Thomas Friedman of The New York Times thinks so.
In his Feb. 17 op-ed piece, Friedman describes the challenges facing climate experts in their quest to convince the American public that climate change is the real deal. Issue number one: the “global warming” is not hot enough to stand up against a blizzard. How can the earth be getting warmer if we just had record snowfall?
Let us first consider the origin of the phrase “global warming” – a description of the gradual increase of the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans. On average things are getting warmer, yes.
Now let us consider the audience who is ill equipped to understand this idea as a global phenomenon: a temperature change on average. This audience will instead think locally, “are my immediate surroundings actually getting warmer?” Context (global or local) in this case determines whether people buy into the idea of climate change. And we’re back to the old adage: seeing is believing.
Friedman offers an alternative: “global weirding.”
“…because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird.”
Considering our audience again, it would seem that “global weirding” would not actually be inconsistent with record snowfall or extreme hurricanes. While admittedly a bit comic, “global weirding” is substantially more effective at avoiding the primary pitfall of “global warming,” misunderstanding.
When considering a product or brand name, a tag-line or a messaging strategy, think about how it holds up in a global and local context. Will even the most inexperienced audience member understand what you are trying to say? In a media culture of tweets and sound-bites, we at Russo Partners recommend this key to successful brand communication: words and phrases that leave no room for misinterpretation.
