I think I'm right to a first approximation at the very least. If you're trying to propagate an idea, you're selling something. This is not intrinsically unethical, though you do have to keep one eye on your ethical compass.
If I were wrong, what would being right look like?
I enjoy talking about ideas in small groups, and I enjoy the sensation of being persuaded by a good argument. It's fun for me. When I recognize what's happening it's not fun for me to be marketed to. I hope that these activities have little in common.
Relevant: except in the context of small discussions, it's basically unimportant to me what others believe. I know many or most other users here have different priorities.
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.)