Survey users before updating a website

Email outdistances all other communication channels in importance. This is one of the outcomes of a survey we just did among the CEC members (700). Research and advice, training and professional updating are core focus of most of the organizations where respondents work. Users indicate that web searches, web sites and online social networks are more important information channels than radio or television... perhaps even greater importance than print publications. The 120 respondents also indicate a preferred interest for a CEC website that provide links to key publications, expertise among CEC members and links to key training/e-learning resources.

New segmentation, new strategy

In 'Sell the Sizzle' Futerra shows us a new segmentation of the climate change audiences. We have seen them in Copenhagen. The global cynics: the outright deniers, the worriers about costs, the others-first, the industry lobbyists, even the radical political groups and defaitists who haved lost faith in the UN system. Then there are the global activists: the climate campaigners, the carbon realists and the carbon opportunists. They all frame the issue in their own way. Finally there are the home first: people who are next to us in the super market, in the train etc. They are the majority - the quantifications are my optimistic guesses. They feel not engaged at all. The point Futerra makes is that change has to come from the 'home first'. Who will reach this audience first? We or the cynics? How we communicate is vital. Not with a focus on imminent disasters, but by letting them dream of a life with a lighter footprint and giving them the choices we need to make to get there. Read it all for yourself.

Framing climate change

Climate change is the largest environmental issue; it's an energy issue; it's an equity issue; no it is a footprint issue! The first three are ways negotiators, lobbyists and activists frame climate change in Copenhagen. Over the news one rarely hears about the footprint. Governments have experience with environment problems; there are economic opportunities in the energy challenge; there is the political reality of the north south divide. These are things negotiators can deal with. But do they realize that Copenhagen has a larger footprint than any other UN event? This metaphor brings climate change in our daily life, our own behavior: how we live, how we travel, what we eat (e.g. how many kilometers are in our fish, meat, vegetables or fruit). If we calculate the full costs of the way we live, we have the key to solve climate change: change your footprint or pay for it. It will help the environment, drive the energy issue and contribute to a fair global distribution of the burden to solve the problem.

Sell the sizzle

Climate change is no longer a scientist’s problem, it’s now a salesman’s problem. In its latest publication Futerra calls upon government spokespeople, climate campaigners and business advertisers to stop selling visions of hell. Instead they must create and sell a vision of a 'low carbon heaven’. Futerra's reasoning: When selling a sausage, it's the sizzle that counts, the sound and smell - otherwise you're selling a dead pig. Unfortunately on climate change it's passed-away pork we've been flogging, so maybe a bit of sizzle might help... The second metaphor Futerra uses is 'hell does not sell'. Until now we have been selling climate change as hell (rising sea levels, extreme wheather events etc.) and people are not buying it. They tend to conveniently deny it. In Sell the Sizzle Futerra points out a new framework for climate change messages: a positive vision, the choice to avoid hell, a plan and first steps. I would say a must read for communicators all over the world.

Practice what you preach

In communication it matters what you do, more than what you say. If you are campaigning for climate change or biodiversity you have to be conscious of your own behaviour, your food, your energy, your leisure time. Living the change we want to see in the world, can also be the communication strategy. Let people experience the peace and happiness of a candle night. No stressing nightmare stories about the consequences of climate change, but the full experience of an intimate meeting with family or friends. Living the dream of a sustainable world - that is how I perceive the strategy of the global Candle Night Campaign of Japan for Sustainability. Join in on December 22!

Mentality differences among generations

Hedonism and individualism are increasing amoung youth, their interest for society and the environment decreases. Motivaction - a group of Dutch marketing researchers - published this week its survey on mentality, attitudes and trends of youth. They compare and analyze the response of three generations on a standard set of questions and complement the information with qualitative research. Ten years ago a similar survey showed a much higher interest (33%) in environment among young people between 15 and 23 years old. "I worry about the damage to the environment" now scores 58% among the youngest generation. Ten years ago that was 78%. The researchers see a trend of selfishness and more a-social behavior emerging among young people. I wonder what this will mean for awareness raising about climate change and the much needed behaviour change strategies?

How useful is end-of-pipe advice?

Most communication decisions were already taken, but still we were asked to give some communication advice to the global protected areas community assembled in Granada at their Climate Change Summit. After three days of listening to presentations around their new publication we were invited to share our impressions with the WCPA leadership. We expressed our doubts about the functionality of the publication to influence the process in Copenhagen. Oops - that did not feel good with them. Luckily we also had three main recommendations for the short term. To use the preface as an instrument for an e-campaign to all WCPA members and ask them to send it to the relevant policy makers in their country. To have a short article by the chair in the IHT, aimed at decision makers. To publish photos of Summit participants with testimonials of the main things they had learned. And to publish photos on the WCPA website illustrating examples of mitigation and adaptation in protected areas, each with a clear subtitle e.g. floods, landslides, storms, drought, water, food, fire, health etc. For the longer term we advised to use more personal communication, e.g. joint working groups with Climate Change experts or other groups. When my colleague shared our ideas in the plenary on the last day, only a few participants showed active interest, most seemed fully satisfied with their own communication efforts, inlcuding a long statement to feed into the Copenhagen process (even at this very late stage). It made us reflect on how useful end-of-pipe advice really is.

Personal communication channels

A testimonial from a credible source can enhance the acceptance of a proposition, or the findings of research. The prefeace by Lord Nicholas Stern in the WCPA Study 'Natural Solutions, Protected Areas helping people cope with climate change' definitely fulfills that role. In about 400 words the findings of the research are summarized in almost plain talk. Two messages: protected areas help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Policy makers should translate that positive role into policy and funding mechanisms. Lord Stern is an opinion leader and also an influential who can develop word-of-mouth referral channels to build a case for protected areas. So if 'used' in the right way, he can do more than just lend his name to the preface. Used implies here devoting extra time and effort to turn him into an active ambassador. Supplying him with the right tools and support to do such job. This is one of the recommendations we provided the organizers of the Granada Summit.

Communication analysis in advance can save money

The commissioners of the WCPA study on Protected Areas (PA) and Climate Change (CC) aimed to udate the PA community on CC and convince the CC community to give more attention to PAs. Unfortunately these two audiences are quite different in their attitude towards the subject: the PA community is not very familiar with CC, but quite favourable for a larger role and more resources for PAs. The CC community is hihly familiar with the subject, but not very favourable towards PAs: for them PAs have a rather negative image. The same messages that would update the PA community, would run a high risk of putting the CC community off. For them the communication residue would confirm their perception of the PA community as CC opportunists. Analysing in advance the beliefs, attitudes and knowledge of the audiences should have led to the conclusion that it would be better not to use the same media for different purposes to different audiences. In the end such analysis saves time and money and helps to realize the objectives.

Maps give us the bigger picture

A picture says more than a thousand words and a map more than any other illustration. The newspaper this morning showed these two maps from the Netherlands. One from 1860 and one from today. They tell a story. Red dots tell about urbanization. That was what the article was about. But there is more: the white spaces tell us about the closing of inland seas, the Rhine delta and the reclamation of land. Where Schiphol airport is situated now, was a lake in 1860. Dark green spots tell about increased afforestation and the emerging conservation ideals. Light green areas tell about the disappearence of waste lands of dry peat and sand dunes. Around the turn of the century Holland had to cope with desertification. A photo illustrates an example or informs us about a detail. Maps tell the whole story, show the dynamic of change and give us the bigger picture. In communication for change: use maps!