This is rather old, but I think it is important. Is Jon Miller right?
Chris
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/sellingclimatechange_2533.jsp
*Selling climate change *
Jon Miller <http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/Jon_Miller.jsp>
23 - 5 - 2005
*The environmental movement is failing to put climate change on the
political map. What’s going wrong? Jon Miller, a man who sells Coca Cola
to China, says: forget polar bears - think house prices. *
------------------------------------------
A recent article
<http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3888006> in /The
Economist/ painted a bleak picture of the environmental movement,
portraying it as ineffective and marginal. If you disagree with this
assessment – and in my view the British activists in *openDemocracy’s*
roundtable <http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2472>
largely confirm it – consider the following question: why was climate
change, the most important issue of our time, almost entirely absent
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2473> from Britain’s
recent general election?
The election has passed, and with it a significant opportunity has been
missed. In 2005, the UK hosts the G8
<http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1078995902703>
(the group of seven largest rich industrialised countries, plus Russia)
and holds the presidency of the European Union. This is a unique
position from which to influence global climate change policy. But for
the environmental movement, it’s back to business as usual. Looking
forward, how can we raise the effectiveness of environmental campaigning?
*Don’t miss other articles in *openDemocracy’s* debate
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/climate_change/> on the politics of
climate change*
The answer is in communications. In terms of fundraising, the main
environmental groups have kept pace with increasingly sophisticated
marketing techniques. In terms of campaigning, however, we are stuck in
a 1970s world of slogans, stunts, posters, placards and banners. There
is little understanding of the audience’s frame of mind, and no really
tangible communications objectives. The green movement has become
effective only at talking to itself.
This may sound a little harsh. After all, there has been a steadily
growing media interest in climate change. That’s true, but too easy a
measure. Awareness of climate change isn’t the objective: people may
know <http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change> and
still do nothing. So what should we do differently? I have three
suggestions.
*1. Don’t debate the science*
Everybody knows that greens love getting into a good debate. It’s not
surprising – there’s a powerful scientific, moral and commonsense case
to be made for taking action. Unfortunately, those with a vested
interest in doing nothing are too shrewd. In the United States
especially, they have successfully entangled environmental change
campaigners in detailed debates about the validity of the science.
It’s a simple strategy: the likes of Exxon throw money at some
financially compliant scientists, who produce a report with the
appearance of credibility and objectivity. The greens, of course, leap
to an enthusiastic defense of their case - and the trap is sprung: the
public tunes out (too boring), the media downgrade the story (too
complex) and the politicians have the greatest excuse for doing nothing
(let’s wait until the science is clear).
It’s entirely right to set out the case, of course - but the time has
come to have confidence in the scientific consensus around climate
change <http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050121-2.htm>, and to stop
debating the science. We urgently need to move the conversation from “is
it really happening?” to “what do we do about it?”
*2. Stop talking about the environment*
Buried around page seven of your newspaper, you might find the
occasional story about climate change, along the lines of “Global
warming: bad news for polar bears”. Personally, I find this little short
of infuriating: it’s counter-productive, yet this kind of story forms
the bulk of green communications on climate change.
So what’s the problem? After all, people /do/ care about the
environment, don’t they? Indeed, there are plenty of surveys which
report that as many as 92% of people care about the environment.
Unfortunately, this means very little: ask anyone if they care about the
environment, and they’re unlikely to say no. Environmentalists find it
difficult to accept that most people simply don’t care about the
environment as much as they do.
The problem is this: the steady stream of stories about polar bears and
the like has a negative effect: it causes people to think of climate
change as a purely environmental issue. Of course, it isn’t: climate
change presents serious economic, political and health risks.
Communications around climate change should focus on /non/-environmental
impacts. Let’s face it, there are plenty to choose from: widespread crop
failures, outbreaks of disease, the threat of conflict over water, and
the increased likelihood of tsunami-like
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2307> disasters in
places like Bangladesh, to name a few.
But here again we need to be careful. If the scale of the impacts we
describe is too overwhelming, people will disengage: it seems /too/ big,
too uncontrollable, like the threat of sudden annihilation by a giant
rogue asteroid. Also, if the impacts are too remote – distant famines,
for example – people file it mentally under /good causes/.
Climate change is more than a “good cause”. If we want people to respond
emotionally, practically and urgently to climate change, then we need to
present impacts that are both tangible and relevant to their lives. In
the UK, we might think of this as “the /Daily Mail/ strategy”: link
every story to readers’ material wellbeing. So, we move from “climate
change is bad news for polar bears” to “climate change may affect your
house prices”.
Some may describe this as cynical. In advertising, we think of it as
understanding your target audience. Of course, we would all like to
believe in the better nature of our own species – but can we afford to
rely on an appeal to people’s altruism? After all, we all know where
charity begins.
The same logic applies to both consumers at large and the business
community. We must move climate change /out/ of the Corporate Social
Responsibility
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/theme_7-corporations/debate.jsp> box and
into the CEO’s in-tray. We need to present this as a serious risk to
business as usual: smart, responsible business leaders are taking
climate change seriously, because they see it as a strategic issue, not
a PR issue.
*3. Set clear objectives*
It’s sometimes quite tricky to work out exactly what the environmental
movement wants to be done about climate change. For those interested to
listen, there is a cacophony of messages about what should be done:
families should downsize their cars; industry should become “carbon
neutral”; kettles should be quarter-filled; investors should back
sustainable energy; governments should sign Kyoto
<http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php>;
everyone should buy halogen light-bulbs; businessmen should fly a little
less – and when they fly, they should plant trees in penance.
It's understandable, of course. The environmental movement consists of
many different constituencies, each working hard to address their own
particular areas of concern. Even within a single organisation,
different campaign groups may communicate with the public on different
issues at the same time.
*Also in *openDemocracy’s* climate change debate: *
*UK activists <http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2472>
ask what to do about climate change*
*Activists from China, India and Brazil
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2520> discuss the
international challenges*
Even if we are successful in presenting climate change as a real and
urgent problem, we are failing to present clear solutions. Climate
change campaigners are, of course, painfully aware that there are no
easy answers. There's no quick fix to climate change. However, if
progress is to be made, we must be more strategic in the way we
communicate solutions.
At the most straightforward level, this means we should always ask two
simple questions each time we communicate with the public: /who/ exactly
are we communicating with, and /what/ exactly do we want them to do?
This may sound blindingly obvious - but there's little evidence that
these questions are being routinely asked.
Ultimately, however, something a little more radical is needed. The
scale of climate change as a problem, and the complexity of its
solutions, demands that the environmental movement speaks with one voice
on this issue. At the very least, the high-profile campaign groups
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change> need
a coordinated approach. We need to pick our battles with more care,
uniting behind a coherent campaign strategy - with carefully chosen
targets and clear communications objectives.
The management gurus will tell you that strategy is about deciding what
/not/ to do. Communications strategy is no different: for us, it may
mean deciding /not/ to talk to a mass audience about polar bears (or
halogen bulbs, or half-filling the kettle) but to communicate instead on
the solutions that will have highest impact - such as building pressure
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2469> on the United
States to get behind Kyoto.
If the environmental movement were able to speak with one clear,
consistent voice, and to present clear, feasible solutions, then we may
have a better chance of making some real progress. If our communications
remain fragmented and with no clear strategic direction, then I fear we
are fighting a losing battle.
This article appears as part of *openDemocracy*‘s online debate on the
politics of climate change
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/climate_change/index.jsp>. The debate was
developed in partnership with the British Council as part of their
ZeroCarbonCity <http://www.britishcouncil.org/science-climate-zcc.htm>
initiative – a two year global campaign to raise awareness and stimulate
debate around the challenges of climate change.
------------------------------------------
return to the debate
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/debate.jsp>
send this article to a friend (or foe!)
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/emailToFriend/send_friend_form.jsp?url=/debates/article.jsp&query=id*6-debateId*129-articleId*2533>
open easy read version
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/sellingclimatechange_2533.jsp#>
download easy read version
download printable version
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/2533.pdf> download
printable version
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/2533.pdf>
challenged by what you just read?
Join the discussion
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=179>
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/sellingclimatechange_2533.jsp#>
Copyright © Jon Miller
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/Jon_Miller.jsp>, Published by
openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and print extracts from this article
for your own personal and non-commercial use *only*. If you teach at a
university we ask that your department make a donation
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/registration2/donate.jsp>. Contact us
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_press.jsp#syndicating> if
you wish to discuss republication. Some articles on this site are
published under different terms.
home <http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp> about oD
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/index.jsp> press
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_press.jsp> advertise
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/media_pack.jsp> FAQs
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/help.jsp> privacy policy
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_privacy.jsp> plaintext
site <http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/home/index.html>
contact us <http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_contact.jsp#drop>
|
