At a recent conference run by WPP, I had the unexpected opportunity to lead a discussion on fusion and its relationship to marketing. A strange topic, perhaps, but the discussion was fertile and enlightening. I must thank those in the audience- thank them profusely- for their intelligence, awareness, and curiosity. A few years ago, such a discussion in such a venue would have been impossible. It is therefore encouraging to see fusion make the grade as a topic of interest even at a conference focused on other things.

As we framed the subject, fusion and marketing intersect in four crucial ways-

1. Creating interest for investment.
2. Generating palatability amongst the populace for fusion at scale.
3. Reducing fusion marketing hype.
4. Developing a digestible category and naming conventions for the industry.

A small note on each-

Investor interest– in the absence of a sensible-if-dreamy narrative about what a world of abundant, clean energy could look like, no investors would be interested in funding fusion research, development, and operations. To maintain interest, even through troughs, fusion firms must continue to communicate and frame their excitement. That is the role of marketers.

Palatability– research has indicated that fusion-at-scale will not be popular because of the overhang of negative “nuclear energy” stories in the past- like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. In addition, there is very little awareness of fusion’s “lack of” waste as compared to fission’s.  Lastly, there is the conflation of the horrors of nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power generation. Fusioneers and fusion marketers must collectively launch an education campaign to help allay the fears about anything “nuclear.”

Less hype-There is a fine line between the sort of hype necessary to generate investor and customer interest and the sort of hype that creates a cycle of over-promise/under-deliver that leads to a jaded view of the industry. Already, fusion investors are asking about past declarations that have been unmet.

Category creation– This is the most challenging of the marketing challenges for fusion. For people to latch on and analyze an organization, they need to place it in a category; that is how the human brain works- creating a metaphor that is generalizable to a recognized entity. Put simply, fusion marketers must collectively determine what category will resonate with most with customers, partners, the public, and investors.

As we go down the path, in an accelerated fashion, to Commercially Viable Fusion (CVF), the role of marketing is real. Too much marketing and too much false PR does not help but the right balance will help propel the industry towards its task, which is nothing less than giving the world abundant, clean energy.

A guest blog by Romi Mahajan

In her path breaking book “The Entrepreneurial State”, Marianna Mazzucato argues cogently, and with plenty of evidence, that the State is the key actor in technology innovation and development. We use the words “the” and “key” purposely- for four reasons:

1. The State creates and/or underwrites new technologies with a long-term view.
2. The State’s investment and ongoing incentives limit private risk.
3. There is no private investor that can compete with the State with regard to pool of available capital.
4. The State’s investments are not measured with the same ROI calculations and over the same periods.

One can go-on (and on) but these four parameters themselves make the case. Mazzucato isn’t alone in her analysis- most scholars agree- though her ideas might seem anathema to those in the technology sector who like to excessively laud private “innovation” and simultaneously lambast “government.” We can discuss this victory of Public Relations later. Here, we are interested more in understanding this idea as it pertains to the march to Commercially Viable Fusion (CVF).

Fusion has been underwritten almost exclusively the State. For seven decades, the quest for CVF has been ongoing. The carriage of Fusion has been characterized by fits and starts, but the overall vector has been positive. For many, the quest for CVF is seen as a bottomless pit of investment, but others see this as the standard manner in which science progresses- a sort of punctuated equilibrium of change. Each success and each failure begets something better.

While the State might be the key actor, there is no suggestion that private investment and innovation is unnecessary; it is in fact crucial. Private investment typically comes later in the game, when the infrastructure and basic science undergirding technology innovation has been developed. So too with CVF.

At some point in the innovation and development cycle, a sufficient critical mass of knowledge, talent, and advanced methods generates interest in the private sector and propels investment in the space. At this point, the punctuation can begin in earnest, as a variety of both competing and collaborative players strive to push the industry forward rapidly and with hope of private profit as well as public benefit. That’s where we are with CVF today. It’s indeed a heady era.

At this stage, with the efflorescence of interest and investment, firms in the CVF space must be willing to share, collaborate, and enhance each other. The stakes are high. An ecosystem must be built with intention.

Clearly, there are competing ideas, some more solid than others (forgive the pun.) Clearly, there are companies that will fail and some that will succeed. But, as with science, both successes and failures advance the industry.

It is our time.