social media a lot for this target audience is the fact that social media is the one place that they go to when looking for trending topics or updates on current affairs. Since it takes long to achieve any considerable behaviour change, I would maintain personal contact with the target market by employing word of mouth advocacy with the help of volunteers and community organisations. On the other hand, I would stop using a huge number of celebrity figures so as to reduce costs. I would therefore employ the services of one celebrity chef and one celebrity food writer and this would be enough considering the leaps already made by the campaign. In order to improve performance of the campaign further, I would advocate for the creation of a mobile application that would enable consumers from all walks of life to have access to live updates of the campaign as well as applications that will enable consumer plan well for their shopping and meals. References Environmental Protection Authority. (2012). NSW Government Partnership Proposal: Love Food Hate Waste. Sydney: Environmental Protection Authority Gregory, A. (2010). Planning and Managing Public Relations Campaigns: A Strategic Approach, 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Parker, R. (2013, December 25). OPINION: Resolve today to love food but hate waste. Newcastle Herald. Retrieved from http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1992008/opinion- resolve-today-to-love-food-but-hate-waste/ Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Household and Family Projections 2001-2026. Australian Government (3236.0). Canberra, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Article: Household Waste. Australian Government. (4102.0). Canberra, Australia. Neijens, P, Hess, C, and Van Den Putte, B. (2004). Content and Media Factors in Advertising. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Harris, S. (2014 February 18). Love leftovers? Forbes Advocate. Retrieve from http://www.forbesadvocate.com.au/story/2095581/love-leftovers/ Environmental Protection Authority. (2013). Environmental Impacts. Sydney: Environmental Protection Authority Love Food Hate Waste. (2012). Food Waste Avoidance in NSW. Canberra, Australia, Kathy, Guinta. Love Food Hate Waste. (2012). About the Program. Retrieved from http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au/about/about-the-program.aspx Read More