Energy horror! – A modern influencer’s guide
Today’s docuseries are for amateurs, journalists, and politicians wishing to make their mark in the energy sector. Once an area closed only to specialists and people with academic or professional titles and experience, it has now become open to everyone. We will look at discussions about “electricity prices” or “nuclear power plants” becoming as popular as they once were when considering the meaning of life or philosophy. So we invite you to comment.
Let’s remember that nowadays, the key is the form and not the content, so in order to achieve success, we need the right “packaging” of our comments—after all, we are not concerned with some objective truth but always with promoting our own “right” content.
1 The most important thing is a catchy title, even if it leads astray.
Studies have shown that audiences focus only on the beginning (title/message) and, once they click and read it, on the closing paragraph. For this reason, the title is the most important thing. In a flurry of information, it has to lead as many people to click as possible and immediately promote our influencer content. These two things are difficult to combine (although sometimes it works), so we either go for “clicks” and bet on an attractive title that refers mostly to sex, money, crime, and certainly the reader’s emotions. Or, in the case of content propagation, we skillfully build a subliminal message, of course, also escalating emotions in the style – scary windmill energy power (in the usual information about the development of the sector), great scams at the construction of power plants (here we insert an article about screwing up the elements in the new block). Supporters of RES admit their mistake (here we can even write about the fact that they underestimated the pace of development and the possibility of investment – never mind the negative context went to the world) or, finally, Revolution in Energy – a breakthrough achievement of Polish scientists (and here anything convoluted about research on anything – only the name of the polytechnic needs to be emphasized thickly). The best will combine everything together and so posts or reels or podcasts with titles like Naked Breasts promote nuclear energy production or a famous actor caught embarrassingly burning eco-powder or, at the end, gigantic tax money sex and drug business increase the efficiency of the energy transition – will give the best effect (the title of this whole satirical post is also designed to attract cliques).
2. give the wrong value to what it takes to promote your message.
It is known that our previews are the best and must be promoted. Even if the facts are sometimes different – from what a creative approach to numbers, regulations, all technology and engineering. The energy industry offers thousands of possibilities. For example, regarding energy prices, 95% of ordinary readers need to understand that the price on a household bill is the retail price and consists (roughly) of two components: energy (consumption) and supply (distribution). In contrast, prices on wholesale markets are just the energy price itself, and prices are usually seen in the SPOT (instantaneous – either the current day or the next day) segment, although such transactions are generally 10% of the total market (futures dominate). How simple it is, then, to pick the correct values from this basket to make striking comparisons (this happens every day with politicians, by the way) – for example, under the slogan “Giant fraud” bills in Poland are more expensive than in Germany – and here compare the price (frozen), but binary (consumption and distribution) with the wholesale spot price on the German market (EEX exchange) on a public holiday with lots of sunshine. The possibilities, by the way, are endless – you can juggle production prices from different technologies by mixing investment costs (fixed) with variable costs – e.g. as almost free energy from nuclear units (comparing the variable cost of MWh from reactors with the cost of an ETS-laden coal plant – or even the ETS certificate itself), not to mention, of course, that such a nuclear plant has to be built first. As I recently saw on X, you can also talk about changing the share of coal in the energy mix of countries but refer only to the burning of hard coal (without lignite) in Germany. Start by choosing numbers and graphs that fit and consistently put the “good” numbers in front.
3. Forget about technique – bet on emotion.
Readers want simple technical deductions. No one needs to know how a computer works to click on a smartphone screen. So, use only basic technical terms, but wake them up with emotion. Generate favourable connotations for the views you support (revolutionary, modern, innovative, humanitarian, frugal, etc.) and as sinister as possible for others (expensive – draining wallets, dirty, sinister, disastrous, even fraudulent). As in the title – the whole message, in general, should ratherbe directed at the “heart” and not at “reason” – because now, with reason, no one reads the information.
4. if facts contradict something – so much the worse for the facts.
As before – don’t bother with facts. Even if you are confronted with a contrary, well-documented and evident statement – by no means give up – and even stay the course. Remember the tendency to “symmetrize” – people naturally find a point “in the middle” – so you must stretch the space between opinions. If you mean a year – immediately add 5 or 10 years (e.g., coal – it’s only possible to finish it by 2049); if you mean money – subtract 100 billion (because the RES price doesn’t consider progress and falling costs). In a modern discussion, no one reads more than two sentences (used to be 140 characters, now more like 40 and a lot of hand waving on a roll), so facts do not matter. What matters is unwavering confidence and constancy in views, which must be simple, catchy, and distant from opponents.
5. add references to scientists’ opinions, studies and reports (you can make them up or use Chat GPT)
Refrain from explaining the technique but support it with names and scientific studies or opinions of reputable institutions and researchers. If you don’t have such studies (or don’t want to look for them), ask Chapt GPT – preferably version 4.0 – prompt – and provide a fake report. Also suitable are names of research institutions with a piece from Oxford, Stanford, or Munich, followed by something from Technische, Research, Advanced, or Global. GPT’s chat is unparalleled, and it will also include non-existent researchers and their full credentials. There are so many reports, scientists and think tanks that you may find that the made-up ones happen to hit the real name.
6. Consistently repeat the same thing (even if something doesn’t make sense).
Go for the bold. Remember that the most significant politicians, inventors or media icons – had to show unheard-of persistence to convince their views. “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you until finally they start to fear you”. – the motto from many movies must be deeply engraved in the heart. Don’t worry about criticism – it is bound to come from envious people or those who don’t understand your view. If even facts emerge – as mentioned earlier – they are bound to be false or about to be challenged. The most important thing is consistency – never retract what is said and never argue – constantly repeat the same thing – eventually, someone will back you up (they don’t have to understand), and if it’s hard to do so, backed up by facts then (like 3 and 4 and 1) go into emotion and title.
7. find enemies or dark forces supporting opposing views
This is important – you need to show that opposing ideas and views do not come by themselves but are sponsored by dark and hostile forces; the more undefined, the better. It is necessary to show that someone – some individuals, organizations, or maybe whole countries do not want the truth to be revealed because (probably) they want some financial benefit or worse, they want to destroy our noble idealism. The suggestion that opponents are somehow externally supported or aided or derive their benefits can be a veiled suggestion (e.g., think about who something like this might serve) or even whacked straight on (e.g., it’s directly in the interest of companies from that state). The only important thing is skillfully combining it with pt. 6 (consistency), para. 4 (threat must appeal to emotions).
8. throw mud; something will always stick.
This is already for “strong players” in the influencer profession. After the initial preparation of the discussion with titles, emotions, artefacts and made-up information – it’s time to riff on the body or even lower. You can go to a higher level and directly show who, how much and where they take or intend to support false views. The method is perfect for combining energy and political information and is only a little risky due to the possibility of receiving lawsuits and pre-litigation letters. For this reason, the point is recommended for the toughest and most experienced people with a strong legal background at their side.
9. if you want to go all the way – attack personally at the end.
Finally, a method that always works. If there is nothing else left – attack personally and provoke an argument. Throwing insults around is always eagerly watched by the audience. If it becomes even more famous and people live to see retorts and counter-posts, it can exponentially increase viewership. The spectrum of possibilities is very wide – from simple insults to multi-storied and complicated suggestions as in para. 7 and 8. Of course, we also assume that there is good initial legal training here, especially in civil lawsuits.
While waiting for more commentators on the energy sector, I wish you good luck in building a market of opinions on energy. Nothing more can be said here, so the current discussion can only be treated satirically, which will happen in the next episodes.