The “recycling wars” between Coca-Cola and Greenpeace have spilt into cyberspace, with the beverage giant buying the top advertising slot for searches of the environmental group’s name.
The battle for internet attention follows claims by Greenpeace that free-to-air television channels 7, 9, 10 and SBS had all declined to broadcast the group’s anti-Coca-Cola, pro-recycling ad.
“Pretty much everywhere we’ve gone, advertising space has been blocked,” James Lorenz, communications manager for Greenpeace, said. “Our assumption is that it’s the advertising pressure from Coke.”
Since May 5, Greenpeace’s “Stop Coca-Cola trashing Australia” video has received almost 1 million views. The 46-second YouTube version of the ad shows young people drinking Coke before dead birds start dropping from the sky or washing up on the beach, killed by discarded plastics.
Coca-Cola opposes Greenpeace’s call for a national recycling scheme. To promote its message, the company bought the top advertising slot for online searches including such words as “Greenpeace”, “cash for containers” or “cash for cans”.
No gag, Coke says
The US company denied its online advertising was aimed at gagging discussion about recycling.
“Adwords (or paid search) is a legitimate and transparent means to help people understand our position on recycling and why we don’t support container deposits,” a spokeswoman said.
“Greenpeace are entitled to their opinion but the idea that we are trying to shut down debate is simply not supported by the facts.”
Coca-Cola denied it had acted to block Greenpeace’s ads on TV. “No one from Coca-Cola had contact with, or put pressure on, any television channel not to run the ad,” the spokeswoman said.
“Coca-Cola is committed to measures that improve recycling and reduce litter in Australia.
“We disagree with Greenpeace about the best methods for doing that and we’re happy to have that debate. Indeed, we continue to have this conversation in stakeholder meetings, on Facebook and via our blog.”
But a survey of some of the responses to Coke’s blog suggested some people disagreed with its stance.
“Well. How about that. Over 40 comments, and I haven’t seen any positive comments for the proposal put forward by CCA,” said one comment from John English. “And why not? Their whole blog is just spin, and nothing else.”
$1.50 bid
Greenpeace, meanwhile, has settled for second billing on the Google ads. “There’s no sense trying to outbid them” for the top slot, Greenpeace’s Mr Lorenz said. “They’ve got a multimillion-dollar advertising budget, (while) we’ve got what we find down the back of the sofa.”
The activist group paid only $1.50 for the second ad slot, posting such responses as “Don’t listen to Choke”, and “They’re talking trash about cash for containers”.
Greenpeace has a bit of advertising ammo in its war chest, however. The group raised $40,000 to promote its campaign for a national deposit scheme similar to the one operating in South Australia. Cans and bottles in that state typically return 10¢ for each unit recycled.
Mr Lorenz said Greenpeace was turned down by others, including the Sydney Film Festival, which had initially offered “distressed” ad space. “Thank god for social media,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the Sydney Film Festival said it was the organisation’s policy not to run campaign advertising. She noted that Coca-Cola is not listed on the festival’s website as one of the event partners.
