Many of those Chevron "People Do" ads that still appear in
nature magazines are the same way - Chevron is forced to
preserve an area of habitat under the ESA, after having
fought it tooth-and-nail in the courts, then they turn around
and turn it into PR. It wouldn't be so slimy if they hadn't
fought it.

One of the barriers to eco-tv ads is their overall cost. A few
minutes of airtime can be outragously expensive, and environmental
groups often have to question whether it is a better investment
to pay tens of thousands for TV spots or run cheaper ads in, say,
a newspaper. Sometimes too the networks will refuse to run ads that
might offend their much more lucrative corporate sponsers.

One source of information on countering corporate advertising
is the magazine AdBusters, which can be found in most good
magazine stacks.

Diane Yorgason-Quinn wrote:

>Then there are the pseudo environmental ads. These can actually
>be quite good as stand-alone items. When Georgia-Pacific ran
>an ad boasting about preserving habitat for the Red-Cockaded
>Woodpecker, most people would not have immediately known that
>GP was FORCED to do so by the Endangered Species Act.
>International Paper has run similar ads. They're really good
>ads, but one needs to understand that these companies are doing
>it to fix the bad PR that their past behavior has caused.