The epic marketing failure of climate change

Floccinaucinihilipilification is an English word. Its official definition is the process of estimating that a thing is worthless. A process that I have gone through to determine that the marketing of climate change took a wrong turn somewhere.

APOCALYPSE

Look at it this way, you know that Nairobi is becoming hotter, a fact evidenced by the prosperity of the mosquito population. We know that farmers are struggling to keep up with the guessing game of when and for how long rains will fall. And that global warming could mean that Fort Jesus in Mombasa becomes an underwater attraction.

You see, the problem with climate change from a communication standpoint is that nobody knows what to do about it. That classic advertising mistake of missing out on the call to action.

What is the answer to: what should you to do prevent the looming environmental apocalypse?

The answers could vary from a) install machinery that emits less and cleaner fumes. But what if you don’t have a factory?

Okay, so our next multiple-choice answer could be b) stop eating meat because that way we wouldn’t need to raise so many of these bovines that release copious amounts of green-house gases. Haha you say I am a Kenyan. Give up my nyama choma?

And then, of course, there is c) which is don’t fly aeroplanes and reduce your carbon footprint. This means there are many places on earth that it would take you the rest of your life to walk to, bike to, canoe or by other environmentally friendly means of transport.

Or d) all of the above.

The campaign of climate change, aka global warming, ignores some basic marketing rules.

Step number one, raise awareness of the problem. The advocates for the environmental movement have scored an A+ on this one. Or have they? If by now you still don’t believe that our progeny will likely benefit from the efforts of Elon Musk and Space X, don’t worry there is an explanation for you.

NUDGE THEORY

In essence, according to Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Memorial Prize Winner of Economics, humans don’t process uncertainty well. So when the scientists tell us that we need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to know exactly what “bad” things will happen if we don’t.

Dear Climate Change Deniers, my sympathies are with you. We need to use simple and non–threatening language to address you.

To my fellow Climate Change Accepters, on the menu of don’ts is: don’t use terms that confuse your target audience even more. The road to climate change understanding is littered with acronyms such as SLCP, IPCC, UNFCCC, HFC and so on. The layman’s guide to understanding them is that there is usually a C involved, C for Climate… or Carbon… or Change.

Many policymakers believe that the most effective broad-scale solution would be to impose a ‘carbon tax’, for example, supermarkets charging you extra for shopping bags or increasing the price of fuel. However, this proposal has never gained global traction. Tax equals unpopularity.

And then of course there is ‘nudge theory’ developed by behavioural economists Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler. In its simplified form, it says you can drive people to make changes to their actions through small signals.

You know how we endlessly speculate about how much we should be paying for utilities. Anyhow, imagine receiving your water bill with a comparison to the average water consumption for the other people in your estate. You would feel compelled to use a smaller amount of water daily.

Of course none of my fanciful suggestions are in my control. I personally don’t know what to do about climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it.

The author is the Managing Partner of C. Suite Africa a boutique management consultancy. [email protected]