there is only good marketing and bad marketing.
That is one dimension. In another dimension, there is the question of whether the target audience of the marketing is aware of what is being marketed.
What, for example, do the people who have glanced at that PDF brochure think is being marketed there? Is it biodiversity, a strategy for marketing biodiversity, or an advertising agency? Assuming, as I do, that it is the ad agency, I would suggest that this marketing campaign is at least partially a failure, because we here are talking about the strategy rather than about the clever folks who came up with the strategy.
On the other hand, it could be called a success, because discussion of the virtues of a particular advertising agency would not otherwise take place here.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf
I'm quite interested in seeing if this works. I have sent this to several wildlife-guides and conservationists and will monitor their reactions.
It talks about what emotions drive people to actually do something to protect biodiversity rather then just showing them figures. After looking at what makes a certain brand successful they apply it on biodiversity. Their end conclusion is to remove messages based on extinction as it just makes people apathetic rather then inspire change. Furthermore they propose different ways of conveying "biodiversity is important" for different audiences. Love, fuzzy feelings and "you-can-make-a-difference!" for public changes and financial advantages and concrete action for policy changes. Lastly, the advise to make the message more personal by talking about loving your pets, focusing on local species and anthropomorphise whatever you are talking about.
In short they want to protect biodiversity by making it a brand name and getting people to buy their product (i.e. donate money, etc.)