As I wear the hat of a climate solution developer, working in the complex field of emissions reduction from lakes and oceans, I see the opposite mix at work in Runningtide's marketing-led model to our approach. Like you say, they got many things right.
Their approach had great chutzpah. It had a marketing machine with convincing messaging. It connects well with the capacious pockets, all advocating for the right stuff, in lowering carbon emissions. But when it came to being effective, best-of-breed emissions reduction, they looked thin. They went searching for convincing science and could only produce soundbite-scale research.
And if 500 tons of emissions reduction was all they could show to the market after $70 M of investment? As much of the Climate would say, "Only in America". Not true, when one considers the globally originated reforestation scams, but in the same vein.
We can learn from this because of funding for our heavily researched science and engineering solutions. These promise gigatons of carbon emissions reduction within decades, backed by two decades of R&D and testing. They do not sell as well without the marketing and messaging muscle, including a quick rejection from Lowercarbon.
It's a Catch-22 situation. There are thousands of scientific papers out there on the subject of what to do about the methane emission risk from lakes and oceans to keep it out of the atmosphere. One of our 2020 papers on solutions has already been cited 1467 times according to Academia. In academic terms, this is good. In marketing terms, it's a fat zero.
There's much to learn from Runningtide's marketing team, up to a point.
As I wear the hat of a climate solution developer, working in the complex field of emissions reduction from lakes and oceans, I see the opposite mix at work in Runningtide's marketing-led model to our approach. Like you say, they got many things right.
Their approach had great chutzpah. It had a marketing machine with convincing messaging. It connects well with the capacious pockets, all advocating for the right stuff, in lowering carbon emissions. But when it came to being effective, best-of-breed emissions reduction, they looked thin. They went searching for convincing science and could only produce soundbite-scale research.
And if 500 tons of emissions reduction was all they could show to the market after $70 M of investment? As much of the Climate would say, "Only in America". Not true, when one considers the globally originated reforestation scams, but in the same vein.
We can learn from this because of funding for our heavily researched science and engineering solutions. These promise gigatons of carbon emissions reduction within decades, backed by two decades of R&D and testing. They do not sell as well without the marketing and messaging muscle, including a quick rejection from Lowercarbon.
It's a Catch-22 situation. There are thousands of scientific papers out there on the subject of what to do about the methane emission risk from lakes and oceans to keep it out of the atmosphere. One of our 2020 papers on solutions has already been cited 1467 times according to Academia. In academic terms, this is good. In marketing terms, it's a fat zero.
There's much to learn from Runningtide's marketing team, up to a point.