Richard Telofski

on "Irregular Competition"

Archive for category Tactics

Activist Stockholders Gain Strength

Mar 10

Posted by Richard in Activism, Tactics, Threats | No Comments

My fourth and latest book, Insidious Competition – The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image, is scheduled to be published in June 2010. For more information about my new book, please click here to go to the book’s Web site.

Rows of locksIn the book, I discuss nine different types of insidious competitors present in social media. One of those types of competitors is NGOs and Activists, the “irregular” competitors that are the basis of our discussions here at Telofski.com. In fact, it was from the research on Insidious Competition that the concept of irregular competition evolved.

Well, putting aside irregular competition for a moment, I’d just like to mention that one of the insidious competitor types I discuss in my book is Activist Stockholders, cousins of the irregular competitors NGOs and Activists. In reviewing my news feeds recently I discovered the article “Divided SEC Proposes Investor Access Plan” which talks about how Activist Stockholders may be gaining more strength in their struggles against corporate management.

This article is quite interesting and updates an issue which I have been following for a while. The issue pertains directly to the discussion of Activist Stockholders as it appears in the book. Summarizing, the article discusses relaxation of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations for shareholder balloting in annual public corporation elections. You know. The annual “proxy fight.” The proposed rule changes would make it simpler for various stockholder groups to gain access to the corporate board and thereby control certain corporate decisions.

In my new book’s discussion of this type of insidious competitor, I mentioned that there is a pending rule change. I also mentioned that that change may take place as soon as early 2010. From what this article says, it looks like I was right. When this regulation change is combined with the force and power of social media, as I pointed out in the book, the influence of the Activist Stockholder will increase tremendously. And because of this potential shift in power, it should be incumbent on all C-suite executives and corporate communications personnel to learn how to deal with this impending threat to corporate operations.

Insidious Competition – The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image discusses these “how-to’s” in detail.

I’ll keep you updated on the publication of the book.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , ,

Wrap Your Argument in a Principle

Nov 12

Posted by Richard in Activism, Irregular Competition, Rainforest Action Network, Tactics | No Comments

Chevron has been embroiled in an environmental case concerning their operations in the Amazon rainforest. The controversy and legal wrangling has been going on for quite a while. Just Google “chevron amazon lawsuit” and you’ll see what I mean. Today I’m not commenting on that case per se, but what I am commenting upon is a tactical maneuver by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN).

In a recent article from NGO Watch, it was stated that Chevron said they had been relieved of the liability for the environmental problem via a release from the Ecuadorian government. Per the article, RAN rebutted the claim by Chevron saying:

” ‘By focusing energy on evading responsibility instead of cleaning up the mess in Ecuador, Chevron is letting children suffer from some of the world’s most heinous environmental destruction when they could be doing something about it.’ “

Principle wrapping is a tactic for study.

Principle wrapping is a tactic for study.

In the article from NGO Watch, the quote was attributed to Rebecca Tarbotton, Program Director of Rainforest Action Network.

This particular quote caught my attention. It caught my attention because I am currently dealing with the principles of propaganda in researching a new book. In my research, I deal with the principles of propaganda as laid down in the seminal book Propaganda, written by Jacques Ellul.

This 1965 classic deals with the elements of communication and what makes a successful message. One of those elements Jacques discusses is the Fundamental Currents of Society, and within those currents he places the Four Values of Daily Life. One of those four values is youth, or we can interpret that as children. He maintains that bringing into a message any of the four values, and their support thereof, will greatly increase one’s argument and make that message more effective.

So very well-played. Bringing the children into the argument. We see this happen periodically and are somewhat accustomed to it. But do we really realize why it works? Why bringing the children into the argument can contribute to the effectiveness of the message?

Jacques Ellul discusses this in-depth. He says, also within the Fundamental Currents of Society and within what he describes as the Four Sociological Suppositions, that the prime objective of humans is to attain happiness. Seems reasonable, yes? And he supports the notion that without youth there can be no progress in society and that without progress humans cannot obtain the happiness.

So, is the argument really about the principle of the protection of children, or is the argument actually about the principle of the attainment of individual human happiness?

To whichever principle you subscribe, the fact remains . . . wrapping your argument in a principle can be very effective. And the bigger the principle, so much the better.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Activism: Harm to the Body Politic?

Nov 6

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

In their battle against business, one tactic of activists is to challenge the legal parameters within which corporations operate.

In reading about this tactical approach, I came across an article entitled “Paradigm Shift: Challenging Corporate Authority” and written by Paul Cienfuegos. This article appears in a book entitled The Global Activist’s Manual, edited by Mike Prokosch and Laura Raymond. On the first page of the article, author Paul discusses how early Americans, unlike modern Americans, understood that a corporation was an artificial entity, one created by law and people. He states that in 1834 the Pennsylvania legislature declared a corporation as a “creature of the law” and that it should be shaped “for any purpose that the Legislature may deem most conducive to the common good.”

This position encompasses very astute insights by Paul. He makes the distinction between a corporation and a human. The former being manmade, while the latter being a creation of the Almighty. The corporation being manmade should then be responsible to those who created it, which he equates with the people of the state where the corporation was formed. Excellent point.

Paul continues, “People understood that they had a civic responsibility not to create artificial entities that could harm the body politic, interfere with the mechanisms of self-governance, and assault their sovereignty.” Again, all excellent points which I take as Paul saying that the corporation should be responsive to the people who, through their state legislature, created the corporation. Sound reasoning and the basis of a tactic which can be used in the never-ending battle between activists and business corporations.

Activists would adopt this tactic and take it into the legal arena when battling business corporations. The activists’ tactic would be to force the legislatures to make business corporations more responsive to the people, who created the corporation in the first place. Yes, again sound reasoning and brilliant thinking.

But brilliance can cut both ways and payback is always a bitch.

Businesses are not the only organizations that are formed under state corporation law. NGO and activist organizations are also formed under the corporate statutes of a state. Can anyone reasonably, semantically, and validly state that NGO and activist corporations do not “harm the body politic” or “interfere with the mechanisms of self-governance” or assault the sovereignty of the people?

Tactics can be turned around.

Tactics can be turned around.

NGOs and activist corporations benefit from the limited liability protection of state corporation laws. The people of the state have afforded those organizations that privilege. In return the people of a state should expect that their interests should be represented as the “common good.” But no one elects NGOs or activists to act in the peoples’ interest. NGO and activist corporations decide on their own what the “common good” should be. Through the non-democratic processes under which NGO and activist corporations operate, these organizations by definition “harm the body politic,” and “interfere with the mechanisms of self-governance,” and assault the sovereignty of the people.

When pursuing or recommending a tactic, perhaps its best to assess how it can be used against one’s own position.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , ,

Social Media Hub More Effective Than?

May 8

Posted by Richard Telofski in Tactics, Tools | No Comments

I stumbled across an interesting article recently, actually without using Stumble Upon.  The title is “Do You Have a Social Media Hub?” and explores the concept of landing pages, but in reverse.  Shall we call them “take off” pages?  The idea’s simple.

The author of the article, Samir Balwani, suggests that especially for companies not maintaining a blog they use a social media hub.  The hub is a page leading to other social media platforms on which the company has a presence such as Facebook, MySpace, Digg, Delicious, FriendFeed, etc. and ad infinitum.  The idea is solid.

It’s solid because many companies, especially small companies, don’t have the staff resources to maintain the rigors of blogging, nor do the have the monetary resources to contract out the blogging task.  The tactic of a company presence on the sites mentioned above can be less demanding in terms of time requirements and if employed properly may better represent the company in the ongoing conversation within social media.  This idea also promotes the readers’ participation in UGC, content which is not created by the company, but about the company, allowing visitors to experience the real brand as defined by the crowd, and not the company marketing department.

Sounds like a win-win, and maybe more effective than other social media tactics.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Make a Friend

Apr 20

Posted by Richard Telofski in Personal Observations, Tactics | 1 Comment

Part of the goal behind using social media is making friends, not enemies.  It’s easy to make enemies; it’s more difficult to make friends.  Who said that?  I’m sure it was said before me, at least I hope it was.

Last week I became involved in a LinkedIn group conversation that started to go a little hairy, but fortunately didn’t get out of control, as these things sometimes can.  If you’ll read the conversation, which starts here, you’ll see that things got heated relatively quickly.  And you’ll also see that some of the comments made weren’t appreciated by some individuals in the group.  I’d have to say that, at first, I was one of them.

Reading through, you’ll see that I was “snarked” with a comment about a $15 economics textbook.  Now, I could have gone off the deep end over that one, because on the face it appears to be quite a smack.  But I thought twice before “speaking” once.  I imagined that commenter and I in a face-to-face conversation; and I also imagined him making that comment with a smile on his face and a lilt in his voice.  Nuances indicating that the comment was a just a friendly jibe, not meant to insult or demean.

Nuance is lost, or at least misplace, in social media.  Funny huh?  Since part of social media’s intent is about making friends.  Emoticons can’t carry all the weight that nuance has for centuries, nay millennia.  So when we mix it up on the social web, we must be aware of that and choose our words carefully, and read over, at least once, what we’ve just written before pushing the Send button.  When reading it over, if what you’ve written seems like it could be misconstrued in terms of the emotions, then write about the emotion that you wish to convey.  Put it in words instead of leaving it up to the roulette wheel of interpretation.  Say what you mean, yes.  But on the social web we must also say what we imply.

Seems like a lot of effort?  Well, yeah.  It is.  But then making friends isn’t always easy.  Oh, and speaking of making friends?  That commenter that jibed me about the economics book?  Shortly thereafter we spoke on the phone, he initiated the conversation by the way.  And since then I feel like a found a new friend.

Amazing ain’t it?

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tweeting from Church

Apr 17

Posted by Richard Telofski in Strategy, Tactics | No Comments

New and different is partly what defines social media.  Now there’s a church in North Carolina which encourages its congregants to tweet while the service is in progress.  Talk about religion keeping up with the times.  What a novel idea.

In a way, this reminds me of the late 60’s.  During that time of social change, many churches were beginning to incorporate folk music into their services, rather than just rely on the tried and true choral types of music.  Some liked it, others not so much.  But what happened at that time, in those churches, was an increase in attendance.  Why? Because the service was more relevant to its audience.  If communication isn’t relevant, what’s the point?  The use of Twitter in the church services mentioned above is, at least indirectly, credited with increased church attendance.

So, is Twitter the right social media tool to use in a church service.  I don’t know.  But if it’s helping people connect, and spread a mesage that they feel is valuable and doing so in a relevant way, with an increase in church attendance, then why not go for it?  As Father Mulcahy said in a M*A*S*H episode that I saw recently, “There’s more than one way to skin a spirit.”

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

CNBC Asks for Followers, but Doesn’t Follow in Return

Apr 7

Posted by Richard Telofski in Tactics | No Comments

Last Friday at lunch, I was watching CNBC.  During the Noon hour the show’s title is “Power Lunch.”  Several times during the show, they hawked their Twitter presence and asked the audience to logon and follow.  Well, I logged on, but I didn’t follow.  Why?

At that particular time, the Power Lunch Twitter page had around 1500 followers, but Power Lunch was following only 7.  Seven.  That’s it.  And a ratio of over 200 to 1 does not a conversation make.  Certainly doesn’t, especially when you consider the nature of their tweets.

Their tweets don’t engage.  They shout.  Many of the tweets I saw were just simple announcements of who was speaking on the show at the time and what guest was about to appear.  Who cares?  You can get that info by just watching the show.

If social media is about engagement, and they wouldn’t call it social media if it wasn’t about engagement, then Power Lunch needs to be more engaging, and less shouting.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes