In its recent protest against Facebook, ironically using Facebook itself, Greenpeace hasn’t gotten quite the response it often gets from the corporate giants it targets in its protest campaigns. That response? Immediate capitulation.
Usually, in an anti-corporate campaign, Greenpeace is accustomed to receiving acquiescence from the hapless companies that go into that NGO’s sights. So far at least, that hasn’t been the case in the Greenpeace vs. Facebook campaign under way. Per my previous posts on this campaign, Greenpeace is upset about Facebook’s selected location for a new server facility. Greenpeace maintains that the location is not energy efficient. Facebook maintains that the location is efficient from the perspective of their overall corporate energy profile and has, essentially, rebuffed any further initiatives from Greenpeace.
In response, Greenpeace has now come out with an annoying two-minute animation about how Mark Zuckerberg (the Facebook founder) built Facebook and how the company is supposedly powered by coal-fueled power plants.
I’ve watched the video. It is especially ridiculous and way below the usual cleverness of Greenpeace. To me, this sort of tactic appears childish, weak, and desperate. One would think that if Greenpeace had such a strong case against Facebook that the strength of their argument would shine through. “Silly little” videos such as this one just make their whole case seem ridiculous.
Hang in there, Facebook. If you believe your energy plan is the most efficient available, stick to your position and don’t acquiesce, like so many other corporations, to the “semantical terrorism” employed by Greenpeace. Doing so may actually make your energy plan less efficient. And that wouldn’t be good for anyone, except perhaps for Greenpeace.
Right out of one of the most popular activist playbooks there is came Greenpeace’s latest play against Facebook in their seven-month campaign against the social networking giant. What is that play? Embarrassment. What’s the playbook? The playbook is Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, who is considered one of the fathers of modern activism. Before I discuss this play, and how I think it’s been misapplied, let’s first have a little background on this campaign.
I first wrote about this Greenpeace vs. Facebook campaign in last month’s post, “Greenpeace Hypocrisy Continues.” The issue in that campaign is, briefly, that Greenpeace is upset because Facebook chose to locate a new server facility in Prineville, OR which is in an area that Greenpeace claims is served by an electric utility powered primarily by coal. Yet, Facebook contends that its selection of Prineville, due to a unique location in the high desert, will actually reduce Facebook’s overall electricity, and therefore coal, consumption below industry averages. (Facebook claims that due to natural cooling processes, Facebook may vent the server facility to the sky at night, exploiting the cool and dry high desert location to cool its servers.) From a CNET article titled “Facebook Reacts to Greenpeace Anticoal Campaign,” comes Facebook’s response to the Greenpeace accusations:
. . . Facebook’s director of policy communications, Barry Schnitt, responded, saying that Facebook’s planned Oregon facility was chosen with energy efficiency in mind. Also, he noted that Facebook, like any other company, doesn’t have control over the fuel source for its electricity.
It’s true that the local utility gets 58 percent of its power from coal, compared to a national average of about 50 percent, Schnitt said. But the location was chosen because of its temperate climate, which allows Facebook to use more efficient evaporative coolers rather than the traditional power-hungry mechanical chillers.
Also, by consolidating into a single location, rather than leasing space at various locations, Facebook can design for efficiency. He said that the Oregon facility will have a Power Usage Effectiveness rating of 1.15, far below the industry averages for efficiency. Google, considered an industry leader, was about 1.17 in the past quarter.
This is the cruxt of their argument, which I would bet will go on for quite a while. And because it will go on, it’s important for people to know what is going on in that argument. This bring me back to the embarrassment play, and the misapplication thereof.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky recommended that anti-corporate campaigns be directed at embarrassing a targeted company. His reasoning was sound from the perspective of human nature. He recommended to embarrass a targeted company because, he said, it is impossible for any company to adhere 100% of the time to 100% of its own rules about corporate social responsibility. No matter how hard a company, or an individual for that matter, tries to be “good,” it’s just not going to happen. Humans make mistakes and corporations are run by humans. There will be mistakes
Continue reading Greenpeace and Its Own Self-Embarrassment
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.
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.
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.
In response to the ongoing “Turtle vs. Tata” controversy, about which I have written several articles, Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace International, today published an article on The Huffington Post. Entitled “Tsk Tsk TATA – Rise Above SLAPP Suits,” Mr. Naidoo responded to the lawsuit filed by Tata Industries against Greenpeace.
The overview of this case is, briefly, that Tata Industries is suing Greenpeace for the alleged misuse of the Tata trademark, and for defamation of character, in connection with a video game that Greenpeace produced to protest Tata’s involvement in the construction of a deep-water port in India. The port construction, Greenpeace claims, is too close to the nesting area of an endangered turtle species. According to DNA India, allegedly the video game 1) portrays the chairman of Tata as a less than savory character, 2) uses the Tata trademark, and 3) misrepresents the characters of India’s top grossing film, Sholay. You may read more details by reviewing my other articles on this topic.
In today’s Huffington Post article, Mr. Naidoo characterizes the Tata lawsuit as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) and an effort by Tata to “shrink the democratic space” in a “David vs. Goliath” battle. I wasn’t surprised to see Mr. Naidoo say this. Through my experiences of watching Greenpeace, I’ve learned that such responses are pretty much SOP (standard operating procedure) for them and part of the general media strategy of this organization which, to me, is really more of a media machine than an activist group. Such responses are made often when there is any form of “counter-protest” to or push-back against Greenpeace.
|
|
