No wonder Big Coal say they’re losing the PR battle

Yeah sure, except there aren’t any facts in their campaign, it’s all just sweeping pictures of black rock and stuff about the past – mainly because they don’t have any good facts about the future. Unless you can come out with ‘yes carbon capture really works and it’s going to be ready by 2020’ there is no good story to tell. I think they actually need facts, emotion isn’t going to get them anywhere because no-one feels sorry for a lump of rock – the right emotional campaign would have been pictures of poor kids in India getting operations they need because they finally have a hospital with electricity etc. – but they would have been hammered for that on social as well. There is no winning comms strategy here.

The coal industry, like all big business, are fighting to preserve the status quo and their cushy profits. People are not so stupid that they don’t see through the PR spin. The facts are simple:
1) we as a society need coal to power our power stations, industry, etc.
2) a tiny proportion of our workforce are employed by coal miners.
3) exporting coal might be profitable, but is an ecological disaster.
4) we need more effective carbon sequestration solutions NOW
5) until then we should be actively seeking to reduce our CO2 emissions, including reducing the amount of coal we burn.

So where in the above is the coal lobby actively pursuing answers? Nowhere, they are just protecting their status quo.

We the people, are not amused nor fooled!

Tony
you’ve made some assertions but where’s the detail of your suggestion?

could you please answer the following questions so we can understand you:

1. what is an issues management strategy? how does it differ from PR?

2. how can you say that correcting misinformation ‘spin’? isn’t this the antithesis of spin? i.e. spin is when you spread misinformation wrapped around a kernel of truth

3. what kind of pro-coal hashtag wouldn’t get hijacked? (my advice would be to forget social media, it’s a no win situation)

4. isn’t stupid advertising an advertising fail, not a PR fail?

5. you say that the first step is to get your audience to listen. but you also say that facts aren’t enough. so what exactly are you suggesting as the solution?

thank you

Ben – I think the ad was a PR exercise, but an absolute advertising & PR failure! I also think Tony means to ditch proactive PR efforts & focus simply on managing issues. So more reactive type stuff. Tony? Interesting topic btw.

This campaign was all style and no substance. There was no consumer insight, only an industry trying to spin its way out of its growing irrelevance.

There’s no point communicating something that’s misleading and dishonest – you will get caught out.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments and questions. As Taragone concluded, there most likely is no winning comms strategy here. And that’s because it’s not just a comms problem. One of the strengths of an issue management approach versus a media- based PR campaign is to be much clearer on what winning actually looks like. We must assume the Minerals Council has a strategic objective, though it is not easy to see. “Putting the facts on the table” might be a tactic, but it certainly isn’t an objective. And as Sam pointed out, a hashtag and a risible advertisement were absolutely destined to fail.
Part of the failure so far is what seems to be a desire to reproduce the success of the anti-mining tax campaign which helped bring down Kevin Rudd. The problem is that this challenge is entirely different. The mining tax campaign had an explicit, relatively short term, objective which was clearly understood by all parties, including the public who could see a very direct impact on them. That surely is not the case when it comes to promoting the value of coal.
Developing the right solution isn’t easy – as the Minerals Council has demonstrated – but broadly what is needed is a meaningful way to engage with the public, not just to throw statistics at them; to identify and mobilise credible independent voices; to have some clear and transparent objectives (both short and long term); to separate out and have specific plans to address the different elements of the issue (for example climate change, economic value, community benefit and the environmental impact of proposed mines); to recognize that the anti-coal campaign is about a lot more than just coal; and to start being the solution rather than just the problem. As Foo Fighter asked, where is the coal lobby actively pursuing answers.
I don’t claim to have the solution, but my suggestions are not just a wish list. The Minerals Council need to be in this for the long haul, and a high profile advertising campaign clearly isn’t the way forward

Love your work Tony. To the point, and very well elucidated.
The bulk of your comment should have been in the article though!

Coal and the mining companies don’t have a PR problem. The problem they do have is that coal is an outdated technology which is in its dying days.Most people know that. Any campaign on the part of the mining companies is simply a case of flogging the proverbial dead horse, as most people have turned away from the idea of continuing to use something as wasteful as burning coal to produce energy. Nothing the mining companies say or do is going to change peoples perceptions or thinking. The opportunity for the mining companies to do so, has long gone. The current campaigns by the mining companies are akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The coal campaign is defending the indefensible. People would never be taken in by it. However, there are lots of things they could do to improve their image.

What the coal companies should do is invest in renewable energy sources, instead of lobbying against them.

They could also start rehabilitating land made derelict by mining to where it could be used for farming with non GM crops.

Then people would see that the coal companies are listening to people and moving in a positive direction.

JV