The anti-clean-coal Reality Campaign is a coalition of some very serious groups and smart people. They have the same goal that all CSAs (climate science advocates) do, namely to stop building new dirty coal plants (and presumably to start shutting down existing ones). But I just don’t think they have figured out an effective way to attack clean coal clap trap yet.
I criticized the first ad of the Reality Campaign (see "Memo to Gore: Don’t call coal ‘clean’ seven times in your ad"). I think that costly TV ad is actually counterproductive, and probably leaves in the memory of most casual viewers (i.e. the target audience) either a neutral or positive view of "clean coal." I can’t believe Frank Luntz or the fictional Don Draper — or any set of leading PR people the Campaign might get pro bono — would ever sign off on such an ad.
Now they have a new uncompelling "Smudge" ad, which again is simply too clever by half. Judge for yourself:
At least they only repeat "clean" twice, and at least this appears to be a web only ad that won’t cost them much money. I’m interested in your impressions. I see a lot wrong with this ad.
First, c’mon guys and gals — a second mocking ad? There must be some reason why mocking ads are relatively rare on TV. And the few you do see — I’m a Mac, I’m a PC, come to mind — are usually comparison ads with brands, like Microsoft/PC, that are well, well established in people’s mind. "Clean coal" doesn’t have a brand precisely because it doesn’t exist. I don’t see how mocking is a good approach let alone the primary one.
Second, relatedly, again the lingering visual image at the end is a sentence with the phrase "clean coal." If you surveyed viewers of this ad a month from now, again, I would imagine most would have either a neutral or positive view of "clean coal" — assuming they have any clue what it is.
Third, the message of this ad is even more opaque than the TV ad. Try watching the ad as if you don’t follow the issues closely, as if you don’t really know what "clean coal" is. What the heck would you come away with?
Fourth, a smudge on the nose? That’s the visual metaphor you want to leave people with? That’s the dirtiness people should worry about? Modern coal production is one the greatest blights on this country, and coal plants spew out dirty stuff — and the old, unregulated, grandfathered coal plants spew out really huge amounts of dirty stuff. The smudge doesn’t mock the coal industry as being somehow much dirtier than they are pretending to be — everybody knows a lump of coal is physically dirty.
Fifth, this leads to an inherent problem for these ads. The only pollution that the Reality Campaign opposes is global warming pollution — at least that’s the only environmental problem I see mentioned on their "About" page. But carbon dioxide isn’t dirty. And if the Campaign isn’t going to run ads of climate impacts, then I’m just not certain what "dirtiness" metaphor they can run with. They could show mountaintop removal — but they aren’t campaigning against mountaintop removal. They could show dirty emissions — but they aren’t campaigning against dirty emissions.
I called them the "anti-clean-coal Reality Campaign" but I can’t tell whether they are against clean coal or just against the coal industry claiming there is clean coal when there isn’t. Some of the coalition members support an aggressive effort to develop carbon capture and storage (which I wouldn’t call clean coal, but many do), while others strongly oppose such an effort. These too-clever ads may be an attempt to finesse that huge, and I would argue unbridgeable, difference.
If the point of the ad campaign is to convince people that clean coal doesn’t exist, then a logical conclusion — unless they run an ad saying otherwise — is that we should work hard to develop clean coal. Is that a message the Campaign members endorse?
In a strange way, the ads may actually be counterproductive from a climate perspective. As long as people think there is clean coal, maybe they would be more supportive of carbon regulations. Who knows? I personally prefer a different sort of message, but then I have a much different audience than these ads.
Bottom Line: I just don’t think these ads work. I would ask the Reality Campaign to think hard about three questions:
- What piece of misinformation do you think the public has that will negatively affect public policy?
- How do your ads attack or debunk that piece of misinformation usefully for the average listener/viewer?
- What public policy goal are you ultimately trying to push?
If someone from the Campaign can answer those questions, I’d be glad to publish them and reevaluate my criticisms in that light.
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 4:30 am
24 Dec 2008
Ultimately, this ad could have a place within a large stable of ads, run in heavy rotation, on selected outlets that reach a targeted audience -- the kind of audience that increasingly no longer exists thanks to the fragmentation of the info-spectrum (500 channels, TiVo, XM/Sirius, the intertubes).
Instead, it's a weak vessel for bearing a non-message.
You want an ad that works and is cheap to make and air and that would get a lot of free repeats in coverage about the ad? Get Al Gore to do a standup against against the "earthrise" photo (40 years old this month) with this script (or something similar):
<ital>
"We're losing the war against climate change.
"The special interests, led by the coal industry, are beating science in the battle for your attention and your understanding.
"That's why we're not all sure that there is problem, or that we're contributing to it, or that we could stop if we were. But there is. We're driving it, but we can stop it.
"The thing is, we don't have much time. We have got to be the first society to switch from using a basic fuel like coal before it runs out. If we don't, our future is likely to be as black as coal.
"If you agree that we need urgent action, go to stopcoal.org or call the number on your screen to get involved.
"And if you don't agree, go to climateskeptic.org or call this number. You will be connected to real experts in your area who have volunteered to answer your questions with respect and to help you understand the issues and why we must act today.
"Do it today. We haven't got a minute to lose."
<ital>
You could do posters with a picture of Al and the script, it works on radio and the web, etc. etc.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Dashielle Posted 9:27 am
30 Dec 2008
We have a head of a corporation, telling you that he wants to confuse you by putting out misinformation about coal.
Then he claims that coal is clean.
And the ad tries to make this seem ridiculous by getting some of it on his nose.
Then "There is no such thing as clean coal."
Who is this guy? Why does he want to mislead us? What does clean coal mean? What is the problem that he is trying to cover up? Why isn't there such a thing as clean coal? Why is this industry doomed to either pollute or go under? Most people simply don't know what the problem is with the coal industry.
But there is a reason why people are talking about clean coal that this ad doesn't get at, and without addressing the root issue, all ads of this kind will fail. People are afraid that by pursuing environmental safety we will loose industry and jobs. Many people are unwilling to make that choice, so there has been this movement towards finding ways of, technology for, cleaning up our industry and decreasing environmental destruction while keeping jobs. This is a good thing, it leads to innovation and change, as well as increased awareness of some of the problems with these industries. It encourages conversation. If there are reasons why for this industry it is not possible, that is what needs to be said. But it needs to be said with values. If we've learned anything from the Rockridge Institute it is that people make decisions based on their values not on the superior logic of an argument. This ad attempts to tear down an industry, which some people will interpret as jobs, without replacing it with value for the environment or human life. It feels vacant. It doesn't touch anyone's heart, there is no one to identify with. Where are the pictures of blackened lungs, or ugly mines, or waters in which nothing lives? Where is the widow of the miner or a stripped mountainside? These images or testimonials get at what is at risk in this industry. I agree with the author, the smudge of coal on the nose hardly gets at the fact that coal has been an environmentally disastrous enterprise with a deplorable history of health effects on those involved in its production. The smudge on the nose almost seems to make light of the history of coal. After all, it is not the physical dirty-ness of a lump of coal that is problematic, is it?
What this ad comes off as is reactionary and obstructionist. If we can find ways to use coal cleanly, shouldn't we? And if we can't, that's what we need to see in this ad. Even if we could burn coal cleanly, can we mine it cleanly? What is the problem? We can't include a series of facts in catchy ads either, but some photographs and clearer communication are called for here.
It would behoove the makers to avoid repeating the phrase clean coal at all, or anything that evokes it as an opposite, like dirty. Words like pollution, hazardous waste, deadly, words that are true descriptors of the problems with coal should be used. There is no need to respond to or legitimate the framing that has been chosen to promote coal.
As a side note, the corporation as bad guy who misleads the public to ensure maintenance of profits is not a new concept, nor is it a particularly amusing one. To even work it depends on a recognizable scandal within the industry that can be primed in the watchers mind. What this ad does is vaguely allude to that narrative without backing it up with fact or allegation. Regardless of how accurate it may be, what the ad risks feeling like is a baseless attack from an environmental group who wants to bring down a U.S. industry and doesn't care about the jobs at risk.
Dashielle
Permalink