Hello all. This is my first post. I want to put a topic for discussion out there.
The topic of wolf reintroduction in Colorado has come up recently. This is by no means a political post. I am simply looking for the thoughts of people in this specific market niche. It should be noted that I am far from an expert in ecology and conservation, but I am interested to learn all I can.
I am in marketing for a financial firm, and I am about ready to launch a piece that talks about the necessity of treating every client's situation individually--not making blanket planning strategies to apply to everyone--as well as the importance of looking at all the of factors that go into retirement planning as one Balanced Retirement Ecosystem™ (income, investments, taxation, healthcare, legacy, etc.).
My concern is this. In a portion of this marketing piece, I outnlined the history of Yellowstone National Park, the extirpation of the grey wolf, the effects, the reintroduction of the grey wolf, and some of the balancing effects it has had in that specific ecosystem.
I'm hoping that our intended audience will not extrapolate the case study of Yellowstone to think that we as a firm are arguing for the reintroduction of the wolf across many different ecosystems, but will instead follow the narrative of comparing the need to analyze an individual ecosystem to the need to analyze an individual retirement situation. The bottom line is, what might work in one case could be the exact wrong strategy for another case.
In your opinion, is this topic likely to be politicized rather than being used to prove the point I am trying to make?
Sorry for the long post. Part of my marketing piece is about unintended .consequences of not looking at the whole picture...I'm worried I might have made the same mistake in using this example.
Thanks for any input.