Using Advertising to Combat Climate Change
I’ve spent a lot of time lately trying to think of ways to change sentiment on climate change.
My thesis is thus: To effect the real, fast action that’s necessary, we need people to start making better personal decisions and to vote for candidates who will put in place the frameworks of incentives we need to allow democracy and capitalism to do the rest. Because once people and companies have the right incentives to make the right decisions for our environment, they will do so.
For those of us interested in the issue, there’s a wealth of experts, information, science, articles and communities. We tend to search this stuff out, and are well-versed in the science, the direness of the situation, and the most helpful solutions and actions. So that much is good.
But even this group — let’s call it The Interested — often lacks the right information to effect real change. Or, some people are just busy. That’s not an indictment; for many families, both parents work, raise children, and have to operate a busy household. Worrying about the climate in that life is hard, and it feels distant.
There’s also the people who don’t believe it’s a problem, or maybe don’t believe there are any solutions. Let’s call these people The Doubters. Most of The Doubters aren’t seeking out any information about climate change and its impacts. In fact, they are often fed or targeted with misinformation or mistruths. They aren’t looking in the places The Interested are.
The problem is then two-fold. First, we should provide actionable information to The Interested, in easy-to-get ways, with easy-to-understand actions. And second, we need to reach The Doubters, in the places they are, and in ways that are effective at creating the changes we need.
That last part is key. We don’t need The Doubters to become believers, necessarily. We just need them to start thinking that maybe it’s a teeny bit possible that the dire predictions might happen. And then, that the actions needed to mitigate those dire predictions are not hard or big.
If we can do that, many will think it’s worth doing those things. Especially if you could tie something to that message that they care about, like their kids’ or grandchildrens’ future quality of life, or the nature and outdoors that they love.
Leverage your Wallet
Take for example the great message of Bill McKibben. In his New Yorker article, he clearly outlines how large, commercial banking institutions are providing the investment money that keeps the fossil fuel running. Through their investment decisions, they can encourage or discourage the transition to renewable energy that’s necessary to hit the IPCC goals of halving emissions by 2030.
His example of JPMorgan Chase, which has reportedly committed $196 billion in financing for the fossil fuel industry since the 2016 Paris climate talks, is stark. Particularly when fossil-fuel financing accounts for only 7% of Chase’s loan underwriting, and retail and consumer banking make up a lot of Chase’s revenue.
Imagine if thousands, or hundreds of thousands of Chase consumer and retail banking customers wrote to Chase and said, if you don’t significantly alter course by the end of 2020 and divest your fossil fuel financing in favor of renewable energy, I will take my business elsewhere?
I did that earlier this month. I got a form letter back with a generic thanks and statement of their commitment to the environment. But the financial statements don’t lie. The Rainforest Action Network has been ranking banks by their investments into fossil fuels for some time. Chase is the worst.
I have a few Chase credit cards, which are good for my spending habits and see a lot of use. The Chase Amazon Prime Rewards Visa gets 5% back on every Amazon purchase, which is like free money. The Chase Sapphire Reserve is a great card for travelers. And the Chase Southwest Airlines Rapid Rewards card helps me earn A-List and a companion pass each year.
So it would kinda suck to give those up, but there are definitely other cards that have decent benefits. And … this is key … it would certainly suck less than dooming my children to a life more difficult than mine due to the environment.
I did the same with my investments. Vanguard Group has been very reluctant to adopt investment strategies that favor renewable energy. And as good as the Vanguard investment products are in terms of low expenses and solid returns, I moved all my retirement investments out of Vanguard last week, after sending them a note saying I’d return if they changed policy on investing for our futures. The funds I chose instead may not return as much, but again … kids’ future, vs. a few percent?
It’s not hard for anyone to do the same. Of course, there’s a site where people have already done the research. Fossil Free Funds helps investors find environmentally-friendly investment options.
Get Bryan Moffett’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I’m not a billionaire, so this won’t hurt either institutions a bit. I realize that. But my hope is, thousands or hundreds of thousands of others will do the same this year. Because if that happened, both Chase and Vanguard would absolutely change their positions. Their businesses would depend on it, as they’d be hemorrhaging customers to their competitors who already made the commitments.
So … how do you get that message out? To both The Interested, and The Doubters?
The Interested are easier. Hopefully they will naturally come across groups like Fossil Free Funds, Project Drawdown, and the coverage coming from McKibbens’ work. But The Doubters are much more difficult. They won’t be reading this article, or McKibbens’ New York Times article.
Advertising as an Influencer Tool
There is one tool that could work, though. It’s advertising.
While advertising is a dirty word to most people, the hard truth is, the best advertising is very, very effective. The emotional power of a well-crafted TV ad is measurable and proven. Podcasts create amazing connection with listeners, and when hosts read an ad, the audience listens. And advertising can be rigorously targeted to the right people, at the right time, in the right place.
On top of those benefits, advertisers are experts at measuring the effectiveness of an advertisement and its message. And unlike the best articles on combating climate change, the advertisements go directly to the people they target, in the places they are … from Facebook to YouTube to Breitbart’s website.
My dream is a $1 billion advertising campaign over the next two years to reach The Doubters and get them to make meaningful changes in their actions. Note, I didn’t say get them to believe in climate change. Again, the goal is to get them thinking that if it’s even a little likely all that bad stuff will happen, and all I have to do to help is to change my bank? Well, why not?
If you can get people involved in action, it becomes an inertial thing. Action often begets more action. If that step was easy, what about going solar? Heck, I might help stop any possible climate change, but more important, I’ll save money on energy after the system pays itself off in 8 years. And so on.
Building the Momentum
The good thing about advertising is there’s a lot of smart, creative people in the field, and in publishing and technology in general. Many climate activist groups have senior advertising executives involved. And there’s a strong history of using advertising for good will, through groups like the Ad Council.
I imagine some large, talented advertising agencies would donate pro bono time to help create and manage such an advertising campaign. And if a non-profit created or engaged to manage that campaign had some funding through philanthropy or donations, it could even pay for talent. This group could work with climate scientists and social experts to craft the right advertising messages for the right groups.
On the other side, you need a place to run those ads. And ad space can be really expensive. A good branding campaign from a Fortune 500 company will spend tens of millions of dollars buying ad inventory for a three-month campaign. Proctor & Gamble spends $6 billion a year on advertising.
The good news here, again, is that publishing and advertising platforms like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and the major digital and TV networks have sympathetic people in many places. I imagine the right pitch could get them to donate decent amounts of ad inventory to such a worthy cause, for the corporate goodwill alone. And maybe, through philanthropy, such a group could amass real dollars to buy inventory from the rest.
There’s already one group focused on this. The Potential Energy Coalition is in its early stages, and hopefully will gather steam and bring a project like this to reality over the next two years.
If the right ad can reach The Doubter and make a small crack — enough to get them to do the mental calculation leading to switching banks or going solar or eating less red meat, that could be incredibly valuable at scale. Particularly if through those initial efforts and openness, the cracks got bigger and sentiment started to meaningfully change enough to influence voting choices.
Then, we’d have a snowball rolling down a hill. Good actions reinforce good actions. Chase and Vanguard start changing policy, like BlackRock recently did, to remain competitive. Renewable energy innovation accelerates, making fossil fuels less economically feasible. Local and then national candidates start winning on climate action, and new laws start creating incentives for consumers and companies to make more right decisions.
And by 2025, maybe … just maybe … we see enough momentum to meet the 2030 deadline of halving emissions.
