Now for those of you who haven't connected the dots yet, here's how I'd do it if I were marketing director of a company that makes money off betting against man made CO2 emissions causing global climate change, and insuring against subsequent losses.
"Okay guys, sales are down on our Catastrophe packages, we need to generate way more. Why don't we send someone like, er, who's that guy who says the Arctic is going to melt? Yeah, him. Is he available? Okay. How about sponsoring an expedition to the Arctic that proves the ice is thinning, so we can get more people to insure against catastrophe's caused by this CO2 stuff."
Alternatively;
"We have a funding proposal for an expedition that has a great deal of synergy with our Catastrophe package marketing strategy. These people want to go to the Arctic to prove that the ice is melting because of CO2 emissions. If they find that the ice is thinning up there, we can use it as a sales tool for our 'Catastrophe' range of products."
The 'expedition', as is being pointed out repeatedly in the comments section of the article in the online Daily Telegraph; found what it wanted to find and looked no further.
As I posted at 'wattsupwithat'; great marketing, poor science.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment