Richard Telofski » Ideas

Who’s Really at Fault Here?

Richard — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:20:20 +0000

I was just listening to the Jackson Browne song “Lives in the Balance” while working on some writing about anti-corporatism. How ironic that that song came on the radio at that particular time. The notion of “Who’s really at fault here?,” popped into my mind upon hearing the anti-corporate lyrics:

“They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us everything from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are.”

Who’s really at fault here?

The salesmen (and women, of course) in the “shadows” or the customer?

Share on Facebook

Greenpeace . . . Will You Use “Semantical Terrorism” in Social Media?

Richard — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:24:11 +0000

In last Thursday’s post, entitled “Greenpeace, CNN, and Sloppy Research,” I referenced a May 24, 2010 CNN.com article “Social Media Can Help Save the Planet, Says Greenpeace Boss” and said that there were two problems in that CNN article. The first problem, sloppy research, you and I discussed last Thursday. Today, you and I will discuss the second problem, that of “semantical terrorism.”

The term “semantical terrorism” occurred to me while participating as a panelist at a recent symposium held at Bernard Baruch College in NYC. While participating on the panel “More than Friending: Social Media and Communication in Business and Education,” I was describing to the audience what I do. One of the other panelists, Alan Levine, Vice President, NMC Community and CTO, The New Media Consortium, looked at me and said something like “Oh, so you’re a counter-terrorist.” I paused for a moment, then agreed adding a modifying statement that “semantical counter-terrorist” would probably be more applicable. So, I will credit Alan with the inspiration for the term that we will discuss today.

In my work, I analyze advocacy groups (NGOs, activists, etc.) who perform anti-corporate actions. My primary area of analysis is on their actions in both online and offline media. That analysis is focused on how these irregular competitors “mangle the meaning” and “diddle the definition” of the corporate images owned by the companies they target. In fact, I have written a book on this subject, this “battle for meaning.” (For further details, please see Insidious Competition – The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image which is scheduled to publish very soon.) And it’s in this battle for meaning that “semantical terrorism” is performed by irregular competitors, who threaten damage, either overtly or tacitly, to the images of corporations who don’t go along with the NGO or activist agenda.

A battle in semantical terrorism it truly is and in the CNN article referenced above, I will point out how Greenpeace has showed their intention to use this tactic to meet their future objectives.

In the second to last paragraph of that article, Greenpeace’s executive director, Kumi Naidoo, says that although Greenpeace has a dialogue going on with a number of companies “if talk does not deliver the results, we have to create the possibility for millions of people who care about the environment to send a clear message.” He doesn’t directly state that the option is semantical terrorism, but I believe his implication is clear; that if negotiations don’t bring Greenpeace its desired results, then they will entreat millions of people to essentially “trash” the image of the targeted company. Greenpeace supporters have a reputation for exaggeration. And based on what I’ve seen Greenpeace supporters do previously in social media, based on how I’ve seen those supporters go off the central issue of the campaign, I can say that I expect many of those “clear messages” would not be based in fact, but rather in innuendo and insinuation. (For more on this, please see my research into the Greenpeace-engineered social media protest that I dubbed “The Kit Kat Incident.”) Such action would constitute a systematic approach toward coercion, a definition which correlates with that commonly accepted for the word “terrorism,” and would be anchored in the manipulation of meaning, i.e., semantics.

So, the answer to the question posed in today’s title, “Greenpeace . . . Will You Use ‘Semantical Terrorism’ in Social Media?,” appears to be a “yes” and thereby all corporations should be put on notice.

Share on Facebook

In the Long Run . . . We’re All Dead.

Richard — Thu, 20 May 2010 12:34:57 +0000

A few weeks ago, I was a panelist at the 10th Annual Symposium on Communication, The Future of Communication, held at Bernard Baruch College, City University of New York, in the Big Apple. The panel’s topic, “More than Friending: Social Media and Communication in Business and Education,” provided for a lively discussion about social media and its impact on business and education and how the two institutions overlap and complement each other.

In one section of the discussion, one of the panelists brought up the topic of crowd sourcing and alluded to its reliability in determining “truth.” And to recall a line from that American “classic” film about the absurdities of modern business, Office Space, I said to him that “I was going to have to sort of go ahead and kind of disagree with him there,” or words to that effect. (To make for an interesting and entertaining discussion, all the panelists had agreed ahead of time to be somewhat “feisty” in the panel discussion. Although, now that I think about it, this lead-in was a lot more silly than feisty. Well, perhaps at least it was entertaining.)

To make my point that crowd sourcing was not as reliable as many propose that it is, I drew upon an example from the offline world. I said to test the validity of the crowd sourcing theory, one could simply ask liberals how valid crowd sourcing was during the elections that gave the United States the presidency of George W. Bush or, conversely, one could ask conservatives how valid crowd sourcing was in the most recent presidential election that has given us Barack Obama. The other panelist countered with the theory that in the “long-run” crowd sourcing was a more accurate representation of “truth” than crowd sourcing in the “short-run.” Until now, I hadn’t remembered this quote by John Maynard Keynes, the early 20th century British economist, “In the long-run, we’re all dead.” Had I recalled this quote during the panel discussion, it might have been even more “feisty,” or entertaining, for the audience.

The Keynes quote points out that, yes, perhaps everything “evens” out fairly in the long-run, but the long-run may be too long. Specific to our panel discussion about truth in social media, if in the long-run the truth wills out, crowd sourcing may be a valid approach to arriving at the “truth.” But, what’s the long-run? Is social media old enough to even have a “long-run?” We may need to wait too long for the truth to win within Web 2.0. By that time, we’d all be dead, and the truth wouldn’t matter.

An idea to keep in mind for the next time we’re perusing the world of Web 2.0.

Share on Facebook

Fanning the Flames of Anti-Corporatism?

Richard — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:31:10 +0000

Anti-corporatism is a necessary condition to the success of anti-corporate digital activism. The reason is self-evident. And last Friday, April 16, 2010, the U.S. federal government added some heat to the flames of anti-corporatism.

Whether or not the fraud charges filed by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) against Goldman Sachs have any merit is immaterial to the issue I’m presenting here. Because the issue I’m presenting here is not the guilt or innocence of that corporation in the matter about to be adjudicated or, more likely, negotiated. The issue that I’m presenting here is that of government-generated anti-corporatism, designed for political reasons.

The announcement of this charge, at this time, can appear to be a politically-motivated and opportunistic tactic. The SEC has, according to the Wall Street Journal, been working on this case for 18 months and just now, days before the U.S. Senate takes up debate on a financial reform bill, decides to announce its charges against Goldman Sachs. This timing seems just a little too coincidental to me.

But coincidental or not, in passing any financial reform, the government must attempt to feed the flames of anti-corporatism. Not doing so would not help their case to pass such legislation. And with a recent Pew Research Center survey saying that only 22% of Americans trust their federal government, the people on Capitol Hill will need any help they can get in progressing their less-than-business-friendly agendas.

Announcing the Goldman Sachs charges at any time will certainly contribute to anti-corporate sentiment. But by doing so now, in conjunction with the opening of a legislative debate on financial reform, this action would seem to be more effective in generating anti-corporate sentiment than waiting for a time when Congress is debating, say, some overarching foreign policy issue, unrelated to business.

What does this mean for corporations in general? Well, many things. But from the perspective of this blog, that of analyzing “irregular competitors,” it means that currently corporations will need to be even more on guard for instances of digital activism against their brands and company. NGOs and activists will recognize that now is a time of “hotter than normal” anti-corporatism. They may see this current event as an “opportunity” and adjust plans for their future online protests accordingly; that is to say, they may perform these online protests sooner than later.

Just another “fringe benefit” from the folks in the District of Columbia.

Share on Facebook

Two Sides to the Coin of Corporate Power

Richard — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:35:43 +0000

A quick idea for today.

Currently I am reading When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten. Among anti-corporate thinkers, this book is touted as one of the leading works in modern anti-corporate theory. I’m only up to page 65 so far, but I must say that, although overall I don’t agree with David’s point of view, in this book David has raised some interesting issues. A few of his arguments have been well-made and well-sourced, while some others . . . well . . . not so much. Today’s idea concerns one of those arguments that could have been made more soundly.

On page 59 of the paperback edition, near the beginning of Chapter Four – Rise of Corporate Power in America, when discussing the significance of the corporation as an institution, David states:

On the negative side, it (the corporation) allows one or more individuals to leverage massive economic and political resources behind narrowly focused private agendas while protecting themselves from legal liability for the public consequences.

Yes. This is true. Business corporations do do this.

And the corporation, at least the type to which he refers, pays taxes in return.

Yet, there is a type of corporation which fits David’s description and that does not pay taxes. Not one cent. In fact, the type of corporation of which I am thinking, in essence, does its business at the expense of taxpayers. Let’s consider David’s description from the perspective of the modern non-governmental organization (NGO).

Modern NGOs are corporate entities which permit one or more individuals to leverage and apply their economic and political resources on narrowly focused privately-defined agendas while they and their employees enjoy the liability protection of the corporate form. And let’s add to this description of NGOs that they do so while receiving a tax-exempt status, so that, in essence, taxpayers are implicitly paying for the actions of the NGOs and the common resources that those NGOs consume at taxpayer expense.

This corporate format has worked out very well for businesses, yes. But it has also worked out well for NGOs. Remember. There are always two sides to every coin. Were it not for the corporate form, NGOs would probably not enjoy much of the power that they currently exercise.

The coin of corporate power cuts both ways, but when making an argument it should be incumbent upon the advocate to consider both sides of any coin.

Share on Facebook

Think Global, Act Local on Childhood Obesity

Richard — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:06:38 +0000

“Think Global(ly), Act Local(ly)” is the mantra of many NGOs and activist groups. Aside from yet another two adverbs taking it on the chin, this is a central theme to many of their strategies.

Recently the White House announced the signing of an executive order establishing a task force to fight childhood obesity. The executive order calls for the assistance of NGOs, as well as corporations, in fighting this problem. A worthy pursuit. But what about the mantra? The mantra states the solution.

Acting locally on childhood obesity, very locally, could be the solution to the problem if that local action was parents encouraging, and requiring, their children to exercise regularly (We used to call this “playtime.”) and discouraging (read that as “prohibiting“) their children from eating “garbage.” Discipline is not a word with which parents should be unfamiliar.

Perhaps if there was more very local, “household-local,” common-sensical, parental attention to the problem, people wouldn’t need yet another expensive government/NGO/corporate task force to tell them what they should already know.

Share on Facebook