Back in June I attended a presentation by Trish Johnston, the Acting Director of Campaigns and Engagement at the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, here in Canberra.
Hosted by Australian Science Communicators, Trish shared her views on using research to inform communications, linked to her experience running the government’s Clean Energy Future campaign in the lead up to the introduction of the carbon tax.
It was an informative talk but I won’t bore you with details about the research and market segmentation findings, instead share what I thought were two interesting take home messages relevant to agriculture.
VALUES, VALUES, VALUES
We’ve heard a lot in the last few years about the need for agriculture’s engagement with urban communities to be based on values, rather than technology/productivity/economic advancements.
Interestingly, the Department also got this message in relation to communicating climate change. The research, undertaken in 2010, showed strong community support for the concept of climate change and a strong belief (around 50%) that it was entirely caused by human activity. But the research also showed the Department needed to stop talking about the science behind climate change as it promoted circular conversations about the legitimacy of that science, weakening the call to action.
So, instead, the Department tapped into their market segments in a way that resonated with values. And so the Clean Energy Future campaign was born. I guess even if you disagree the climate is changing, it’s a bit harder to decry the benefits of working towards a clean energy future.
DON’T LET GOVERNMENT BE THE SOLE VOICE
Unfortunately for the Department, by the time the campaign launched in early 2011, community sentiment had shifted considerably.
By then Australia had a minority government with the Greens demanding more action on climate change than the Labor Party had proposed, the Opposition was campaigning against the carbon tax and the Government was perceived as silent on the issue.
Into this confusing and increasingly negative environment the Department rolled out its Clean Energy Future campaign, including advertising (print & TV), household mailouts and social media / web resources.
Normally, governments can expect to have around 90% of the media buy when running campaigns related to policy announcements; crowding out opposing voices. However, the proposed carbon tax galvanised a range of industry groups to run their own advertisements opposing the policy. In end the Clean Energy Future campaign only had around 60% of the advertising voice. This made it very difficult for the Government to gain traction on the issue.
Obviously the carbon tax is now law, but the damage had been done and support for action on climate change never regained the backing it had prior to the last election.
It made me think of other campaigns where competing voices managed to change policy – the opposition to the Mining Tax and Workchoices come to mind. In fact, it could probably be said that these campaigns changed our Prime Ministers!
So my take home messages, (which were probably not what Trish Johnston had intended) were that we need to continue to tell our stories in a values-based way and industry can get results by not allowing governments to dominate the media landscape.
And while I’ll probably never live to see the day when agriculture outspends its opponents to support its position, it made me think about what I can do each day to swing the balance a bit our way…
