“The White Cashmere Collection was first created back in 2004 and features beautiful, original Cashmere BT Couture crafted by Canada's top fashion design talent. Eighty seven designers have participated to date.
Far from a waste of paper, used only once and thrown away, these works of art are treasured: carefully curated, preserved and protected for display, exhibits, shows, photography etc. They are featured in books, on TV and throughout the traditional and social media and online as a unique expression of beauty and hope.
You would Not tell a painter they are wasting paper that should be thrown in the blue bin for recycling, or flushed down the round one, once it's been used. Cashmere BT Couture deserves and gets the same respect.
The White Cashmere Collection is a heartfelt expression of Fashion with Compassion created to support the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's vision (and mine and presumably yours), of a future without breast Cancer.
The collection has helped @cbcf, Canadian consumers and Kruger Products raise much-needed awareness and millions of dollars to help women and families cope with the disease, and help find a cure.
I understand you are skeptical of pink fundraising, but your attack on Cashmere as a waste of paper is deeply disturbing and disheartening given the facts.”
Here is my response:
Kruger used excessive bathroom tissue in its campaign; the Cashmere campaign didn’t explain that the bathroom tissue used is recycled or how (or if) the dresses are preserved; the campaign didn’t disclose the amount of tissue used (especially important to disclose if the amount of tissue used is much less than it looks to help reassure your environmentally conscious public). The absence of this information and the excessive use of bathroom tissue undermines Kruger's commitment to the environment. I found it amusing that the campaign did not address these issues and apparently didn’t consider the impression this would likely leave on environmentally conscious consumers. That’s why I wrote the post. That’s why I made jokes. I can't be the only one thinking that the White Cashmere campaign used too much paper and that this is not good for the environment.
I’m analyzing this strategy from a public relations perspective. I don’t see the logic of using excessive tissue (per dress, several dresses per year) in a campaign while Kruger claims to support the environment, specifically sustainable forestry and recycling. I do not regret addressing this paradox, or finding amusement in it.
Why not include your key messaging about your environmental commitment in all campaigns? Surely you want your public to be aware of your commitment to recycling and sustainable forestry and to take it seriously. To me, the campaign achieved the opposite effect.
On Twitter, your colleague Andrew F. Stewart suggested that I am insensitive to the cause (after I shared my distaste for a Tweet he wrote about Whitney Houston's addiction and death), including your Twitter handle (For those unfamiliar with Twitter, Andrew did this to send his Tweet to Deb, with a link to my White Cashmere post, introducing her to it):
I am trying to understand the logic. Am I insensitive to the cause of breast cancer because I asked questions about the logic of this campaign and addressed environmental issues? Because I used silly humour? Should a campaign be immune from criticism, questions and concerns about the company’s environmental commitment because it does work for breast cancer and the fashion industry and fosters the production of art?
Yes, I am skeptical of pink fundraising, but that’s not what my post was about or why I wrote it.
Thank you for your response.
Note: I am not suggesting Kruger has been untruthful about its work for the environment. I recognize the environmental and public relations benefits of campaigns creatively reusing materials that would otherwise be discarded, but I don't feel the White Cashmere campaign applies because of its excessive use of tissue.