The battle over public lands in Utah has been intensifying, with state officials launching a PR campaign to sway public opinion in their favor. The state’s efforts to seize control of millions of acres of federal land within its borders have sparked controversy and opposition from various groups.
Last year, Utah enlisted the help of Penna Powers, a media and branding firm based in Salt Lake City, to bolster their campaign. With over $2 million in taxpayer funds allocated to the cause, Penna Powers went to work studying the opposition and devising strategies to counter criticisms. The firm produced videos, newspaper ads, social media content, and more to build support for Utah’s efforts to take control of federal lands.
One key aspect of the campaign was painting the federal government as an absentee landlord that mismanages land and restricts access, while portraying Utah as a benevolent force working to ensure public land access. The ultimate goal of the campaign, like the lawsuit it supported, was to push for federal land disposal and transfer ownership to the state.
The contract between Penna Powers and Utah’s Public Lands Policy and Coordinating Office runs until 2029, with a total cost of $2.6 million. Critics of the campaign have labeled it as propaganda, accusing the state and the PR firm of misleading the public about the true intentions behind the land grab lawsuit. Conservation groups have expressed concerns that the lawsuit aims to increase extraction and privatize national public lands in Utah, rather than benefiting recreationists and ranchers as claimed by the campaign.
Despite the controversy surrounding the PR campaign, Utah officials maintain that their goal is to protect access to public lands for all users and manage the lands for future generations. The state’s natural wonders, including national parks and monuments, continue to attract visitors from around the world, and Utah remains committed to preserving these treasures.
As the battle over public lands in Utah rages on, the role of PR firms like Penna Powers in shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions remains a contentious issue. Critics will continue to scrutinize the tactics used in these campaigns, while supporters of state control over public lands will seek to justify their actions in the name of conservation and economic development. Utah’s Stand for Our Land campaign has come under fire for what critics are calling propaganda aimed at misleading the public about the state’s efforts to take control of federal lands. The campaign, funded by taxpayers, has been described as a disingenuous attempt to sway public opinion in favor of Utah’s controversial land transfer movement.
The campaign, spearheaded by the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO) and its marketing firm Penna Powers, has utilized glossy videos and messaging to portray federal land agencies as restrictive forces that are preventing Utah residents from accessing public lands. One such video featured a voice actor portraying a disabled camper in a wheelchair, claiming that Utah should manage its own lands to ensure access for individuals with disabilities. However, it was later revealed that the actor chosen for the role did not actually rely on a wheelchair in real life.
Other videos produced for the campaign depicted families being blocked from accessing federal lands by “No Entry” signs put up by the federal government. Internal emails from Penna Powers revealed that state officials advised the campaign to create their own exaggerated versions of road closure signs to use in their messaging.
Critics, including disability community advocate Syren Nagakyrie, have denounced the campaign’s use of the disabled camper storyline as disingenuous and manipulative. Nagakyrie, who founded Disabled Hikers, a nonprofit advocating for the disability community in outdoor spaces, noted that Utah lawmakers have not historically supported initiatives that benefit individuals with disabilities.
Utah’s push to seize control of federal lands has faced opposition from tribal nations and a majority of Western voters, who are against the idea of state control over federal public lands. Despite the Supreme Court declining to hear Utah’s case seeking to strip federal ownership of BLM land within the state, the battle over public lands in Utah is far from over.
The Stand for Our Land campaign has been criticized for its misleading and manipulative tactics, with critics arguing that it is a prime example of propaganda paid for by taxpayers. As the fight over federal lands in Utah continues, the campaign’s tactics and messaging will likely face further scrutiny and backlash from those who oppose the state’s efforts to take control of public lands. The Stand for Our Land campaign, spearheaded by Penna Powers and PLPCO, has come under scrutiny for its use of exaggeration and manipulation to push a specific narrative about public land management in Utah. The campaign featured a video highlighting camping closures with a fictional road closure sign, as well as using artificial intelligence to recreate the voice of an interview subject who didn’t say specific talking points.
In one instance, Penna Powers staffer Jenny Snyder mentioned in an email the use of AI to adjust the voiceover of Utah state legislator Carl Albrecht to include specific messaging. This manipulation of content raises questions about the integrity of the campaign and the authenticity of the information presented to the public.
Furthermore, PLPCO officials expressed concerns about featuring too many scenic vistas in their ad campaign, fearing that it might evoke a sense of conservation and protection for the landscapes in question. Dillon Hoyt, a PLPCO official, emphasized the need for footage that portrayed more desert and sagebrush landscapes rather than picturesque red rock scenery to avoid promoting conservation efforts.
Critics, such as Groetzinger from the Center for Western Priorities, have condemned the campaign for using deceptive tactics and misleading information to influence public opinion. The tactics employed by Penna Powers and PLPCO have been labeled as unethical and manipulative, disregarding the truth in favor of advancing a specific agenda.
In response to the criticism, PLPCO defended its actions, stating that they followed the state of Utah’s procurement process and adhered to industry standards and ethical practices. They maintained that the campaign aimed to educate the public about public land management and increase access to public lands.
The campaign targeted a national audience through various media channels, including newspapers, billboards, TV stations, social media, and national publications. It also utilized geo-fencing in Washington D.C. to target government officials and ran ads on popular podcasts and social media platforms.
Overall, the Stand for Our Land campaign’s use of exaggeration, manipulation, and deceptive tactics has raised concerns about the integrity of the information presented and the ethical standards of the organizations involved. Critics argue that such tactics undermine the public’s trust and hinder genuine discussions about public land management. Utah Governor Spencer Cox and state officials were armed with carefully crafted talking points and op-eds as they embarked on a land seizure campaign. Penna Powers, a strategic communication agency, played a crucial role in shaping the narrative and providing the necessary materials for this endeavor.
On the day of the announcement of Utah’s land transfer lawsuit, Penna Powers representatives stood alongside PLPCO officials and key decision-makers at the state Capitol building. The atmosphere was charged with anticipation and determination as they prepared to unveil their plans to the public.
Allyse Christensen, a key operative at Penna Powers, was instrumental in this effort. As she meticulously put together press kits the evening before the announcement, she exuded confidence and enthusiasm. In an email to her colleagues and Utah officials, she declared, “Let’s do this thing!” Her commitment to the cause was palpable, and her dedication to ensuring that the message was clear and compelling was unwavering.
Dillon Hoyt of PLPCO echoed her sentiments, expressing his support with a simple yet powerful message, “Go team!” The collaboration between Penna Powers and PLPCO was seamless, with both teams working in tandem to deliver a unified message that would resonate with the public and garner support for the land seizure campaign.
As Governor Spencer Cox prepared to address the press at a scheduled event, he was armed with talking points that had been carefully crafted by Penna Powers. These talking points were designed to highlight the benefits of the land transfer lawsuit and emphasize the importance of protecting Utah’s interests.
The press event was a success, with Governor Cox delivering a compelling speech that captured the essence of the campaign. His confidence and conviction were evident as he spoke, and his message resonated with the audience, garnering support and generating momentum for the cause.
Overall, the collaboration between Penna Powers, PLPCO, and state officials was instrumental in shaping the narrative surrounding the land seizure campaign. By providing key materials, crafting talking points, and delivering impactful speeches, they were able to effectively communicate their message and rally support for their cause. The success of the press event was a testament to their collective efforts and marked the beginning of a new chapter in Utah’s fight to protect its land and resources.
