Richard Telofski

on "Irregular Competition"

Archive for category Strategy

NGO Social Media: Some Weakness in “Reach”

Feb 4

Posted by Richard in Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Irregular Competition, Research, Strategy | No Comments

Introduction

Social media is an environment that is seemingly tailor-made for NGOs and activists to exploit. Among other characteristics, social media are accessible to almost everyone in the developed world. Social media are pervasive; more and more people use social media every day. Social media are inexpensive. And social media skew young.

Businessman reading newspapBecause of these factors, economically, demographically, and psycho-graphically, social media are perfectly positioned for NGOs to leverage in their campaigns against business. Because of these reasons, and because NGOs are among the chief anti-corporate campaigners out there, companies want to know more about what these atypical competitors, these “irregular competitors,” are doing from within social media.

Today, I am going to give those corporations a “mini-heads-up” and give a little bit of insight as to what two NGOs are up to in social media. This heads-up will be limited to the examination of “reach.” The NGOs examined will be:

  • Greenpeace US
  • Friends of the Earth US (FOE)

I’ve chosen to examine these two NGOs for six reasons.

  1. They’re both about the same age, and therefore have the same opportunity at notoriety, and reach.
  2. They’re among the largest of the tens of thousands of NGOs on the planet.
  3. Because of their size, these NGOs would tend to have the most potential for influence on the companies they target.
  4. These two are among the most active of all NGOs in terms of anti-corporate activism.
  5. In an effort to compare “apples to apples,” I chose these NGOs because they operate within similar issue arenas, such as the environment; their Venn diagrams of issues coverage overlap, not completely but highly.
  6. Again with attention to an “apple to apple” comparison, both NGO operations cover the same geography. Each NGO has an international organization, but in this article I will only be looking at their U.S. operation.

Factors

Reach is significant in social media. Yes, I know that some of my social media colleagues don’t regard “reach” as important in social media as it is in traditional media. But I submit that reach is very important, especially so in a medium that is perfectly positioned for NGO goals, as noted above.

One of the elements which produces the social media”reach” of an organization is its size. The bigger the organization then the more well-known will be its brand. And the more well-known its brand, then the more followers, friends, fans, and/or subscribers that brand should have in social media. The more followers, friends, fans, and/or subscribers had by that brand, then the more opportunities for the brand’s message there are to be transmitted and discussed and forwarded and discussed again and back and forth and so on. Social media is a medium of discussion and “pass along.” So, if the originator of a message, like Greenpeace US or FOE US, has more followers, friends, etc., than a similar organization, well, then there are simply more opportunities for message propagation not only at origin, but also further down the chain of the social web.

So, let’s go ahead and do a bit of analysis on the social media reach of these two NGOs.

Findings

Below you’ll see a table which details, for each NGO, the number of Facebook fans, the number of Twitter followers, the number of MySpace fans each has, along with similar statistics for each NGO’s YouTube presence.

NGO Social Media “Reach” Comparisons
FacebookTwitterMySpaceYouTube SubscribersYouTube FriendsYouTube Channel Views
Greenpeace USA41,58214,850123,5951,8511,00566,372
FOE US11,6153,10314,67672283,102

As of January 14, 2010

Discussion

You can see that Greenpeace has FOE beat hands down, across all categories. This could be a function of Greenpeace being a more established organization, with a brand that is a global icon. People like to follow the leader, and they’ll do so in social media as in any other aspect of life.

The number that particularly stands out in the table above is that MySpace friends number. Since MySpace is a site heavily trafficked by music lovers, this differential would indicate that Greenpeace has some particular strength with music fans. That’s something for corporations in the crosshairs of Greenpeace to keep in mind, i.e., targeting (or not) the music lover segment in future PR battles. But there’s a big disconnect between that MySpace fan number and that Twitter number. The Greenpeace twitter number is only a bit over 10% of their MySpace number. I think they’re missing something there. Greenpeace could be leveraging that MySpace following into their Twitter effort and using it for effect in various campaigns. And the same idea could be applied to Facebook. With only about a third of the following on Facebook as they have on MySpace, Greenpeace doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of cross-pollination. This lack of cross-pollination should be something kept in mind by targeted corporate communications personnel. Now, let’s chat about FOE.

What I find especially disappointing in these FOE numbers is the level of Twitter followers that FOE has. I have more Twitter followers than that. They simply aren’t leveraging their Facebook and MySpace presences to increase their level of Twitter followers which, if FOE had more Twitter followers, could make it easier and more effective for them to spread quick, mini-blog type messages during hot and fluid campaigns. And speaking about their Facebook and MySpace followings, for an organization the size of FOE US, those following levels are terrible. Numbers of that level indicate that FOE isn’t doing an adequate job in developing their social media campaigns. Perhaps FOE isn’t taking social media seriously? Something else for targeted corporate communications personnel to keep in mind.

What about the FOE YouTube numbers? Well, it seems abundantly clear, about 20 times more clear, that Greenpeace is giving viewers a lot more to look at than is FOE. Perhaps FOE isn’t as visually oriented as Greenpeace. Again, you corporate communications managers take note.

So, what can we conclude from all of this?

Conclusion

The take-away, for corporate opponents of these “irregular competitors,” is that between Greenpeace US and FOE US, in social media Greenpeace would be a more formidable foe than would FOE itself. In social media, by comparison, FOE isn’t much of a foe. With such low numbers, for corporations in a social media PR battle with FOE US, corporations should concentrate very heavily on creating, discussing, and propagating their message in social media. FOE has a relatively underrepresented presence there, and any corporation locking horns with FOE US should take advantage of FOE US’s relative absence and comparative disengagement with the medium.

For corporations with high Twitter follower numbers, they should especially concentrate in that mini-blogging venue, both preemptively and reactively. It’s apparent that FOE US doesn’t realize their weakness there in that social venue. And any corporation that has ever been engaged in a “battle” with FOE US, or anticipates one in the future, should act now to build their following in Twitter, so that FOE may be “out-Twittered” if and when the time comes.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Who Is Really Behind the Walmart Sustainability Index? – Part 2

Jan 26

Posted by Richard in CSR, Environmental Defense Fund, Irregular Competition, Motivation, Research, Strategy | No Comments

Company chartIn my previous post, “Who Is Really Behind the Walmart Sustainability Index? – Part 1,” we began looking at the real reason why Walmart would want to initiate the Walmart Sustainability Index (WSI), an ecological product ranking that the company wants attached to products sold in their stores. To catch you up before you read this post, you may read that previous post by clicking here.

In Part 1, I discussed how I had two theories on who or what is sparking Walmart’s motivation to initiate the WSI. My first theory was that customer demand was the reason behind Walmart initiating the WSI. But in Part 1 we saw that Theory #1 did not hold together. Regardless of what Walmart says, I don’t think it is customer demand that’s the driving force behind the WSI. So, now here in Part 2 of “Who Is Really Behind the Walmart Sustainability Index,” you and I move onto Theory #2.

Theory #2

Premise

As most people know, over the past decade or so, Walmart has been the victim of negative publicity. That the company has been assailed on a public relations front is not exactly proprietary information.

Issues and accusations over: their influence on small-town mom & pop businesses, health insurance benefits for employees, hourly wages, etc. have been well-documented. Then there was that whole Walmarting Across America blogging gaff, a flap that started over a pro-Walmart blog that appeared on the surface to be organic, but turned out to be at least a little less so. After many years of this sort of treatment in the halls of public opinion, Walmart needed some PR wins. Their image had gotten beaten up. Walmart needed a PR image makeover.

Findings
    • Per a post from the Harvard Business Review, in October 2005 Walmart announced that it was embarking on a “sustainability strategy” to “dramatically reduce the company’s impact on the global environment and thus become ‘the most competitive and innovative company in the world.’ “
    • According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM), Walmart began a collaborative relationship with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in 2005. The article said that EDF’s “most intense partnership began in 2005 when Wal-Mart sought out the environmental group for advice on how to craft a better corporate responsibility plan. At the time, the megaretailer was getting lambasted for everything from killing small business to poor personnel management. The relationship grew closer as it shifted to strategy.”
    • Also per the CSM article, in 2007 the EDF opened an office in Bentonville, Arkansas which also is the headquarters city of Walmart. The CSM article also quoted Michele Harvey, the EDF corporate partnerships project manager, in speaking of Walmart as saying, ” . . . we have a greater potential to influence the direction they take.”
Discussion

Given the fact that Walmart was being “pasted” regularly in the popular culture, they needed to do something which would allow them to appear as a more “benign” presence within the American landscape. Initiating a sustainability strategy within a larger corporate social responsibility (CSR) program could yield them the softer image that they sought. And “partnering” with a major environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) like the EDF to help implement that sustainability strategy would certainly help Walmart project the image of a large corporate organization that is willing to work with those “defending” the environment, softening the Walmart image. From the PR perspective, the fact that “Environmental Defense” is in the name of that NGO organization was probably not looked upon as a negative when Walmart made their NGO partner selection.

Relative to corporations’ entrances into CSR programs, it’s been written in the press that many companies undertake CSR programs in order to preclude attacks from NGOs and activist organizations. Indeed in the aforementioned CSM article, Daniel Korschun, a fellow at the Drexel University’s Center for Corporate Reputation Management, was quoted as saying “Many companies initially approach nonprofits in order to reduce the risk that the nonprofit will create bad press or organize protests and boycotts.”

Could this be the reason that Walmart got involved with EDF in 2005? Perhaps it wasn’t because of an altruistic concern that this corporation chose to enter the CSR arena. Perhaps there was a dual objective in Walmart’s decision to enter into CSR: to repair the image of the company and to preclude NGO and activist attacks.

Theory #2 Conclusion

Getting back to the central question of this post, “Who Is Really Behind the Walmart Sustainability Index?,” perhaps the EDF is really the driving force behind the WSI. Regardless of what Walmart might say about their customer as being the motivation for the WSI, the concept behind the WSI is not consistent with the profile of the average Walmart customer, as we saw in Part 1. But the EDF has the motivation to push this WSI into operation because the concept behind the WSI is consistent with the mission of the EDF.

Maybe the WSI is something that the EDF wants implemented, across all retailing, and not just at Walmart. If this is a goal of the EDF, they have gained a powerful relationship through which to implement that goal. As in the Findings above, the EDF’s corporate partnerships manager was quoted as saying, “we have a greater potential to influence the direction they (Walmart) take.” And as goes Walmart, so most certainly will go the rest of the retail world. This perceived influence in this relationship, and thus the perception of the power available to the EDF, is only accentuated by the knowledge that there is an EDF office in Bentonville.

So, what this all comes down to is that there is a strong possibility that the impetus behind Walmart’s initiation of the WSI was the influence of the EDF, and not customer demand as Walmart has indicated. There is no hard evidence of this, but based on the facts that I have located and presented here, the conclusion seems reasonable.

Epilogue

Now, you might be thinking, “Hey Richard, what does it matter who pushed the WSI? What’s so bad about the WSI?”

Well, I suppose that, at least on the surface, there would seem to be worse things in business than the WSI. Of course, analyzing its benefit to business and society will take some time, especially considering it isn’t even in the marketplace yet.

The WSI is sort of like the nutrition labels that appear on our food products, mandated by the federal government years ago. People can choose to read those labels or ignore them just as they can read or ignore the WSI if they so choose. Yes. Absolutely true. People can ignore the WSI. But the issue that I am raising here is not with the WSI itself. No, the issue I am raising here is one that is more than a label that appears on a product. The issue here is one of process, a process than can affect all companies. That process is one that is built on fear and is one that can insinuate itself into all companies.

When you consider the possibility, a very strong possibility, that it was the EDF who really may have had the goal of the WSI and initiated the WSI through their five-year partnership with Walmart, it doesn’t bode well, in general, for a company’s control of their own corporation. This loss of control would increase as more and more corporations “partner” with NGOs and activists; “partnerships” that are born in the desire to “preclude” publicity attacks. In so doing, companies may actually overlook the desires of their customers to meet the needs of an outsider. They may do this at the expense of those who actually pay to keep the company’s lights on, the customer.

And in this scenario we can see more of the political process insert itself into business as more NGOs become “partners” with fearful companies.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

Who is Really Behind the Walmart Sustainability Index?

Jan 21

Posted by Richard in CSR, Environmental Defense Fund, Irregular Competition, Motivation, Research, Strategy | No Comments

Glasses and a top hatIn July 2009, Walmart introduced their initiation, support, and funding of the new Walmart Sustainability Index.

What is the Walmart Sustainability Index (WSI)?

Briefly, the WSI is intended to be a ranking of the ecological efficiency of manufactured products. Factors that go into calculating a product’s ecological efficiency are things like the amount of energy used to make the product and how well the product can be recycled after it is used. Walmart wants this ecological ranking to be displayed on each product sold within its stores so that their shoppers can make purchase choices in a “sustainable way.” (Source: Walmart Sustainable Product Index: Fact Sheet, a PDF reachable via http://walmartstores.com/Sustainability/9292.aspx)

This index is often referred to in the press as the Walmart Sustainability Index, just as I have done at the beginning of this post. But, actually calling it such is a bit of a misnomer. They don’t really want the index to be theirs per se. According to the Walmart Fact Sheet, as mentioned above, the WSI is only an initiative created by Walmart. The fact sheet says that the company doesn’t intend to “create or own this index,” but that instead the company intends to help create “a consortium of universities that will collaborate with suppliers, retailers, NGOs and government to develop a global database of information on the lifecycle of products – from raw materials to disposal.” Through their own statement, it is clear that they don’t wish to own it; they just wish to initiate it. Yet, since they are the initiators it only seems fair that they should get the credit for it. So, the name Walmart Sustainability Index should stick. And I would think they would want this name to stick, as we shall come to understand later in Part 2 of this post.

Who or what is behind this WSI initiative?

What are the reasons behind wanting to initiate this ecological product ranking? I have two theories as to why Walmart would want to initiate the WSI.

Theory #1

Proposed: Walmart customers are the reason behind the initiation of the WSI.

Premise

All good businesses are customer-centric. As with any good business, and I certainly consider Walmart a good business (otherwise they wouldn’t be the world’s largest retailer), Walmart must be launching this initiative because this WSI service is something that is desired by their customers. Being a good business and customer-centric, Walmart must be responding to the desires of their customers. Yes, that must be it. The initiation of the WSI must be driven by Walmart customer demand. In fact, Walmart leads us to believe that customer-centricity is indeed the reason behind the WSI.

On Walmart’s website, on their Sustainability page, they post the following:

. . . our customers want products that are more efficient, last longer and perform better. They want to know the product’s entire lifecycle. They want to know the materials in the product are safe, that it is made well and is produced in a responsible way.

Most of what Walmart says here is stating the obvious. All customers want efficiency, durability, and top performance from the products they purchase. All customers want to know that the products they buy are safe and well-made. But, where does it say that their customers want to know about the degree of “sustainability,” or ecological efficiency, of the products they purchase? Walmart seemingly makes a big leap here between what their customers say they want and their reasons for the initiation of the WSI. Are you thinking that maybe the sentence “They want to know the product’s entire lifecycle,” supports that leap? I don’t think so because product life cycle means something else and doesn’t necessarily relate directly to sustainability issues.

I’d like to see Walmart’s research backing up this leap that they make. Short of seeing that research, I just have a difficult time believing that Walmart customers are demanding this type of service. Why? Well, let me explain why by taking a look at the Walmart customer.

Findings
  • In 2007, according to Supply Chain Digest, Walmart segmented their 200 million customers into the following categories:
    • Brand Aspirationals – People with low incomes who are fixated on brand names like KitchenAid;
    • Price-Sensitive Affluents – Wealthier shoppers who love deals; and,
    • Value-Price Shoppers – Those with like low prices who can’t afford much more. (I know this sentence is not grammatically correct, but it is a direct quote. I think the “with” should be “who.”)
  • According to MSN Money, “Walmart customer’s average incomes are below the national average.”
  • In 2005, The Washington Post said that the average annual income for the average Walmart customer was $35,000. (Allowing for an inflation rate of 2% per year since then, that brings the average up to only about $38,600 for 2010.)
  • A Zogby International poll found that in 2004, 76% of weekly Walmart shoppers voted for George Bush and not John Kerry.
Discussion

Hmmmm. My Theory #1, that the WSI initiative is driven by customer demand, doesn’t seem to be supported by the facts. The facts seem to point to a customer that is concerned mostly with price and value. The facts don’t point to the type of customer that is typically overly concerned with “green” issues. The facts point to a type of customer that wouldn’t seem to care one way or the other about the WSI.

The Supply Chain Digest article said that, using Walmart’s own customer categorization, Walmart customers were segmented only on the basis of value sought, i.e., they want low prices. On pricing, certainly Walmart is customer-centric. Walmart has a reputation for low prices. In fact, all the Walmart TV commercials I see have price as their selling proposition; in not one of those commercials have I ever seen an allusion to “green” issues. And that customer concern with prices appears to be supported given the data on average Walmart customer income as shown by the Washington Post article and the MSN Money post. People earning below average wages would most probably be more interested in low-prices than in a WSI.

That’s the demographic side of the information. Now for some psychographic information.

How do the the political leanings of Walmart customers enter into this argument? Per the Zogby poll info, it seems the average Walmarter in 2004 went for George W. Bush. Well, I could be wrong, but I think it’s safe to say that those who voted for Kerry are probably more “green” leaning than those who voted for Dubya.

Theory #1 Conclusion

No. Theory #1 isn’t supported by the facts.

I don’t think that Walmart customers are the reason behind the initiation of the WSI

The reason for Walmart wanting to initiate the WSI does not appear to be due to customer demand. So the “who” in our question doesn’t seem to be the customer.

So, now it’s time for an alternate theory.

*     *     *

And you may read that alternate theory in my next post. That post will appear on Tuesday, January 26, 2010. If you are reading this before that date, then please subscribe to the FREE RSS feed so you can receive that article directly. If you are reading this after that date, then simply click here to continue with Part 2 of “Who Is Really Behind the Walmart Sustainability Index?“

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

An Activist Strategy to Bank On?

Jan 5

Posted by Richard in Activism, Strategy | No Comments

As I mentioned in my last post of last year, “The Warm and Fuzzy Side of the Anti-Corporate Movement,” I would be back on Telofski.com after the first of the year. And here I am. You are now reading the “2010 Season Premier.”

Happy New Year.

Around the time of my “2009 Season Finale,” I caught an article on FoxNews.com about a company called CREDO. The article, titled “Wireless Company Mixes Liberal Politics with Business,” intrigued me. Author Stephen Clark writes about this wireless phone company who positions itself as “an agent of social change.” Stephen says that “It (CREDO) pitches its mobile phone services with a vow to fight for ‘real’ health care reform, free speech, peace and the environment.”

piggy bank 2Continuing from the article, CREDO has reported that it has raised $63 million for liberal causes such as Doctors Without Borders, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, and Earthjustice. That’s a lot of money to be finding its way to various advocacy groups, some of which aren’t very business-friendly.

In the article, the main theme is whether or not this type of business strategy is sustainable (no pun intended). Within the article are quoted marketing experts with some saying “yes” while others say “no.” The naysayers make their case by stating the obvious strategic view that running a company based on a political agenda will alienate too many potential customers. Additionally, the naysayers cite that a wireless company the size of CREDO, regardless of their positioning strategy, will have a difficult time up against such corporate giants as AT&T or Verizon. While, on the other side, the proponents say that given the level of political rancor and political polarization presently in the country, a “highly partisan” approach could be successful.

The naysayers seem to intimate that CREDO is crazy, in a marketing sense. And yes, I must say that I agree. I think that CREDO might be crazy, but crazy like a fox (again, no pun intended). I’d have to see some marketing research data on this question in order to be sure, but my WAG* on this would be that there is a large enough market segment out there for CREDO to attract, a segment consisting of the political partisanship to which CREDO orients, so that such a marketing strategy may have legs. My WAG is based on my estimate that there are probably at least tens of millions of far-left, or at least left-leaning, adults in the United States, all of which might prefer to send their monthly wireless dollars to a company which will use them to further a political agenda, rather than enrich stockholders.

If you read this blog regularly, you will know that my professional opinion is the opposite; I think companies should enrich stockholders and not causes. But this orientation is not the sort that motivates CREDO, nor the people in the market segment that they target. And it is their motivation, not mine, that is critical within this discussion.

Within the United States, with its current leaning to things liberal, a marketing strategy like that of CREDO might actually work, or work at least well enough so that they can survive while they support various causes. One condition for success in this model is that the company would most certainly need to be privately-held, but I see no indication that CREDO is publicly-held.

Another condition for success is that a strategic operation of this sort would need to leverage social media. CREDO seems to be doing that. With about 38,000 fans on their Facebook page they’ve made a good start. Although, their Twitter following is around 3500 (about the same as mine, as of the date of this post), with a little effort they could increase that number and use the additional audience to advantage.

No. I have to disagree with the marketing naysayers. This one might have legs. This strategy may contribute to filling the bank accounts of many activist organizations. Conditions in macro-environment, like the aforementioned political situation, line up in their favor. And if this strategy does take off, then it will literally be an example of using a business against the interests of business.

* Note: WAG is defined as a “wild-assed guess.”

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

The Warm and Fuzzy Side of the Anti-Corporate Movement

Dec 23

Posted by Richard in Humor, Strategy | 1 Comment

ball of yarn 51When you think of the anti-corporate movement usually images of protest and boycott come to mind, with all the rancor, derision, and conflict that come with such things. Think the word “anti-corporate” and our conditioning often leads us into the realm of serious, heavy, and sometimes troubling thoughts.

Well, not today.

Today, think cute. Think warm and fuzzy, literally as well as figuratively. Think yarn.

I recently noticed an article entitled “The Anti-Corporate Gift Guide” on the blog Million Dollar Swim. “Anti-Corporate Gift Guide?” That’s a really cute and humorous approach to such a heavy concept. During the holiday season, how could I not read this one? I couldn’t. So I did.

This article uses as its theme for anti-corporatism the idea of making gifts to give or the idea of buying handmade articles. This post was written by a woman named Amelia, living in Montreal, and operating a “little yarn shop.” Amelia tells us that business was good two weekends ago and that she had many customers rushing into the shop for gift-making materials. I’m glad her shop was busy. I like to see any business do well.

She tells us that to “hold out against consumerism” she will be knitting all the gifts that she is giving this season. (Presumably using materials from her own shop.)

Moving on within this theme of anti-consumerism, Amelia then tells us that if she was to buy gifts this season rather than make them herself, she mentions and pictures about a half-dozen handmade gifts, made by other handcrafters, that she would purchase. You may go to her article here to see those pictures and read those descriptions if so inclined.

I suppose with regard to Amelia’s would-be purchase of handmade gifts in lieu of those found at any traditional store, or her preference to make gifts rather than submit to “consumerism,” and with regard to her customers who will be using her yarn as handmade “gift raw materials,” there will be some lost value-added to the economy, value-added that the Canadian government could have taxed. (Something they really like to do up there in the Great White North.) But, I don’t suppose that relatively infinitesimal amount of lost value-added will show up as any negative numbers in any economic report. Unless, of course, this trend continues. But it would seem, at least to my tastes, that such a trend isn’t likely to catch fire anytime soon.

Each to his own, as they say. I suppose some folks like this sort of product, but I’ll just say that gifts of this type aren’t my cup of tea. Perhaps others find them attractive, but I would bet that that segment of the market isn’t very large.

And if that segment is actually very small, then big business doesn’t have much to worry about from this kind of anti-corporate movement strategy. Yet, I must say that I find this approach to anti-corporatism refreshing, maybe even tongue-in-cheek, and certainly one possessing much more character than the approaches used by pugnacious demonstrators.

Anyway, I wish Amelia the best with her yarn store and hope that her friends and family enjoy their gifts.

I’ll be back here on Telofski.com after the first of the year. In the meantime . . .

Happy Holidays.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

The Bully Pulpit of Activism

Dec 21

Posted by Richard in Activism, Anti-Corporatism, Strategy | No Comments

woman-covering-eyes-with-hands-uid-1284669By now the controversy of Climate Gate (climategate) is well-publicized and even starting to simmer down somewhat. Simmer down in the media that is, but perhaps not in the hearts and minds of those deep in the fray and on either side of the issue. Perhaps at this point, the global warming activists are licking their wounds and contemplating a strategic change and a new approach to framing their campaign. And if they aren’t, they should be. Here’s why.

Back on December 1 (09) there was an interesting article by Debra J. Saunders as posted on the San Francisco Chronicle site (SFGate.com). The article titled “When Scientists Behave Like Bullies” reviewed some of the known faux pas of the Climate Gate gaff – the deep six-ing of the contrary data, the threats of boycotts against scientific journals who printed articles countering the global warming theory, and the alleged threatened punch-out of anti-global warming skeptics. (Somehow I just can’t envision scientists getting into a rumble. Can you?) Overall, from her article Debra made a point that:

Polls show that Americans are cooling on the notion of man-made global warming. I must credit the bully mentality of activists, whose claims often defy common sense – and at times simple decency.

Never mind the great opening pun of that paragraph, she makes an excellent point which is . . .

Nobody likes a bully.

Even before Climate Gate we could see that the global warming movement was suppressing honest discourse on points of view contrary to their own. As activists for a cause, the global warming movement has certainly not been alone in using this strategy. Other activist organizations use bullying as well. But when bullying is recognized by the audience the activist wishes to win, counterproductive results may occur. Audiences are more keen observers than many activists realize. Bully-spotting is easy.

In my new and latest book, Insidious Competition - The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image, I discuss some strategies that are undertaken by some activists groups and talk about why those strategies, and their supporting tactics, are effective. Insidious Competition is due out in Spring 2010, so I don’t want to “reveal the ending.” But I can say now that bullying is not one of the strategies that I discuss in the book. And anticipating the publishing of my new, and fourth book, and to give you a clue as to what those wound-licking global warming activists should now be considering for a new strategic direction, I will say that as a model the wound lickers should look to the Mommy Bloggers.

Certainly not an activist organization per se, Mommy Bloggers still have many of the characteristics of true activist groups. They do many things to create effective messages and to get their points across, but one of the things they do not do is wield the bully pulpit. What strategic position do they take which makes them an effective proponent for almost any issue?

More on this idea as we get closer to publication date. Spring 2010 will be arriving soon.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Activist or Corporation. Who’s the Hero?

Dec 4

Posted by Richard in Activism, Anti-Corporatism, NGOs, Strategy | No Comments

People who keep all of these things moving are the real heroes.

People who keep all of these things moving are the real heroes.

Archetypes. Webster’s defines them as a “recurrent symbol in literature, art, or mythology.” With reference to psychology Webster’s continues by saying that, in regard to Jungian psychology, archetypes are “a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors,” images which are “supposed to be present in the collective unconscious.”

Ah, the collective unconscious. That’s the key to what makes us as a society tick.

Everything that happens depends on what makes us tick inside. And those who understand what makes us tick inside, get to control the flow of how things go. But what primitive images, exactly, are they that make us tick and contribute to the control of flow.

I’ve been reading about these archetypical images in a book by Paul Laudicina entitled World Out of Balance, Navigating Global Risks to Seize Competitive Advantage. On page 91 of this book, Paul names some of the archetypes:

Hero – implying the spirit of survival.
Outlaw – implying the spirit of rebellion.
Explorer – conveying the idea of the joy of discovery and freedom.

All positive qualities these are. Certainly, spirits with which most of us would want to be associated. Corporations and advertisers recognized these spirits and their power to influence decades ago. In his book, Paul gives several examples of corporate advertising campaigns which have employed, with great success, these and other archetypes. No wonder we sometimes find the appeals of those “Mad Men” so irresistible. They reach into our souls.

And the reaching into souls, i.e., the employment of the archetype, has not been lost on other types of organizations, some of whom operate at cross-purposes to those who have perfected its usage.

Over the past ten years, since The Battle in Seattle, anti-corporate activists have learned to leverage and co-opt well those principles of the archetype which their opponents had been using, with success, for some decades prior.

In promoting their environmental or labor or economic agendas, activists and their NGO cousins first assumed the role of Outlaw, attracting attention through the leveraging of the spirit of rebellion. They stood out from the rest of society and carved themselves a position outside the normal circle. A position envious to some who occupied the circle of the 9 to 5 grind.

But then, before they went too far outside the normal circle, the NGOs and activists pulled themselves back into the normal social circle by adopting another role, the role of Explorer. They told us they had been outside the circle because they were on a mission of discovery for all of us, and that they were not in it just for themselves. Not withstanding the validity of any of their scientific or economic analyses, NGOs and activist organizations by promoting their agendas with “supporting facts” ventured into issues in the “common interest,” making discoveries “affecting everyone” and trumpeting their own freedom to advocate for all.

When they had successfully communicated this message, in doing these things they then almost automatically had the role of Hero cast upon them by the “common interest.” The NGOs and activists were then seen as waging a selfless, non-profit battle moving toward survival for us all, against the “faceless,” “un-Herolike” for-profit corporation who uses archetypes primarily to portray only their products and services, presumably only for profit. The corporations made the mistake of attaching the archetypes to their products and services, to their profits, rather than to themselves and to what they actually do for society, for the actual common interest.

In such a battle for the archetype, who is likely to win? The Hero. The Outlaw. The Explorer. You think the NGO and activist. But yet, we and the corporation miss the point because the corporation is all of these.

Corporations make a lot of boneheaded mistakes, and since they are not perfect I am not blindly advocating them. (NGOs and activists aren’t left out of the boneheaded mistakes category, either.) Yet, who supplies the jobs so that we may feed our children? (Hero.) Who comes up with new products and services that solve our daily problems? (Explorer.) Outlaw? Well, maybe not. But two of three isn’t bad, especially the two that contribute so greatly to daily happiness.

But, perhaps just as their opponents used the principles of archetype to turn against them, corporations need to take a page from a playbook they actually wrote and use it to describe themselves, not their products and services, as the heroes and explorers that they actually are.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes