Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Help Support EcoWatch

Big Coal Buys Facebook 'Likes' in Lame PR Stunt

Energy
Big Coal Buys Facebook 'Likes' in Lame PR Stunt

The idea of "clicktivism" has been around for a while now, but recently I've been seeing a whole other level of this digital phenomenon in the form of what I like to call "pay-per-care marketing."

While forms of pay-per-care marketing have been around a while, it has really ramped up since Twitter and Facebook both went public. Now under the pressure of quarterly performance reports to shareholders, the two social media giants have turned their networks into what experts call a "pay-to-play" model where the companies with the deepest pockets can buy all the "likes" and followers they can afford.

With pay-per-care, companies can buy large volumes of "likes" and followers and quickly manufacture the appearance of a worldwide outpouring of support for the product or idea they are trying to sell. Companies pay to make it look like people care.

Coal giant Peabody Energy recently launched their "Advanced Energy for Life" campaign, which is a great example of the pay-per-care strategy in action on a pretty grand scale.

Peabody recently announced in a press release that "approximately a half-million citizens from 48 countries have urged G20 member nations to place greater focus on advancing policies to alleviate energy policy (sic) ..."

Pretty sure they meant to say "alleviate energy poverty,” not “policy.” But typos aside, the Peabody release goes on to explain that this spontaneous outpouring of support for their campaign to ramp up dirty coal power in developing nations "is based on a digital 'Lights on Project' movement sponsored by Peabody's Advanced Energy for Life campaign."

So let’s take a quick look at Peabody’s Advanced Energy for Life Facebook page to get to the bottom of this eyebrow-raising “half-million” number. What you’ll find is a perfect example of pay-per-care marketing in action. You’ll see that, yes, there are close to half a million “likes” for the Advanced Energy for Life page.

Then scratch the surface and you will see that the supposed support is a mile wide, but only an inch thick, with almost zero engagement. In some cases, the only engagement on their posts is spam. Like this post. The only comment is (according to Bing's translation), "Any Nair." Unless I am missing some strange connection between coal and hair removal products, this is definitely spam. Of course it could be argued that with any Facebook page as big as this one, there is going to be some spam. Fair enough.

So how about the real comments? Those that are not spam? A quick look at those shows many of the people who say they "like" Peabody's campaign, in fact don't like it all. Jessica Miller writes, "this page is a marketing ploy paid for by Peabody Energy." Lily Dempster points out that, "energy sources like solar are localised (sic), cheaper, faster and don't bring the respiratory disease and early deaths caused by coal pollution."

Peabody’s Facebook settings force anyone who wants to comment on the page to “Like” it, so Jessica and Lily actually had to endure the embarrassment of broadcasting to all their friends and followers that they liked "Advanced Energy for Life” in order to make their true feelings heard on Peabody’s Facebook page. Clearly, Jessica and Lily don’t “Like” Peabody’s campaign, but their clicks get tallied and they are being counted among the “half-million citizens from 48 countries [who] have urged G20 member nations to place greater focus on advancing policies to alleviate energy policy (sic).”

I’d guess that Jessica and Lily do want to alleviate energy poverty, but certainly not with the archaic, coal-dependent policies that Peabody is promoting. Keep clicking around because there are plenty more instances of coal critics “liking” Peabody’s page, just to access the platform to criticize the company and its marketing. I especially like the comments elicited in the post where Peabody quotes Mahatma Gandhi. This is all classic pay-per-care. Now to be clear, the issue of energy poverty is a real one, and it is not new.

While we here in North America enjoy stable energy sources and take for granted things like lights at night to read by, much of the world would consider this a luxury. However, the idea that coal—a fossil fuel that is as much to blame for climate change, as it is for heightened rates of respiratory disease and mercury contamination—is the answer to energy poverty is absurd.

Coincidentally, Peabody's energy poverty campaign is coming at a time when the company is not faring too well in the financial markets. The company was recently dropped from the S&P 500 Stock index, a sure sign that its value in the eyes of investors is falling. And a look at the five-year history of Peabody's stock price paints a grim picture of this falling star.

Big coal is in a tough spot at the moment and it is no wonder they are trying to soften their image with this pay-per-care campaign. The problem is that if the Advanced Energy for Life campaign is successful, coal-as-energy might be thrown a lifeline that could drown us all.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Solar Energy Could Power America 100 Times Over

Developing Countries Invest in Renewables Twice the Pace of Industrialized Nations

10 Reasons Renewable Energy Can Save the Planet

A North Atlantic right whale feeds off the shores of Duxbury Beach, Massachusetts in 2015. David L. Ryan / The Boston Globe via Getty Images

The population of extremely endangered North Atlantic right whales has fallen even further in the last year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said Monday.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Hundreds of Canadian children took part in a massive protest march against climate change in Toronto, Canada, on May 24, 2019. Creative Touch Imaging Ltd. / NurPhoto / Getty Images

By Heather Houser

Compost. Fly less. Reduce your meat consumption. Say no to plastic. These imperatives are familiar ones in the repertoire of individual actions to reduce a person's environmental impact. Don't have kids, or maybe just one. This climate action appears less frequently in that repertoire, but it's gaining currency as climate catastrophes mount. One study has shown that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from having one fewer child in the United States is 20 times higher—yes 2000% greater—than the impact of lifestyle changes like those listed above.

Read More Show Less

Trending

For the first time on record, the main nursery of Arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing by late October. Euronews / YouTube

By Sharon Guynup

At this time of year, in Russia's far north Laptev Sea, the sun hovers near the horizon during the day, generating little warmth, as the region heads towards months of polar night. By late September or early October, the sea's shallow waters should be a vast, frozen expanse.

Read More Show Less
Fossil remains indicate these birds had a wingspan of over 20 feet. Brian Choo, CC BY-NC-SA

By Peter A. Kloess

Picture Antarctica today and what comes to mind? Large ice floes bobbing in the Southern Ocean? Maybe a remote outpost populated with scientists from around the world? Or perhaps colonies of penguins puttering amid vast open tracts of snow?

Read More Show Less
A baby orangutan displaced by palm oil plantation logging is seen at Nyaru Menteng Rehabilitation Center in Borneo, Indonesia on May 27, 2017. Jonathan Perugia / In Pictures / Getty Images

The world's largest financial institutions loaned more than $2.6 trillion in 2019 to sectors driving the climate crisis and wildlife destruction, according to a new report from advocacy organization portfolio.earth.

Read More Show Less

Support Ecowatch