It's wrong to blame "poor marketing" for climate inaction
This post by Kalle Crafton , which I keep seeing doing the rounds, is frustrating. While it contains a few valid recommendations, it omits something that, if included, really changes the entire message.
For decades now, the fossil fuel industry has been ably assisted by PR companies. In fact, PR itself emerged alongside and in conjunction *with* fossil fuel industries, and the emergence of effortful climate denial misinformation. You can listen to a great investigative report on this by Drilled's Amy Westervelt, on Season 3 of Drilled, 'the Mad Men of the fossil fuel industry'. Comfortably one of the best podcast series on climate I've ever consumed.
This problem has gotten worse over time: Clean Creatives and my friends at Comms Declare have been meticulously collecting details of which PR companies continue to serve the needs of the fossil fuel industry - in delaying climate regulations, in greenwashing expansionist activities. Their 'F-list ' details hundreds of PR companies working for the bad guys. The screenshots below are only a fraction of the list.
Is it a problem of "poor marketing" from climate advocates from the past few decades? I don't think so. I think that's blaming a movement that has been struggling against a powerful headwind, and in fact making decent ground despite the fact we're up against extremely cashed up industries that can seize on the communications prowess of the world's biggest public relations firms.
Even if the messaging of the climate movement had been pitch-perfect from day dot, the effect would've been nil without a parallel struggle against the forces of deception, denial and delay run by so many dedicated advocates over the years. Of course, in reality, there is no perfect 'framing' or 'message' when you're up against a constantly evolving threat. And so it's somewhat cruel to criticise the climate movement for having been subject to that challenge.
This isn't the most important argument in history - it's the most important fight. And the public relations and marketing industry has a lot to answer for, considering how weighted it is towards the wrong side.
Managing Director at Operational Wisdom & Logic
1 年I’ve filed this under ‘freedom of speech’! There comes a time when, as I think Kalle has subtley eluded, there are simply words. Some are strung together into sentences that can be understood, some can form lies. Some elucidate truth and others twist perception. But words themselves are not good or bad. It is how each individual reacts to them that empowers them. As Shakespeare (who was himself quite the wordsmith) wrote in Troilus and Cressida: “Words, words, mere words, no matter from the heart; th' effect doth operate another way.”
Consultant
1 年The FFI is well resourced and highly capable - they are fighting a clever and calculated strategic retreat in well defended positions 2Degc target results in $28trillion in lost revenue for FFI over the next two decades (ref Lenferna Oil 19.3 T, Gas 4T, Coal 4.9T) that's creates an incentive to spend HUGE on PR and misinformation - as studies have shown the FFI continues to gain from misinformation long after it has been countered very hard to counter such power but public opinion is changing - public leads and business and politicians follow ....
Managing Director, Insight Through Analysis LLC
1 年For me, someone who has been "around" debates and battles over #climate framing for decades, the challenge of the post starts with the "poor marketing" framing w/o mention/hint of the (incredible) uphill struggle of fighting the (literally) many $billions invested to undermine understanding of climate science, foster delays on action, etc ... ? Yes, there have been serious problems in how climate is discussed by those who understand the science, work on solutions, etc ... and so many have worked to help foster improved communication. Even so, to blame the scientist for not being as eloquent as speaker as a funded denialist or blame an activist for being shrill really ignores the elephant in the room. Now, returning back to Crafton's (widely) shared out post, how much of you/our frustration with it is a variation of Twitter-like restrictions and seeing an item perhaps out of a larger context. If there were a lead-in along the lines of "in the struggle against $US billions to distort the science and foster action, we must strive for the most effective possible language that will resonate with people and policy-makers", would we find this as troubling?
I help organisations with rethinking systems, regenerative business strategies & reshaping stories | Founder, The Big Picture | Systems, strategy, storytelling | Futures | Decoloniality | Featured in Forbes
1 年This is a great post. I saw Kalle Crafton's post earlier before and I get and appreciate what he's saying, and the explanation down the thread as well. There's a growing movement within the creative world that is doing similar or in collaboration with Clean Creatives in calling out ad and PR industry that are working with fossil fuel companies . Creatives for Climate is one of them.
Communications Strategy. Founder of Comms Declare.
1 年Great discussion! The climate movement is constantly reviewing messaging and has had success in the last few years, especially on communicating the promise of renewables. However, Ketan Joshi is also right because the fossil fuel industry’s messaging is THE WATER WE SWIM IN. They’ve had a 50 year head start and spend more money every second than Comms Declare or Clean Creatives can muster over a life time. Case in point, a news article on induction stoves last week headlined ‘Cooking with gas - while chefs still can’. ??