<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for New anti-coal ads repeat mistakes]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/Does-the-Reality-Campaign-need-new-Mad-Men/ Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:30:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Does-the-Reality-Campaign-need-new-Mad-Men/1 Using a knife to eat peas

I suspect that these ads -- the whole notion of a mocking TV ad -- is misguided from the start.  As you note, mocking comparison ads work because the alternative is offered within the ad.

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.



]]> Using a knife to eat peas

I suspect that these ads -- the whole notion of a mocking TV ad -- is misguided from the start.  As you note, mocking comparison ads work because the alternative is offered within the ad.

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.



]]> Comment #2 by Dashielle http://www.grist.org/article/Does-the-Reality-Campaign-need-new-Mad-Men/ Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:27:50 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Does-the-Reality-Campaign-need-new-Mad-Men/2 Vague about the problem, lacking in solution

It indeed seems that the makers of this ad are not entirely sure what their goal is. So let's walk through the ad.

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




]]> Vague about the problem, lacking in solution

It indeed seems that the makers of this ad are not entirely sure what their goal is. So let's walk through the ad.

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




]]>