andrewfrank.ca

As a media relations professional, I’m often the first point of contact between an environmental campaign and the news media. This past week I did some media outreach for the new “Rethink Alberta” campaign by Corporate Ethics, and early on in my calls to reporters, I knew this campaign was going to do more than just make a colourful PR splash. This was a market campaign with real teeth, and reporters could sense that.

A market campaign, as originally pioneered by environmental groups like ForestEthics and Greenpeace, is more than just a boycott. It’s an active effort (often over multiple years) to inflict brand damage and economic pressure on an entity (company, government or otherwise) that is harming the environment and to articulate alternative forms of development while pushing the entity towards them (admittedly the ENGO community needs to do a better job of articulating what the future should look like for the oil sands industry).

In the case of the “Rethink Alberta” campaign, the strategy is to put pressure on more than one provincial industry (so in addition to oil sands, tourism) and to cleave the two apart while also creating new economic and social consequences for unchecked oil sands development.  Markets and the opinions of publics and key decision makers in other parts of the world are leveraged, and local voters are alerted to the changing economic environment and global perceptions of the place they call home. Clear lines of blame are drawn and the likelihood of political consequences is heightened.

In today’s ubiquitously connected world, a little goes a long way, and so even a modestly funded campaign can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of earned media, and can spark conversations across a continent. Such has been the case with the “Rethink Alberta” campaign and that’s precisely why media commentary has shifted from coverage of the campaign as a PR stunt, to more of a wake-up call to the industry and provincial government that the status quo is ultimately untenable.

From the Wall Street Journal to Reuters and every provincial news outlet in Alberta, this story and its damaging message is painting the province as an undesirable place to visit, a place where great environmental damage is being wrought with wanton abandon. That’s a message that stays with readers and viewers (even dormantly for years), and it’s a message with economic clout that appears to be pushing industry and political groups to talk about real efforts to clean-up the oil sands.

In a recent Vancouver Sun article titled, “Influential council calls for ‘dramatic gesture’ to counter bad oil sands P.R,” various political and industry experts, including the president of Total E&P Canada are emphasizing the importance of not just fighting PR with more PR, but of the importance of actually doing something to clean-up the industry.

To quote the Vancouver Sun article:

Total E&P Canada president Jean-Michel Gires acknowledged that organizations attacking the oilsands are dangerous to the energy sector, noting their message has caught the ear of decision-makers in Washington, London and other parts of the world.

“They ask, ‘Is it a big problem? Are you concerned? Why don’t you pay more attention to the environment? Are you going to stop the development of the oilsands?’ ” he said.

“You definitely need to listen, understand and explain much better your case, tell much better your story, and understand that your story can be improved.”

The story can be improved.

During my media outreach, I had a conversation with a publisher in Alberta who took umbrage with the “Rethink Alberta” campaign message. He felt that maligning Alberta’s oil sands would push the US to purchase oil from hostile countries. After moving beyond that tired rhetorical threat (which is oft repeated by the Alberta government) we had a conversation about what Alberta should and could be doing in terms of cleaning up its wet tailings ponds, slowing down the rate of production and emissions to something commensurate with what climate science says is safe, and ultimately establishing a royalty system that will actually benefit Albertans.

Norway, who’s petro industry is now winding down because of dwindling supplies, has a pension plan worth approximately $443 billion dollars because they took their fair share of resource revenues when they could. What’s Alberta’s plan when the resource has been extracted and burned in 100 years time, as the industry’s own “business as usual” scenario would have it? What will the province have to show for all the negative branding it will have endured? Who will be left with the clean-up bill? Would it be better to slow things down and clean them up now, extending and maximizing the value of the resource over the long term?

My originally hostile friend was acutely aware of all these possibilities and necessities and expressed great frustration with what he saw as his government’s total mismanagement of the oil sands. He agreed that his province needed to do better.

If one of the other Alberta opposition parties can articulate a plan to sustainably manage Alberta’s oil sands, they’ll hit political gold. Albertans are proud of their province, but they’re not proud of their government’s management of the oil sands. They feel they’re being let down, and they’re starting to get pissed off (a market campaign helps coalesce frustration and anger).

In the mean time, market campaigns like “Rethink Alberta” will put increasing pressure on the province, helping to fuel real debate and discussion until somebody decides to do the right thing.

Looking for some amazing summer reading? Look no further than Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.” This is how Isaac Babel described Tolstoy’s writing after reading the novel, “If the world could write by itself, it would write like Tolstoy.”

A lot of people put this book on their literary “bucket list,” planning to eventually, someday, maybe, getting around to reading it…you shouldn’t wait.

Don’t be intimidated by the length of the book (almost 1500 pages), as soon as you’re hooked (about 10 or 20 pages in) you’re grateful for the length because the story won’t end anytime soon, and you can spend the rest of the summer periodically immersing yourself in the human drama, battles and intrigue of the Napoleonic wars and the Russian aristocracy of the day.

But to be turned off by the idea of the Napoleonic wars or Russian aristocracy (as I easily could be) would be a mistake, these are merely the events, the excuses, the backdrop that serve as Tolstoy’s canvas for painting a powerful treatise on the human condition…it’s the characters, their inner thoughts, passions, moral struggles and transformations that are the meat of “War and Peace” and that make it such rich reading.

Almost an ethnography, the story is based on extensive historical research and there are approximately 160 real persons “named or referred to” (according to Wikipedia) in the novel. That’s perhaps why it all feels so real. And despite being intensely human and intimate, the work is also cinematic in its scope, delving into long battles described in such rich detail and with such fluid prose that it’s as if you’re watching “Band of Brothers” or a similar Spielberg/Hanks WWII collaboration.

Make sure you get the latest translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky (preferably at a local, independently owned bookstore).

Happy reading!

Dear Don,

I just read your piece criticizing Ignatieff’s support for a federal tanker ban and I think it does your readers a disservice.

First things first, a recent poll shows that 80% of British Columbians support a legislated tanker ban in BC’s coastal waters. Assuming politicians are effective when they follow the will of voters, Ignatieff’s policy would appear to be smart, sound and to borrow your allusions to oil, “slick.”

Your piece also falls short of a true “apples to apples” comparison when you compare Vancouver as a petrochemical import/export zone, to Kitimat, and use it as an excuse to allow Enbridge’s project.

A key difference that’s worth keeping in mind when Kitimat is described as being “too dangerous,” is that the Georgia Straight (where tankers travel on their way to Vancouver) is a hell of a lot safer than the Hectate Sraight or the Dixon Entrance where tankers would travel on their way to Kitimat – those waters are some of the most dangerous in the province (known for massive storms, and hard to navigate channels and navigation hazards). The sheer volume of the oil to be transported via the pipeline would also far eclipse anything happening in Vancouver.

All that aside, the question of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline is about weighing whether or not we as a society want to introduce a far greater ecological risk to one of our province’s most ecologically rich areas in exchange for an estimated 560 long-term jobs (a drop in the bucket) and greater revenue for an already very rich industry (not to mention the climate change implications of shipping and burning tar sands oil as fast as possible in/to Asian markets). A majority of the First Nations who’s territories the pipeline would pass through on its way to Kitimat are unequivocally opposed to the project, precisely because its risks far outweigh the benefits to them. I won’t even get into issues of Aboriginal land title, although it would be nice if project boosters didn’t gloss over the very real social and legal obstacles this project will face with respect to First Nations consultation, and which Ignatieff’s policy can be seen to be taking into consideration on some level.

Ignatieff’s policy is sound and responsible, and contrary to your contention that it represents a move, “…to shut down northern B.C. tanker traffic because it’s a popular move in a time of short-term environmental anxiety,” I’d contend that it represents sober policy making in a time of frenzied, short-term tar sands development. If the oil patch and its boosters had their way, the resource would be sold and burned within 100 years, pushing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and related climate change beyond the point of “no return.”

Personally, I think the tar sands need to be cleaned up, their production slowed down to a level commensurate with what climate science suggests is a sustainable level of C02 release, and then Albertans need to wake up and collect the real resource royalties they’re entitled to. Pandering to the oil industry in a time of record prices and profit, as appears to be the status quo, is sad. What’s the plan when the oil is gone? Alberta could learn a thing or two from Norway, a country that has taxed its petroleum industry, and has managed to save billions in a national pension plan in anticipation of the decline (already happening) of that same petroleum production.

I hope you’ll incorporate some of these considerations into your future commentary on Canada’s tar sands development, and ill-conceived projects like Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. I think your readers would appreciate a more well-rounded, nuanced view of the true risks, benefits and lost economic opportunities associated with the current approach to development.

Best regards,

Andrew Frank.

A quick and dirty little website that allows users to visualize the BP oil spill in their own backyards – using Google Maps data to show the size of the affected area in local terms. http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

Just picked up this microphone for conducting interviews for my thesis research, as well as voice-over work and potential podcasting – seems pretty sweet so far with four recording patterns (including figure eight). At an affordable $160, it’s another example of the new low barriers to professional quality media production. Pretty nifty.

Someone has uploaded this incredible animated short film to YouTube (3 parts) which I’m embedding below. It’s about 30min in length and I highly recommend it.

Bob Anderson and I are using the film as part of our new environmental communication course at SFU (“CMNS 388: Environment, Media and Communication”). It’s a beautiful film that won an Academy Award and has been translated into several languages.

Apart from its ground breaking animation (a painstaking art form requiring the same patience and commitment that is the subject of the story itself) the story, while originally “fiction,” is still “real” as an expression of the human spirit and it has inspired countless real life tree planters, people who have restored environments and made new environments that can support diverse ecological communities.

Despite the long odds we face in building a sustainable society, this story is a reminder that the human spirit is capable of very beautiful things.

Just a quick plug for a new online start-up called SocratED. I came across it while conducting some unrelated research, and it’s pretty darn cool if you’re interested in developing online courses. Easy and free to use (nice clean GUI), SocratED let’s you create online lessons – glorified online powerpoint presentations that can incorporate various online teaching elements such as video, websites, blog posts, you name it. Your lesson is hosted with its own unique URL.

While it’s still early days (the venture appears to be only a couple months old) it’s definitely an interesting development and should spark some creative ideas for online content developers and educators.

Last Wednesday the Globe and Mail reported that Canada’s conservative government is planning to gut the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by sneaking changes into an unrelated budget implementation bill that would effectively narrow the scope of environmental assessments and give the Environment Minister the power to determine the scope of any assessment.

The changes are a direct attempt to sidestep a recent Supreme Court ruling that found that the Federal government failed to take into consideration the full impacts of a proposed mine that would have dammed creeks in British Columbia’s Sacred Headwaters for the purpose of creating an artificial lake to store mine waste in. Yes, you read that correctly, store mine waste in a lake.

The changes are effectively a poison pill that the Conservatives know the opposition parties will swallow to avoid an election.

According to John Bennett of the Sierra Club, the changes represent, “…a big step backward about 20 years…What they’re trying to do is take away the big picture.” By “big picture” Bennett means the ability of the Canadian government to observe the total environmental impacts of a proposed industrial project (e.g. the mine itself, as well as the ecological damage caused by storing mine waste in a nearby lake). The Conservatives prefer a fragmented, myopic approach to environmental assessment – see no evil, hear no evil – one that pushes projects through faster, and in the absence of public hearings and review, more quietly and unopposed. It’s a cynical political bet that Canadians don’t care about or understand what’s at stake (the ability to conduct credible environmental assessments), or that they won’t find out about the changes, at least not in significant enough numbers to constitute a political threat.

Our Fragmenting “Big Picture”

I was discouraged when I read this story. Not only are the changes short-sighted and reckless, but the fact that the government was willing to make them in the first place means that they weren’t worried about a media backlash or sustained reporting of the issue. The good news (before I get to more bad), is that the Conservatives still felt the need to hide the changes from the public in a non-related budget bill – they know Canadians wouldn’t support a transparent effort to make the changes. Apparently Harper isn’t putting much stock in Preston Manning’s poll-based push to green the Conservative party.

Okay, so there’s hope, but I’m still concerned. With traditional media ad revenues and subscriptions tanking, and the quality and depth of reporting suffering (far fewer full-time journalists, let alone environmental reporters), as well as audiences fragmenting, at least in the short-term it’s going to get easier for governments to hide poor governance. Studies show that fragmented audiences are correlated with decreased accountability on the part of politicians. This trend can carry over into accountability on environmental issues, and right now, I don’t think the environmental movement fully understands what this change means for traditional media advocacy efforts.

But What About Social Media?

Don’t they count for something? They do, but primarily (at least in their current use) as very efficient news distribution and warning systems (a good thing, but not a substitute for original reporting). As a recent Pew Research Center report finds, the news ecosystem is still dependent on traditional media to find and break stories. The report is based on a recent study of Baltimore, but it’s not difficult to imagine the results being similar in other North American cities.

Highlights from the study include (with some edits for brevity):

- Among six major news threads studied in depth—which included stories about budgets, crime, a plan involving transit buses, and the sale of a local theater—fully 83% of stories were essentially repetitive, conveying no new information. Of the 17% that did contain new information, nearly all came from traditional media either in their legacy platforms or in new digital ones.

- Over a one week period, general interest newspapers produced half of the stories—48%—and another print medium, specialty newspapers focused on business and law, produced another 13%.

- As the press scales back on original reporting and dissemination, reproducing other people’s work becomes a bigger part of the news media system. Government, at least in this study, initiates most of the news. In the detailed examination of six major storylines, 63% of the stories were initiated by government officials, led first of all by the police. Another 14% came from the press. Interest group figures made up most of the rest.

Based on this study and the decline of traditional media, in my run-on sentence nightmare as an environmental communicator, I worry that we are rapidly moving towards a news ecosystem that functions largely as an echo chamber, bereft of original reporting, with niche audiences roaming in small groups, never fully aware of larger overarching environmental issues, with what little overarching news input does make its way into the system largely being created by government and special interest groups. You could say that’s already where we are, it’s already where we’ve been, and to be clear I’m not saying the “old ways” are better. I’m excited about the opportunities the changing media landscape affords, but I’m worried about corralling enough eyeballs and their associated hearts and minds to actually hold governments accountable and to ensure that they make responsible environmental decisions.

What follows is just a small taste (and I’ll offer more in future postings) of what I think needs to start happening if we’re going to get those eyeballs.

Be The Media

That’s what I think various advocacy groups, especially environmental organizations, need to do. We need to be the media. Environmental groups have always been early adopters of new media technology, and have often used it to great effect. Environmentalists are also great producers of original content in the form of reports and studies – research that captures and clarifies environmental issues and debates, ideally translating them into public findings and conversations that traditional media can report on – but we need to do more.

Groups need to make a bigger effort to grow their respective audiences and talking heads and videos of beautiful but remote and distant wilderness won’t cut it. We need to produce compelling content that’s not just about big “W” wilderness. Some of the most popular videos environmental groups produce employ consumer frames, e.g. how to make cleaning products and cosmetics at home, environmental values can be communicated as part of an attractive lifestyle.

Tap your talent and let others “save the world” – Environmental groups are often so busy “saving the world” that they ignore perfectly good offers of pro bono work, including content production from very talented people. Environmentalism naturally attracts complimentary professions and interested individuals like filmmakers, musicians, artists and more…often the need to tell an institutionalized environmental message closes the door to meaningful collaboration. It shouldn’t. It’s time to relinquish control, blow up the bottleneck, and evolve or die. If someone wants to help tell your story, LET THEM.

Hire journalists (and stand-up comedians) - It shouldn’t be hard to find very talented and very unemployed journalists these days. Environmental groups need better story tellers, people who can interface with scientists and campaigners to write compelling stories that are sticky enough to be picked up and distributed by social and traditional media. These stories need to be written in language other than traditional “ecospeak” less talking heads and moral imperatives. The content needs to get better (entertaining) and journalists can help do that. Also, enough with the shitty video quality and cheesy green screen effects…technology is cheap, shut up and make good looking video.

Build a news network – Traditional media advocacy needs to be turned on its head. Compelling content, especially FREE compelling content is in demand these days…the internet is insatiable. We’ll always need to pitch stories, but people also want our stories…we are content creators and we need to become content providers, forming partnerships with a network of websites, bloggers and a mix of traditional outlets is ideal. The David Suzuki Foundation does a good job of this with efforts like its Science Matters column.

That’s chapter one of what was supposed to be a quick blog post. More soon.

From time to time, I use this blog to evangelize about new products or services I think are cool. I don’t get paid to do this, I just want to share the love and make the world a better place (etc. etc.). If it makes your life easier, mission accomplished.

Today, I’m going to say a few words about the “contacts” section of Gmail and the new Google Forms service and how when used together, these two features have the potential to TAKE OVER THE WORLD. That being said, I have a feeling that what I’m about to illustrate is not actually revolutionary and may in fact be painfully obvious and old school. To be honest, my enjoyment of the features may just be that I’ve never had a contact database that I actually used.

Here’s what I’m talking about:

In my line of work (environmental communication) I do a lot of media relations, pitching stories to journalists on various social and environmental issues. To do this, I have historically used various online media contact databases, spreadsheets, email chains, names and numbers scribbled on napkins etc. Essentially I’ve pulled together pitch lists from a number of disparate sources. NO MORE.

Today, I have close to 7000 media contacts in my Gmail account, searchable by name, position, location, and also divided into regional lists, cities, subject areas, you name it. When I make a new contact with a journalist, I update my database. Gmail contacts, with its ability to import spreadsheets and to then apply powerful search to those contacts, as well as the ability to divide them into convenient, instantly emailable groups, has made my life a whole lot easier.

Coupled with Google forms, the whole Gmail / Google docs suite of products is incredibly powerful for both collecting and organizing information. For someone who HATES spreadsheets, these services have changed my whole attitude about what’s possible when it comes to collecting information.

Here’s an example:

A while back, I realized there was a need for a comprehensive list of Canadian environmental bloggers – folks who write on the types of stories I pitch. To create this list (largely as a value add to my clients) I hired two students to comb various online blog databases for people writing about the environment. To record the information, I created a simple Google form (Google automatically hosts the form online with its own URL you can refer people to), and included basic questions (name, email, url, subject area etc.).

The beautiful thing about Google forms is that it automatically creates a back-end spreadsheet to store all of the information entered into your form’s fields (great for surveys). Once the students were done searching and entering the information, I had over 400 environmental blogger contacts in a nicely organized spreadsheet…what’s more, I simply imported the spreadsheet into Gmail contacts and PRESTO! I now have an easily emailable list of environmental bloggers that I can pitch stories to.

Google Forms & Gmail Contacts  – check ‘em out.

A paper I wrote a while back with recommendations for improving forums for citizen deliberation on environmental issues.

It’s posted to Scribd, which is a handy social-publishing site for sharing written material. Enjoy!

Constituents of Reconciliation Frank CMNS800(2)