**Staff Note: This article from Forbes shows that the anti-tar sands movement is winning. It is interesting to note that they cite findings in support of the pipeline but neglect to mention that environmental impact studies were done by groups that had ties to the pipeline and so are not considered to be reliable. The important lessons are that the activists are winning this and other struggles to protect people and the planet and that industry may start to use more social media. We must always try to stay a step ahead and remember that a big reason the activists are winning is because we tell the truth and give voice to the things that most people want – an inhabitable plant and healthy people. **
Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson argued that America’s marketplace of ideas could tolerate “error of opinion,” so long as “reason is left free to combat it.” Here in 2013, in the era of social media, America’s energy industry – and TransCanada in particular – is learning that the age-old battle between opinion and reason is no longer a fair fight.
By any measure, the Obama Administration should have approved the Keystone Pipeline by now. From jobs to energy independence to lower consumer prices, there are multiple compelling narratives in its favor. There are even numerous findings that the pipeline will not adversely impact the natural environment or substantially affect the rate of Canadian oil sands development. This summer’s rail disaster in Quebec has even helped cement perceptions that pipelines are the safer, more environmentally-friendly option for transporting oil and gas.
All of these factors have generated 77 percent public support for the project. So, why is the pipeline still awaiting approval?
Because the 23 percent of Americans who either oppose or have no opinion about the pipeline have redefined what it is to be a vocal minority. As the below info-graphics demonstrate, activists’ use of social media dominates the debate. Shares, tweets, and viral commentary have overtaken polls as the first place policy makers turn when seeking to take the pulse of their constituencies. Activists understand that in the land where no politician wants to be first, but all clamor to be second, controlling the epicenter of public opinion has never been more important.
As such, they have transformed social media engagement into a force multiplier that swells their ranks; amplifies their messages; mobilizes support on local and national levels; and provides policy makers with a false sense of where public sentiment really lies.
And activists’ successful domination of online sentiment isn’t just relegated to Keystone. Research conducted by my firm and others shows that activists are winning on hydraulic fracturing (fracking), arctic drilling in the ANWR, offshore drilling, coal, and even energy production tax credits. Congratulations to the activists, but where are the interested companies in this hyper-Democratic age?
Industry’s absence is evidenced by the fact that none of the above issues enjoy Keystone-levels of public support. Despite the same powerful points about jobs, independence, prices, and safety, 65 percent of Americans still favor tighter regulations on hydraulic fracturing; less than half of Americans favor drilling in ANWR; and 74 percent of Americans favor ending energy production tax credits.
These infographics illustrate why that’s the case – and provide insight into what energy companies need to do to once again level the playing field.
The visual above was compiled with the assistance of MediaBadger Public Affairs Ltd., who in December of 2011 dissected all of the social media activity surrounding the Keystone Pipeline to identify who assumed control of the conversation at the outset. It’s not altogether surprising that activists’ social media activity outweighs that of industry – as this is the case in nearly every high-profile crisis and public affairs engagement we have studied. What is surprising is the wide margin by which activists’ are leveraging the power of social media. What is even more surprising is that legislators and regulators are lapping industry as well. The energy industry is putting all of its eggs in the traditional lobbying basket (The American Petroleum Institute has spent $22 million on lobbying efforts alone). While such strategies have served effectively in the past, they do nothing to neutralize grassroots opposition at the very moment that social media have empowered it to sway policy decisions like never before.
The above visual demonstrates the value of the activist approach. Activist social media activity has bred engagement and mobilization amongst their supporters, who are now echoing activist messages across their own social media properties and networks. As a result, opposition to the Keystone Pipeline has gone viral in the 18 months since the MediaBadger study. Meanwhile, the energy industry’s meager investments in social media have produced precisely what one would expect – engagement levels that pale in comparison when measured against their adversaries’.
The final infographic demonstrates social media’s utility not only as an engagement and mobilization engine; but as a means of controlling the portals by which the public accesses information. The red line represents Internet searches for the term “Greenpeace.” The blue line represents Internet searches for the term “American Petroleum Institute” or “API” – which is one of the leading public voices in support of the Keystone Pipeline. At first glance, the graph shows precisely what you would expect, as Greenpeace is a household name and the American Petroleum Institute is not. But notice the spikes in Greenpeace searches that correspond with the points marked A-F.
Those points represent landmark moments at which the pipeline was generating the most news (such as the release of Nebraska regulators’ finding that the new route would avoid ecologically sensitive areas in January 2013; the release of the State Department’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in April 2013, and the Quebec rail disaster this summer).
Because activists have invested so heavily in social media engagement, they are now go-to sources of information when news breaks. This enables activists to shape every development in the debate as it unfolds and puts industry at a distinct disadvantage in this era of instant and lasting impressions.
What’s happening to the Keystone Pipeline is just one example of the paradigm shift that the advent of social media has brought about. Gone are the days when television and newspaper advertising, campaign contributions, and heavy lobbying fees all but guaranteed a successful corporate outcome. In the age of the digital citizen, corporate communicators must approach their public affairs agendas in the same ways they promote and protect their brands. The marketplace of ideas has evolved. Those who participate in it must evolve as well.
Follow Richard Levick on Twitter and circle him on Google+, where he comments on the issues impacting energy industry brands, reputations, and public relations.