Here’s an interesting quote regarding activists and their efforts to influence corporate policy:

That a one-man NGO armed with just a laptop computer, a Web site and a telephone calling card can, with his allies, influence a huge multinational corporation illustrates the role social activists can play in a world that’s going increasingly online.

This quote refers to a June 2005 WSJ article published on the GlobalPolicy.org website. To read the entire article, click here. A world that is going increasingly online. That article was written four years ago, before social media was little more than a glimmer of an idea to take the human jones for interaction into the cybersphere. And the online state of that world today looks, in comparison, very under-connected. So you can imagine the power that social activists have with social media at their fingertips.

Prior to the social web, organization was one of the roadblocks to activism. But now, with much of the developed world online and growing every day, activism has gotten a shot in the arm. The foundation of activist organization is held together by social relationships based on a common interest. Without that social glue, activism would fall apart. And it’s that social glue that’s put into hyperdrive within social media.

For corporations, social media provides a double-edged sword. Companies want people to discuss their products and services in social media. But the rise of the social web allows people, activists, the opportunity to discuss those products and services within the context of forming a political or social action against them.

That saying is really true, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” Yin and yang.

There are many different types of competitors out there. The most well-know is the “garden variety competitor,” or the company with which you go “head-to-head” in your industry. This is the one that is the easiest to wrap your mind around. There are others, too many others. Some of which I’ll discuss in later posts. Today, let me discuss the most obvious.

Direct or indirect competitors, companies which offer a product or service that can also fulfill the needs, wants, and desires of your consumer/customer. These types of competitors could be head-to-head product rivals, like one brand of television against another brand. Or they could be indirect competitors like television programming versus video gaming versus online gaming.

This is basic marketing theory. But what’s not so basic is this:

The realization that direct or indirect competitive forces can be at work within social media to affect your brand negatively. And these forces don’t always take the form of the “garden variety competitor.”

Let’s bring in the concept of the “brand evangelist,” the person or persons who carry on and on with glowing testimony and opinion about how good a particular product or service is. Call them fans, devotees, disciples, evangelists or whatever you like. They’re out there and much has been written about them. But there is always a yin to a yang. If there is a hot, then there must be a cold. If there is good then there must be evil. If there are evangelists, then there are “anti-evangelists.”

I know you may not want to “hear” this, or more accurately put “read” this. But, there are “brand anti-evangelists” out there. I’ve read them. You’ve read them. And we’ll learn more about them in future articles. They come in different flavors and sizes. Their motivations are all over the map. They’re not all just peeved consumers. There’s one thing they all have in common, their objective. They want your brand image. They want to control that brand position.

Yes, their motivations may be all over the map, but what isn’t hard to discern is that their profit is “psychic,” not monetary. They feel complete when they take that monetary profit you want and move it elsewhere. They are atypical, irregular, uncommon competitors. They’re out there and they want control of that brand image.

Social media is the tool they can use to achieve their psychic profit.