The month of October is already appearing ghoulishly doubtful for ethanol supporters. Ethanol - originally touted as a magical fuel expected to solve high gas prices in the US and climate change concerns world-wide - now appears to be drying up long before reaching most gas stations and consumer automobiles.

Using Collective Intellect’s Media Intellect monitoring tool, I have been monitoring the rise of ethanol in popularity and noting the minute amount of negative content generated around it since the ethanol hype began earlier this year. I can confidently say that the last two weeks have provided the most negative sentiment I have witnessed in regards to the Ethanol and Biofuel industry yet.

The pinnacle of last week’s anti-ethanol blog posts came on October 2 when VeraSun halted their massive BioTown project in Reynolds, Indiana due to low ethanol prices. AutoblogGreen provided excellent coverage of the event:

“That’s right, the one town in America where everything was supposed to be about bio-energy can’t support an ethanol plant.”

The following day a post from Todd Sullivan’s - Valueplays examined the economic distress that effected the VeraSun decision:

“In 2006 when ethanol was selling on the spot market for $4 a gallon, it was too expensive. Now that it is $1.50 a gallon (almost a full dollar cheaper than gas), it isn’t ‘economically viable for producers.’”

And to add insult to injury, Noble Prize Laureate Paul Crutzen’s 2006 study was posted and commented on by Stoat on October 4, hypothesizing “that the production of commonly used biofuels, such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings.”

Those are a few highlights of last week’s higher ranked posts from the Collective Intellect interface. But it appears that the ethanol fire-storm actually began on Friday, September 28, again with an AutoblogGreen’s post: “Accenture forecasts a biofuel bubble burst”

“According to a recent study by Accenture, the biofuel sector is repeating the pattern that the dot.com companies had during the early 2000s.”

As if the Accenture study and a flurry of Economist reposts wasn’t enough, Primate Legend Jane Goodall claimed in a NewsBusters.org post that biofuels are destroying the rainforest.

A solid week of negative blog posts on ethanol and other biofuels is no coincidence or fluke. There remains, of course, many posts that defended and continued supporting the ethanol boom, which aren’t included in this piece. However, this does not negate the fact that there has been a massive increase in negatively-oriented posts towards the ethanol and biofuel industry; leading many to believe we are headed towards an ethanol bust.

Tags: Analyzing Consumer Generated Media, Social Media Monitoring by Mark
3 Comments »

Ron Paul’s “army” of supporters is simultaneously invisible and anonymous, and loud and abrasive. They are mysteriously absent from any national poll which isn’t conducted online. They were missing from the straw poll in Paul’s home state of Texas. Political Web sites are regularly flooded with enthusiastic but essentially anonymous emails and comments whenever Paul’s name is mentioned. Yet his campaign seems to be adept at fundraising. And the army leaves behind telltale signs and clues of its presence, often in strange places. On a recent trip to Austin, I spotted hand-painted “Ron Paul Revolution” banners hanging from abandoned underpasses and flyers taped to music store windows. A friend recently reported another Ron Paul sign made of dixie cups wedged into a chain link fence above a St. Louis overpass. Around midnight in downtown Denver a week ago, four young men held 9-11/Inside Job signs wore white Ron Paul t-shirts, and chanted.

Therein lies the problem. The Paul campaign generates a lot of cash, and it does have a few recent straw poll victories. But it seems that too often when his followers emerge from behind their computers and decide to voice their opinions to the public, it begins with loud angry accusations of conspiracies (9/11, NAFTA, New World Order, UN–take your pick), and ends with forcible removal, arrest, or strangely funny taserings (The “Don’t Tase Me Bro!” guy, and probable Ron Paul supporter, is still making the rounds on YouTube remixes). They do show up in fairly large numbers wherever Ron Paul speaks, but they often arrive in silly costumes, and reciting overly earnest chants. These and other incidents have been too sporadic, disorganized, or silly to be even effective guerilla attacks.

The tragic part of this is that Congressman Paul’s message is unique and far different from any other candidate, Republican or Democratic. In a time when the country faces such urgent challenges, it’s a good thing for the American people (and the other candidates) to at least consider radical new ideas for the country’s direction. Although the evidence is anecdotal, among my twenty-something demographic, Paul’s name comes up in conversation as often as Obama’s. Ron Paul t-shirts pop up in bars and concert venues with surprising frequency. Yet his supporters are represented to the public by the conspiracy-obsessed few who become ironic YouTube sensations and fodder for late night comedians.

It’s obvious that something is off when you look at CI’s sentiment data of the Presidential candidates. Because our sentiment algorithm covers blog posts from both Liberal and Conservative posts, it’s unsurprising that the overall sentiment for each candidate comes out negative–except for Ron Paul. His detractors accuse his “Paul-Bots” of spamming, and this is a clear indication that something like that is occurring.

A solid Web presence will be necessary for any candidate to win his or her party’s nomination. However, at this point, though Paul’s online presence is massive, it is not solid. It is chaotic, not unified. Howard Dean’s ‘04 campaign may have ultimately crashed and burned, but for a while the online grassroots surge masterminded by Joe Trippi helped push Dean into the frontrunner spot. The online campaign was a well-organized, intimidating force never before seen in the political world.

According to CI’s data over the past two weeks, 18% of the mentions of Ron Paul’s name in all online media comes from message boards. This makes sense, considering that boards are far more chaotic, sporadic and unfocused than political blogs.

Ron Paul’s online army is aggressive, but disorganized and misguided. Part of the reason may be rooted in the candidate’s own libertarian, individualistic ideals. If Paul’s massive online presence is to turn into a force to be reckoned with, the Paul campaign must find a Web-savvy leader, who can focus the attention and energy of these supporters into something more than spam and angry comments on message boards. The campaign must learn the lessons of previous failed online-grassroots movements, as well as learn what the current thriving ones are doing right. They must help ensure that their supporters are well-informed and focused on the issues most relevant to Paul’s campaign, and to stay away from the fringe ones–in order to not isolate voters who may start listening to Paul in the future.

Part Two will explore more closely the Web-army, and will try to answer the question of who, if anyone, is directing these online campaigns.

Tags: Analyzing Consumer Generated Media, Mass Media/Culture by Kevin Yordy
2 Comments »