Quantcast

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

Show Comments ()

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Mizina / iStock / Getty Images

By Ryan Raman, MS, RD

Oats are widely regarded as one of the healthiest grains you can eat, as they're packed with many important vitamins, minerals, and fiber.

Read More Show Less
JPMorgan Chase building in New York City. Ben Sutherland / CC BY 2.0

By Sharon Kelly

A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Sriram Madhusoodanan of Corporate Accountability speaking on conflict of interest demand of the People's Demands at a defining action launching the Demands at COP24. Corporate Accountability

By Patti Lynn

2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."

Read More Show Less
The head of England's Environment Agency has urged people to stop watering their lawns as a climate-induced water shortage looms. Pexels

England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.

Read More Show Less
Pexels

By Jessica Corbett

A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
A flock of parrots in Telegraph Hill, San Francisco. ~dgies / Flickr

By Madison Dapcevich

Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.

Read More Show Less
Fire burns in the North Santiam State Recreational Area on March 19. Oregon Department of Forestry

An early-season wildfire near Lyons, Oregon burned 60 acres and forced dozens of homes to evacuate Tuesday evening, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) said, as KTVZ reported.

The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.

Read More Show Less
Edwin Hardeman is the plaintiff in the first U.S. federal trial claiming that Roundup causes cancer. NOAH BERGER / AFP / Getty Images

A second U.S. jury has ruled that Roundup causes cancer.

The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The decision comes less than a year after a jury awarded $289 million to Bay-area groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson over similar claims. The amount was later reduced to $78 million.

"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."

Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.

"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."

Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.

However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.

"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.

Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.

Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.

"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.

Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.