Tactics of the Tanenbaum

While I love real Christmas trees in all their needley glory, my wife and I are usually on the road visiting family for the holidays, which makes decking our halls with an authentic pine or fir a challenge. Friends of ours gave us a small artificial tree to hang some of our ornaments, some of which have been in our family for several generations. It helps us get into the holiday spirit before we head for the airport -- and provides a pretty base for dozens of enticing seasonal cat toys.

But are we contaminating the Earth with our decorating choices?

The National Christmas Tree Association has cranked up its annual campaign to warn the public about the evils of artificial trees like ours, as a St. Petersburg Times article by Homes and Garden Editor Judy Stark reported a couple of weeks ago. Stark focused on the association's environmental argument, which emphasizes that artificial trees are non-biodegradable, non-renewable, landfill-filling petroleum byproducts that are mostly made in China.

To underscore its argument, the association has an online game -- Attack of the Mutant Artificial Trees. And this year, in an attempt to tap that whole user-generated, viral-marketing thing, the group is holding a YouTube "Get Real" video contest. Contestants are encouraged to submit short homemade videos "showing why a Real Tree is the best choice this Christmas season. Tell us why Real is better than fake, why a Real Tree is better for the environment, what a Real Tree means to you, whatever -- but be creative!" There are three cash prizes with the first-place winner collecting $500.

The campaign is largely the work of Smith & Harroff Inc., a public affairs and marketing firm based in Alexandria, Va., which has worked with the Christmas Tree Association and its management company for several years. The firm has won several p.r. awards for its Christmas tree work, which it also uses as a case study on its Web site.

Why all the big-league p.r.? Because Christmas trees are big business. As Stark noted in her St. Petersburg Times article, Americans spent more than $1.8 billion on Christmas trees last year -- $1.2 billion on real trees and another $631 million on artificial trees. That works out to 28.6 million real trees, more than three times the number of artificial trees. But most people reuse their artificial trees, which increases their longterm threat to the real tree growers and sellers.

As best as I can tell, there is no association for artificial Christmas tree manufacturers. But I'll be on the lookout for the case for their products, whose boughs are green in summer's glow and do not fade in winter's snow.