Yesterday, I received a message on Twitter by Tom Kimbis on SEIA. He tweeted, "WSJ wants to know what you think about the promotion of # solar." RATE THEM HERE! "SEIA @ SolarFred @ http://ow.ly/dv9o9."
When I clicked the link, it took me to a Wall Street Journal blog post where the author asked reader, and wind, if solar subsidies should be eliminated, increased, reduced or remain the same.
At the time, about 08: 30 Pacific, it was solar when the vote is hammered by regular readers of the Wall Street Journal. A 500-vote margin suggested that solar and wind subsidies should be eliminated. This is not so surprising. The blog was to his conservative oil and gas investors choir preach and during the vote, I had strongly believed more solar subsidies only slightly less than the votes will receive half of reasons for solar PR and advocacy, that solar required to win this very public but non-scientific survey.
So, thanks to Tom's heads up, green social media marketing and activists on Twitter via WSJ of normal oil and choir achieved. In the afternoon had support for solar subsidies increase the majority of votes obtained. While I write this Wednesday night, the vote now stands at over 4006 votes (47.7%) for increasing versus 3374 votes (40.2% for the removal of solar) and wind drops subsidies.
To update 7 September 2012: fossil fuel advocates are again catch up! Click on the link above and give your voice for solar and wind.
On the surface, the solar and wind industries won the public PR battle. The Wall Street Journal is a notoriously conservative news organization, and perhaps this "profit" will think again some conservative readers to become America's support inspired solar and wind... but probably not.
If you look at the comments below the post you see on typical yada, yada, myths and misunderstandings solar and wind subsidies. The other conservative commentators really hear tried solar and wind power advocates who just set record, but were? Or they were just search your after predisposes views. (One could ask the same of solar and wind in favour.)
Here is the thing: as solar marketers, we are already understaffed, under-funded and urged time and resources. So we need to questions, whether it our time outside our choir in this kind of conservative place worth to preach, to leads in predisposed having to generate skeptics.
In fact, no matter how many facts we have, it is extremely difficult to change people's minds once they believe something even if economic and scientific facts contradict these beliefs. To change these minds, you need time, repetition, creativity and above all "trust agents" (a great book).
I think "trust agents" that personal, local or national Conservative leaders thought. If they their first view of solar change and about the change, it breaks the ideological barriers sermons, and many eventually follow.
For example, when Bill O'Reilly ever finally solar and preached about whose money saving attributes on his radio and cable shows go, would be a major coup for solar energy. Many who would reconsider his millions of listeners and viewers (UnThink?) always a solar supply for themselves. Likewise, if the conservative best friend that follows "Energy" changes his or her mind about solar, it can convince to rethink your solar subsidies position.
So is it solar get value, our time, which engage troops on these types of conservative forums? We will find and market conservative trust agents and try our case to them in the hope that they are spread the word to others?
My answer is Yes... but in moderation. In this example, Wall Street Journal was an easy victory. It took the word on my own personal and business social networks the same action a few minutes out, during SEIA and other solar-social-media people. Good and urgent causes quickly spread.
This would be purely a solar marketing call to action, to buy a solar widget or service, however, I doubt that this mini campaign would have had the same answer, or PR effect.
The fact is that our very own solar choir still very uneducated about solar technology and its economic benefits. Progressive, open and "green" individuals, companies and politicians can already support solar, but they always still not that solar understand leasing and PPAs or tempo can be funded and that it needs no batteries - or even a roof in some cases.
So, unfortunately we are solar still in the early phase of the user. While I would love to go to the Mississippi and Alabama and try legislators nationwide net metering passed to preach-solar choir and tons of solar.... sell we are probably more successful and profitable marketing and progressive, independent and moderate Republicans who are already favourable for solar, but uneducated and/or unmotivated.
This is not to say that solar marketer on the sale of solar conservative will give up. The information and financial sense through personal colleagues, colleagues are solar da successfully with the progressive low-hanging fruit, and distributed trust agents.
In the meantime it is still value, a few minutes, solar myths on blogs and news articles to correct, and it is worth getting it.... to the solar UnThink.
Tor Valenza advises solar companies in marketing, communications, a.k.a. "Solar Fred" and branding. Reach him via UnThink solar or follow him on Twitter @ SolarFred.
View the original article here