|
Making a point about Edelman's work for client EON and its coal-burning powerstation, the Climate Camp activists brought the spotlight onto a PR powerhouse.
Here is an excerpt from the Twitter stream of Edelman UK CEO, Robert Phillips:
And how about this article on Sky News' website, which laments the protesters' inability to have a decent conversation, "more intent on going for the headline, picture story and the sound-bite, rather than for a constructive and engaged conversation"? (Interesting view from a PR agency.)
So what do you think? Is Edelman right in demonstrating its complete openness and willingness to talk?
Or are they just very keen to be seen as approachable?
UPDATE: It's worth reading the comment from the Climate Camp on my post over on The Media Blog. Apparently there was a (fully clothed) representative there who was waiting to speak to someone from Edeleman. Guess what? Nobody came to speak to him...
4 comments:
Hi Jon, Spot on. I wholly agree with how Eldelman handled this issue. And shame on Climate Camp in pursuing a stunt over a conversation.
Sure, the protestors weren't interested in a dialogue - but it's disingenuous of Edelman to suggest that they were either. See this post (and exchange with Edelman's CEO Robert Philips) yesterday on GlobalDashboard.org:
http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/09/01/let-the-dialogue-commence/
There is nothing disingenuous about my/ our offer and it still stands. Direct Action groups can and shoudl be engaged in conversation - otherwise, no progress will ever be made. I have blogged and posted on this elsewhere
We don't want to get into a massive argument over who's been approaching who to chat - that would derail the important issue, and therefore only play into Edelman's hands. Suffice it to say that it would be silly to get to the building in question and then refuse to talk. How could the activists avoid such a discussion, being superglued to the lobby?!
The fact of the matter is that we would talk happily, if it were in public. The only conversation we have been offered is a one-on-one behind closed doors. That is simply not acceptable. We will not be fobbed off with a backslapping discussion that alienates the public from the issues. We would be retreating under the protective smokescreen from under which Edelman has until now successfully disseminated its greenwash.
Ultimately, Edelman's CEO has stated openly that he supports what he describes as Eon's "balanced" energy policy. This so-called balance is in fact a brief tip of the hat to renewables, just enough to satisfy the press, then back to coal. Compare Eon's "balanced" energy policy (building the first new coal-fired power stations in the UK for 30 years) to the legally binding emissions targets that are in place, and we see what kind of company Edelman is happy to represent. If Eon were as green as Edelman makes out, why would it be the longstanding number one target of UK environmentalists? There's plenty of other targets out there!
What was important on the day was that people read the banners and fliers, and discussed the issues with other people in the street. The media were hooked, and Edelman's disgraceful role in climate change has been brought to the public's attention. Whether or not you agree with our methods, can you disagree with our message?
Post a Comment