April 11th 2008
Vanity Fair Fails To Print Green Issue On Recycled Paper — Again.
Insult to injury
Filed under: magazines — michael @ 4:05 pm
At this point, it’s becoming clear that even a boardroom of oil executives might have better organized this year’s green issue for Vanity Fair. First we had the bizarre cover photo of Madonna holding a globe (why?) and then the interview that asked zero questions related to the environment. Now, we have another great article from Frank Locantore lamenting the fact that Vanity Fair once again decided not to use recycled paper for their green issue. From the post,
“The fact is that while other magazines like Shape, Fast Company, Inc. and Every Day With Rachael Ray have made important achievements in environmentally responsible publishing, Vanity Fair and CN (Condé Nast) have only “talked green” in their articles. Do they make any mention of their environmental practices in the magazine? No. Is there information about their commitment to sustainability on their Web site? No. Are they at least using recycled paper? No, not even a smidgeon.”
Locantore says it’s a classic example of “Do As I Say” and in a time when access to high quality recycled paper stock in no longer a hurdle, we couldn’t agree more. Vanity Fair has every opportunity to make each issue a “green” issue, but is only looking at the circulation numbers and less at the big picture.
Sure, writing about the topics in the first place is wonderful — but using that excuse to justify doing nothing yourself is so 2006.
To read the rest of Frank’s great piece, click here.
What’s the point, really? Then we’d all criticize for not printing all of their issues on recycled paper or not allowing the Conde Nast staff to use http://www.Eco-Limo.com instead of the corp limo service or not offsetting all of the emissions associated with the production of the magazine. Little things are important, for sure. But this issue, whether green or not, was going to be printed anyway. The fact that it calls attention to green issues is valuable. I don’t see the hypocrisy, and I’m not all that upset. Should Conde Nast adopt sustainability across the board? Of course. But just making the green issue on recycled paper would probably be more insulting than it would be meaningful. That would be greenwashing, IMO, because they wouldn’t mean it. The “green issue” is not about Vanity Fair being green…it’s reporting on green trends and (hopefully) inspiring readers to be green…for one issue per year.
I’ve written an email to one of my friends that’s in the know over at Conde Nast. I’d like to find out that sort of Pro and Con conversation is being kicked around when deciding if they will print on virgin paper or not. I’m thinking it’s probably the advertisers extremely high expectations from their (CN’s) publications that don’t come cheap.
I’m fully for every issue being a ‘green’ issue in terms of recycled paper. 60%-70% of all magazines sent to newsstands are never sold. That’s incredible. What a waste of trees.
You ask what’s the big deal — I point to the above. I don’t agree that we would then pick on VF’s other areas of sustainability. Their business is magazines — if they used recycled paper, they would be making a huge statement. It’s not a minor point at all.
Justin — I’ll be curious to hear what your source has to say. I agree that it may be the advertisers — and some general aversion to recycled paper that’s causing the problem.
Though, personally, I’ve got a copy of Fast Company in front of me here and the colors look brilliant.
That’s my point. Why should VF do one issue on recycled paper? Just b/c it happens to be the green issue? Please. Their point in doing the issue is reporting…not being green. Just b/c NBC nightly news does a story about green doesn’t mean Brian Williams has to wear an organic cotton suit or that they have to offset the emissions of that one report. Don’t you see how absurd this criticism is? If the NYT does a green story, should that one page be on recycled paper? Look, if you want to criticize CN or the publishing industry for not being a more sustainable, then have at it; I’m with you. Targeting their annual “green issue” is arbitrary.
Again, doing this one issue on recycled paper would, in fact, be greenwashing; it’s just as disingenuous as the person who litters every day except Earth Day. Reporting on green issues as a major news and entertainment source, on the other hand, is not greenwashing nor is it hypocritical. It’s just their business.
I agree that the VF should not just print their green issue on recycled paper - my point is that they should print every issue on recycled paper.
VF’s job is to report, Random House’s job is to publish books, and my friend’s job is to teach HS. Their paying job does not absolve them from being a responsible member of the community.
If I see my friend litter, I’ll talk to them about it. Random House adopted an amazing procurement policy to move ALL their paper purchases to at least 30% post-consumer recycled paper.
VF should continue to do good reporting, but shouldn’t they also be responsible about the resources they are using? Just because my friend is an excellent HS teacher would I really stay silent if they were tossing their trash over the fence into their neighbor’s yard?
All I’m saying is that VF is not doing what we expect individuals to do - be thoughtful about the resources they are using.
In cooperation,
-Frank
I’m, personally, over “Green issues” in general. I feel that it should be mainstream - every issue should be green.
But if you’re going to print in huge letters on your cover “GREEN ISSUE” then it should live up to its name. Recycled paper, articles regarding being green — certainly where the cover model is concerned.
Printing one issue on recycled paper isn’t greenwashing — calling it “green” and then doing nothing about it IS greenwashing. 1 issue on recycled paper is 1 step in the right direction. And considering the sway that VF/CondeNast have they should be setting the bar much, much higher.
I’ve been toying with a subscription to this particular rag since I read it at the library almost monthly. I’ll continue to read at the library. The only mags I purchase now that I can use my dollars to make my opinion heard are printed on recycled paper. Urban Climber (even carbon neutral!), Dwell, yoga journal, for example.
Vanity Fair choosing not to print their “green issue” on recycled paper is a significant oversight that will naturally cause people to question CondeNast’s integrity.
Great papers are available now. Inks with high vegetable oil content (and lower VOCs) are more transparent than petroleum, so colors are more nuanced and vibrant. CondeNast is big enough to motivate their printers to do what it wants. Printers themselves are looking closely at the ROI of green printing and finding it favorable.
It seems like Vanity Fair is treating “green” like it’s a seasonal color, a trend - because they are. That’s what Vanity Fair does, why their readers read the magazine. Whether the readers get it or just follow the trend, it’s still movement in the right direction.
VF could do a better job, certainly. The benefits would be large, not only in trees saved and pollutants reduced, but in removing the taint of greenwashing.
A new report by Nielsen says greenwashing is a “failed corporate strategy” that puts their brand at risk: “Consumer support depends on action as well as perceived sincerity and commitment.” The report analyzed blog postings on the topic of sustainability in 2007 and found that a quarter of the posts on the topic of greenwashing concerned companies whose actions contradict their green marketing claims, as in this case.
CondeNast and Vanity Fair would be wise to follow through.
I’m with EcoRazzi on this one. VF is simply writing pieces like this to sell magazines (Which are, sadly, still printed on virgin paper) I think they’re hypocrites and won’t buy any of their mags..
bb
You are all being arbitrary in singling out VF and their “Green Issue”. Arguments such as these have to have consistency in order to hold water and in order for our collective efforts to have an effect on policy, corporations, and the world. With this issue, though, you are opening a can of worms, where consistency calls for you to criticize (a) every journalistic effort to cover green issues no matter what the form, as if COVERING green issues somehow implies that the reporting vehicle has to be green and (b) every magazine that is not printed on recycled paper, no matter what the subject matter. Which you very well may do, but let’s be clear and consistent. What if every time a media outlet covered a green topic, the eco police berated them for not using recycled paper or not using renewable energy for the broadcast or not being hosted on servers powered by renewable energy? The green movement would get no press, and then it would just be us here, on this blog, talking amongst ourselves as nothing got done.
VF is not calling this issue “green” in the sense that the issue itself (the paper, the travel associated, the emissions, etc.) is green. Let’s be clear. It’s an issue that covers green issues (hence, the name), just as a report on the nightly news or a radio interview with Al Gore. So there is no hypocrisy. They are not claiming to BE green. However, to print this ONE issue on recycled paper, which would somehow imply that they were being green, would be disingenuous as a company (in the absence of a legitimate sustainability plan) and would amount to greenwashing. Covering green issues as a media outlet is not greenwashing. A token and half-hearted effort to seem green would be…which is exactly what people are suggesting VF should have done. Is that all it takes to satisfy the eco police? Would CN get a total pass on their sustainability report if they used recycled paper for one issue per year? C’mon.
VF is spreading the word about green issues to a MASSIVE audience that none of us, nor ecorazzi or any other blog, will ever hope to reach, partly b/c we’re all preaching to the choir. VF actually has a chance to convert people and make them more aware. I think that’s worth a few trees and the emissions associated therewith.
I’m not defending CN for not being more sustainable overall…which includes Vogue, GQ, and so many others. But which is worse? VF for spreading the word about green, no matter what their motivation, or Vogue for not? Why aren’t we criticizing Vogue for not doing a green issue? If that’s the nature of your argument, then you’ve got a lot more criticizing to do b/c there are a lot more mags that don’t cover green issues, let alone not printing on recycled paper.
But if you’ve got something against VF covering topical trends that happen to sell magazines and generate revenue, then that’s another argument altogether. You’re criticizing how the publishing and news media do business…which, again, has NOTHING to do with whether the issue is printed on recycled paper.
Every issue of every magazine should be printed on recycled paper. Every company should be carbon neutral. Every day should be Earth Day. These go without saying. But targeting VF’s “Green Issue” is arbitrary, inconsistent, and even counter productive if you care about getting the word out. This debate was started with a piece in Folio, where the author called for this one issue to be printed on recycled paper. He writes for a magazine that covers the publishing industry, so I don’t know about his green credentials. But by any measure, that would be 100% greenwashing i.e. a token gesture to seem green when everyone knows that VF/CN simply are not.
Max - I think you and I are very much on the same page.
I am the author of the blog on the Folio: website and I’m not a journalist and not employed by Folio:
I direct the Magazine PAPER Project for the non profit, Co-op America and have done so since 2001. My job is to assist magazines and the magazine industry to print in an environmentally and socially responsible way. I’m glad to clear up this confusion.
Since 2001, I’ve contacted Conde Nast about this issue and they’ve been completely uninterested in a dialogue. While other large publishers are also slow in taking action on this, few demonstrate the complete lack of responsibility that CN does. I’m singling them out because of this history, their latent power to create change, and the fact that one of their premier publications releases a green issue without any self-reflection. When Elle printed just their green issue on recylced paper, they at least mentioned the fact that they don’t do it for every issue and explained why (though I don’t necessarily agree with their reasons).
I hope this help to explain where this blog came from. Feel free to contact me directly.
-Frank
frank@coopamerica.org
[…] Intersections of green and trash As Earth Day approaches, I’m nudged more and more each day by emails from PR agencies to blog about one or another eco-product (a note to publicists: I am happy to receive press releases, but everydaytrash.com is very specifically about garbage so story ideas about the environment in general are best sent to green bloggers). One such nudge came recently from the buzz marketing manager at the New York TImes, aka my sister. She thought you guys might like to see this video (takes a minute to load) about a modern homestead in California where one family has gone beyond recycling to self-sufficiency. The clip goes along with this week’s eco-themed Times magazine. Here are the trash-related blurbs I found interesting, despite a general distaste for the concept of a green issue: […]