fbpx
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

What’s all this about Great Northern Brewing Co Beer and National Parks?

What happened?

A social media campaign was mounted by 4WD TV to get Great Northern Beer to withdraw its support for extending or creating National Parks with the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife. To be clear, the idea was to buy private land for new national parks, not convert existing public land to national parks.

The pressure was successful, and Great Northern “paused” their plans.

Spokeman Zal Gelman said (my emphasis in bold) “Great Northern’s Outdoors for a Cause campaign was yesterday paused following feedback from our passionate drinkers. Our donation to the Foundation for National Parks & Wildlife will now not be used to buy land to add to National Parks. Our donation will instead be used for the preservation of endangered species. Whether it’s hiking, fishing, 4-wheel-driving or just relaxing, Great Northern drinkers use and preserve their precious spots in the great outdoors, and we support them.”

Who wants to create National Parks and why?

Conservation groups want some state land in Victoria currently declared as state forests to be reclassified as Parks. The reasons are primarily to prevent use of the land by extractive industries such as logging and mining. Classifying the land as a park keeps it as forest. It also helps protect endangered species.

Forest areas are critically important to the health of the environment and by extension, all humankind.

Hasn’t logging of public land already stopped in Victoria?

Yes it has, and Vicforests has been shut down, but the conservation groups fear it could restart. If land is designated as a park, then restarting it is much harder.

Why would anyone object to more national parks, particularly bush users?

Public land can be loosely classified into state forests and parks. State forests are for recreational use, parks are for conservation.

Parks, by definition, involve restrictions on activities compared to state forests. Popular activities in state forests include free-camping, hunting, fishing, dog walking, 4×4 driving, prospecting, horse riding, rallying, fossicking and many more. When land is declared a park many of those activities are banned, or restricted. It’s not an exact rule, as what is allowed depends on the type of park and there are many exceptions, but the fact remains that you can do fewer activities in a park than a state forest. Sometimes an activity is still allowed in a park, but restricted compared to a state forest, for example state forests allow camping anywhere, in a park it’s in defined areas.

The people who enjoy all those activities are objecting to new parks because of the restrictions – which are not clearly outlined by the pro-parks side – and want to keep the land as state forest. It’s not just “4WD enthusiasts” objecting, and conversely, not all “4WD enthusiasts” object to national parks. This is from 4WD TV’s Facebook page:

“I’m all for national parks—done right, they protect incredible landscapes and give people a chance to experience the wild. But there’s a big difference between preserving nature and locking it away.”

So the divide between pro and anti isn’t as wide as first may be thought. But there are also the eternal adjacent debates of how to manage land for bushfires, viability of logging as an industry, the role of First Nations people in land management, and the effects of climate change. And, political parties on both sides are involved.

Remember that Northern’s plans were to buy additional land, not convert state forests. Maybe it could have been argued that by extending national parks with new land there is less need to convert state forests?

Do these bush users just want free access to destroy the bush then?

No, that’s an easy, lazy beatup, and while the Advocate is satire, it says “The criticism is comes from people who enjoy taking their lifted vehicles and dogs into the bush to drive up and down hills and through some mud.” which does sum up the view of many and of course, there is a minority who will do that – but they’d do it regardless of whether the land is a park, state forest or anything else.

The vast bulk of bush users do care about the environment, don’t bugger it up, don’t want to see it all developed, mined, or logged out, but equally, don’t want their activities unduly restricted. And many conservationists don’t want “the bush locked up”, they want it preserved and don’t mind some recreational activity because the main threat is extractive industry, not Joe Blow snagging a deer or two or some mates winching up a hill. The problem is any hope of meeting in the middle gets lost in a lot of noise.

What’s Great Northern doing instead?

Supporting endangered species, which may or may not include members of their marketing team. So far, nobody seems to have objected.

How did Great Northern get into this mess?

My guess is the usual – marketing people not in touch with their customer’s needs, wants and preferences because the marketing people are not part of the customer group they’re trying to reach, so they don’t understand what works and what doesn’t.

This is pretty standard for speciality cars like 4x4s, but apparently it’s the same for beer. I’d never really paid any attention to Northern before not being a beer drinker, but a thirty-second doomscroll through their Facebook makes it pretty clear who they’re targeting – it’s not Macan owners – and even our good old mate Blind Freddy could’ve told them supporting national parks would backfire, but here we are. I find it absolutely incredible they thought it’d play well.

As further proof, we can look at two examples of poor corporate social responsibility from their Facebook page.

First, I invite you to review the guidelines for safe campfires here.

Then, take a look at what Great Northern thinks is acceptable to throw up on their socials:

That’s an amusing, but dodgy contraption for cooking or warming – wouldn’t want young kids around it, and hot empty beer tins are not easy to dispose of. More importantly the fireplace appears not to be a designated fireplace, with a load of coal shovelled underneath when it’s meant to be in the pit. This is not responsible camping.

And neither is this. First, that fire is not actually out, there’s hot coals and smoke, second point is that the implication this is first thing in the morning which means the campfire has been left overnight. And the fuel wood is too close. Etc etc.

It’s not as if we’ve just had vast tracts of the state burned or anything, eh Northern? Do you guys not think that you could maybe get your oh-so-clever points across while showing how to do campfires properly, or at least, not so badly? Poor old Parks Vic is doing the best they can, maybe lend a bit of a hand? Maybe also a post on not leaving beer cans in dead fires? Y’know, you could consult some environment experts on how you could further your beer sales AND be responsible!

What are the implications of this little saga?

My guess is that many organisations are now going to be too scared to support the parks movement, and the politicians will see where the votes are, and are not. Fundamentally, every corporation likes to go all brave and righteous for Their Cause, but they never try it if it’s a net loss, only if it’s a net gain, preferably achieved with some negativity from opponents which can be worn like a badge of honour whilst reaping a net gain.

In the case of Northern, it’s clear they didn’t really care about extending parks, they just thought it’d play well with their customer base. It didn’t, so they’ve switched beliefs just like that. Corporate ethics in action for you. Remember that next time you see any corporate donations or involvement with good causes.

I have more coming on this subject but other priorities have got in the way, and it’s a big topic that needs a lot of research.

Here’s a rare example of clever 4×4 marketing that is also responsible. If only all creative teams were as smart and didn’t work to undo the good examples others try to set.

Show CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment