|
|
 Clicktivism, or slacktivism as some call it, is a significant phenomenon affecting irregular competition. What is it? Well, briefly, this newest “ism” refers to the act of people taking part in protest via the Internet. Internet protest is, of course, a central tactic in irregular competition.
Generally, and descriptively, it’s called clicktivism. But its critics called it slacktivism. Why? The reason some call digital protest “slacktivism” is because they believe this form of virtual protest is a “cop out.” Their rationale is that the Internet makes protest far too easy for individuals to engage in activism. Those critics, fearing that digital protest doesn’t pack as much punch as real-world protest, say that the Internet is turning would-be real-world activists into protest slackers. Laziness is always a factor in human behavior, isn’t it? Just as social media is accused of precluding real-world relationships, so is slacktivism accused of precluding real-world activism, which clicktivist critics believe is more effective.
My take on clicktivism or slacktivism is that it is an important trend affecting irregular competition. I have written about this phenomenon before on this blog. And I continually look for new viewpoints on this new “ism.” I recently found one of those viewpoints.
Continue reading Anti-Clicktivists . . . You’re Missing the Big Picture.
Share on Facebook 
A few weeks ago, to a bit of fanfare, Greenpeace USA unveiled their new Web site. After seeing the news story announcing this, which was titled “As Greenpeace unveils new website, environmental villains quake in their dirty boots,” with great anticipation, I rolled my browser over to the new site. A few minutes after I got there and toured the site, I yawned and thought “so what?”
My next thought was about the title of their introductory article “As Greenpeace unveils new website, environmental villains quake in their dirty boots.” Greenpeace takes this communications tack quite often. They frequently portray themselves as the scariest thing to be on Earth since tyrannosaurus rex went around having its neighbors for lunch. When Greenpeace does this, I think that if they were actually that scary why do they have to keep telling everyone? But I moved past that tired thought and on to thinking about the rest of their new site.
 The new Greenpeace USA site is more “socially” oriented than the old site; it features on the home page a blog style format with tabs for News, Images, Videos, Reports, and Media Releases. The formatting is better than their previous site version, making it easier to find things. In fact in the introductory article, Greenpeace says that their new designs, which involved “months and months of coding” “make it easier for YOU to find what you’re looking for.” I’ll agree. The site is cleaner, and not as cluttered as their old site. Looks like they “vacuumed out” some unneeded material. But why it took months and months of coding, I don’t know. The new site is nothing revolutionary, so the months spent, or claimed to have been spent, seem foolish. In configuration, it highly resembles the format of Facebook or about 500 other sites I’ve seen. There are many Web site templates available for a few hundred bucks that one can drop into their server and get the same effect.
However, on the positive side, I will say that the new Web site does hold a lot of advantages for me. Because Greenpeace USA now has better organized its “information,” such as their “exposé reports,” which are filled with questionable research methodology, such as I have analyzed previously on this blog, the new Greenpeace site makes it easier for me to find their poorly researched material about which to review, critique, and write. So, for that I will say . . .
Thanks, Greenpeace.
Share on Facebook
 As Monty Python used to say . . . and now for something completely different.
Through the miracle of Google Alerts, I recently noticed a unique type of social media protest. This one is a situation where activists are targeting for protest other activist organizations because those organizations are, in the opinion of the protesters, too mercenary and not activist enough. Yes, you read that correctly, and I thought it peculiar as well. Here’s the story.
First, a tiny bit of background is needed. Change.org is a social site as well as an activist organization, which I have profiled (Interestingly in that profile, I found that Change.org is most likely a for-profit corporation, but that’s a different story. See my Change.org profile for more information.) Through their site, Change.org offers anyone the opportunity to create a petition drive, enabling the petition supporters to easily send messages of protest to the target of the petition. The petition targets are often companies accused of committing various behaviors found objectionable by the petitioner and its supporters. But not always. You probably realize by now where I am heading.
Now here’s the “something completely different” part. If you read this blog regularly, you will have read that I believe that some anti-corporate activist tactics can be turned back around on the activists themselves. “Payback is always a bitch.” Well, here’s a good example of such turnaround payback and it involves Change.org which recently featured a petition drive entitled “Less money collecting, more actions!” The petition asks its “signers” to demand that various activist organizations “act more” and “collect less.” (Why am I thinking of Jerry Maguire?) The targets of the petition are:
- Rainforest Action Network,
- Greenpeace National,
- Earthjustice ,
- 1Sky National Office,
- Sierra Club National Headquarters,
and five other activist organizations. Interesting, isn’t it?
As of the date that I wrote this post, in a little over one week, the petition had only 23 signers with a goal of 800. I’d say that was pretty slow progress, especially for a petition that’s on a site that is as highly trafficked as Change.org. This activist vs. activist petition certainly has a way to go to hit its goal. But you may check their progress currently by clicking here.
It’ll be interesting, in the game of activist vs. activist, to see how far this protest goes and if the targeted organizations are responsive to their protesters.
Share on Facebook
 In last Thursday’s post, “Know More About NGOs. After All, You Pay for Them,” I discussed the idea that, as NGOs gain more power in deciding what goods and services the market buys, everyone needs to know more about these NGOs who influence the world of commerce. Pointed out in that article as one of the primary reasons that people should get to know these NGOs, other than that of the NGOs’ power to shape our buying patterns, is the fact that we all support them, financially. “Know More About NGOs” showed how, in the United States, all taxpayers financially support the NGOs that affect our purchasing decisions on a daily basis, regardless of whether or not those taxpayers directly support a NGO with a donation.
In today’s post, I am going to give you an example of knowing more about the NGOs that affect your daily life. We’re going to “get to know” one of those NGOs a little better. In my previous post, one way that I suggested of getting to know these organizations better is by taking a look at their Form 990. As you may recall, I mentioned that the Form 990 is the “tax return” that U.S. tax exempt, non-profit organizations file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) annually. And since these organizations are tax-exempt, and thus are supported by all taxpayers, their Form 990 is a matter of public record and is available for public review. An easy way to obtain the Form 990 for an organization of your choice is by going to Guidestar.org. Guidestar is an organization that compiles information about non-profit organizations, and some of it is available at no charge, particularly an organization’s most recent Form 990.
Using this Form 990 information, in “Know More About NGOs,” I discussed Rainforest Action Network (RAN). And while I was reviewing their Form 990 for last Thursday’s article, I found a lot of information that, because of space limitations, didn’t make it into that article. So, today let’s get some of that information into this article. Let’s know more about RAN. Continue reading Rainforest Action Network: 61% to Salaries?
Share on Facebook
 Today, let’s discuss responsible consumption, which can cut in more directions than one. Let me explain.
A current topic discussed in the news is for consumers to assume responsibility for their purchases, taking steps to be as certain as possible that their purchases don’t support companies committing environmentally harmful acts or companies that may behave in a socially irresponsible manner. These are certainly worthwhile goals. The world could do with less environmental harm and less social irresponsibility, committed by either corporations or individuals.
Of course, one problem that consumers would have in making such decisions would be with the identification of such companies. The problem lies in the semantics; just what does “environmentally harmful” or “socially irresponsible” mean, and who defines such things. If you read the business press regularly, or even if you occasionally read this blog, you’ll know that many of those definitions are set by NGO and activist groups such as Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, and Corporate Accountability International. It is these groups, these “semantical gatekeepers,” who have appointed themselves to define what is “environmentally harmful” or what is “socially irresponsible.” I suppose that’s better than no one taking on this task, but such power in the hands of a limited number of groups can be unsettling. Perhaps what is needed here, in addition to more “responsible consumption” of companies, is more responsible consumption of these “semantical gatekeepers,” a “monitoring of the monitors,” if you will. But what’s to motivate the public in taking such an interest? How about a financial interest? The criterion of money usually hits home.
Whether you know it or not, if you are an American taxpayer, you support these semantical gatekeepers, the groups who decide from whom you should buy and from whom you should not.
How so?
Continue reading Know More About NGOs. After All, You Pay For Them.
Share on Facebook
 I saw this brief news article the other day: “Greenpeace Closes Down BP Petrol Stations in Central London Energy Protest.” Posted on Bloomberg News, this article described how Greenpeace closed between 35 and 46 London BP stations, depending upon which source you believe – Greenpeace or BP, during the morning rush hour on Tuesday, July 27, 2010.
Not only is this action just plain dangerous, but in terms of a Greenpeace strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the population, it’s just short-sighted and downright foolish. What I’m thinking about here is probably several hundred harried commuters who were unjustly inconvenienced by Greenpeace’s antics. Several hundred people who probably won’t come away with a good brand image of Greenpeace.
Now, I wonder how many of those extra-harried commuters were Greenpeace donors?
Share on Facebook
 Recently Greenpeace announced it’s corporate campaign against Facebook. The reason for the protest? Back in February of this year, Facebook announced that it will build a new server facility in Oregon, which will be powered by an electric utility that burns coal for power generation. This presents an interesting conundrum for Greenpeace, one that I haven’t seen raised elsewhere. How?
Well, Greenpeace has no compunction about using Facebook, when it suits them, as a social media battle space in their anti-corporate campaigns. A free social media battle space, mind you. For example, they used Facebook in this fashion extensively and especially well in The Kit Kat Incident (a protest action and boycott against Nestlé) about which I wrote on this blog. And, in a recent Forbes interview with Greenpeace online specialist Laura Kenyon, Jeremiah Owyang wrote that Greenpeace claims over 1 million Facebook supporters which Laura indicated that Greenpeace would call upon in future campaigns.
So, if Facebook doesn’t accede to Greenpeace’s energy usage demands, and bow to the Greenpeace corporate campaign launched against Facebook – ironically enough on Facebook itself, will Greenpeace call upon its Facebook supporters to boycott Facebook in the same way Greenpeace called upon Nestlé customers to boycott the Kit Kat bar?
Will 1 million Greenpeace supporters suddenly disappear from Facebook, leaving Greenpeace scurrying to find a new, and free, social media battle space for future anti-corporate campaigns?
As the Brits say . . . not bloody likely.
Hypocrisy lives.
Share on Facebook
|
|
