In their campaigns, many NGOs and activist groups target both government and corporations. Given the budget woes at the federal as well as state levels, which are likely to continue for quite some time, it’s likely that the campaigners will find it more difficult than usual to gain the attention of government officials. Hopefully those officials will be focused on finding a way out of these fiscal messes.
That means that the campaigners will likely shift the energy normally reserved for government officials to campaigns focused on corporations.
Let’s see how this plays out.
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 a result of Greenpeace India’s “Turtle vs. Tata” video game, it now looks like Greenpeace is going to have more than one lawsuit on its hands. The first lawsuit I discussed in my recent posts “Tatas Push Back” and “More Thoughts About Tatas,” where I wrote about how Greenpeace India has been sued in an Indian court over charges of trademark infringement and libel.
Briefly, Greenpeace India created a video game satirizing the owners of Tata Industries, which is involved in the construction of a deep-water port in India. The port construction, Greenpeace contends, is too close to a turtle nesting area, so the video game was created to put political pressure on Tata. Tata, which is reported to have all necessary government permits for the construction project, was not amused by the video game and decided to file suit against the NGO. For more details on the case, please review the two articles linked above.
Now there might be a second lawsuit.
In a DNA India article from yesterday, it was reported that the producers of India’s highest grossing film, Sholay, will take legal action against Greenpeace India over its “Turtle vs. Tata” video game. Apparently, the video game, in its depiction of the Tatas, also contained suggestions of or allusions to the characters depicted in Sholay. The producers’ complaints will be gross trademark violation and a wrongful use of the characters from the film. From DNA India:
Greenpeace’s animation is a violation of trademark copyright and underlying rights. They have . . . associated Sholay and all its characters in negative light. We, the owners of the characters, do not support Greenpeace’s views.
It is very irresponsible for an NGO to violate intellectual property rights of India’s most famous film and tarnish the image of our legendary characters.
- Sascha Sippy, chairman, Sholay Media and Entertainment
As I said in my earlier articles, it will be interesting to see how this plays out because the nature of this case differs significantly from similar legal challenges to activists in other nations.
Stay “tuned” to Telofski.com.
Last Thursday I wrote about the case of Tata Industries suing Greenpeace for defamation. As I said toward the end of that article, it will be interesting to see how this case, brought by the Tatas, plays out because it is being adjudicated in a developing country. In this respect, this case differs from previous cases of its type, the 1990s Mc Libel trial in Britain, in particular. Since writing that post, I’ve had further thoughts about how this suit may differ from others of its genre. Foremost among these thoughts is that the key difference between this suit and other corporation vs. activist suits is that with this suit the claims of the defendant (Greenpeace) are limited and specific whereas in other cases the defendants’ claims were more general and widely arrayed. And that difference may spell defeat for Greenpeace. Let me explain.
As you know from reading my previous article, “Tatas Push Back,” the Tatas have filed a suit against Greenpeace in Delhi High Court. Per DNA India, the suit was filed in response to an online video game promoted by Greenpeace. The online video game is called “Turtle vs. Tata” and was designed as part of the NGO’s protest against Tata’s participation in the construction of a deep water port in India; a port which is reported to be located about 15 kilometers from the nesting area of an endangered sea turtle species. Thus comes the involvement from Greenpeace. The suit claims that the video game infringes on the company’s trademark. The suit also claims that the game maligns the reputation of the company through its alleged representation of the Tata company chairman as a villain. And the suit states that, regarding the sea turtle and the construction in the vicinity of the turtles’ nesting area, the company has obtained the proper construction clearances from the government. This case is very focused, unlike the Mc Libel trial which many corporations may be keeping in mind as they contemplate suits against activists.
In case you’re not conversant with the names of some of the lesser known international conglomerates, TATA is one of the largest companies on the planet. The Tatas to which I refer in the title of this post are the members of the family who run the conglomerate, not a reference to an American bodacious colloquialism of anatomy.
Based in India, the conglomerate has operations in several industries including automotive and energy. Currently, the company’s steel division is engaged in the construction of a deep water port on the coast of India. According to DNA India, the port is said to be located less than 15 kilometers from the nesting area of the endangered Olive Ridley sea turtle. Now, from within the theme of what we discuss here on Telofski.com, that is to say irregular competition, you know what’s coming next. Yes. Enter Greenpeace.
Per the DNA India article, as part of Greenpeace India’s protest against the Tata construction activities, for which Tata says it has the necessary governmental clearances but which Greenpeace claims imperils an endangered species, Greenpeace India has promoted an online video game entitled “Turtle vs. Tata.” According to the article, in the video game, which apparently is similar to Pac-Man in its nature:
. . . the player is a turtle that has to eat as much healthy food as it can while avoiding the ‘Tata demons’ that threaten its home.
In response to this game, and Greenpeace’s promotion thereof, Tata has filed a trademark infringement and defamation lawsuit against Greenpeace. DNA India says that the Tata lawsuit, filed in Delhi High Court, claims:
The aim of the colorful and noisy video game is to help the yellow turtles eat as many little white dots as possible without running into Ratty (presumably after Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group), Matty, Natty or Tinku… The NGO has not only infringed the trade mark rights of the TATA but is also maligning the reputation of the company, thereby injuring the same in their profession.
Greenpeace has been using these sorts of anti-corporate protest tactics for many years. In fact, that NGO is quite well-known for this type of approach to anti-corporate protest. So, to see a legal challenge pop up after all these years is quite interesting, and especially so since it will take place in the courts of a developing nation. When I think of this case, and how it might play out, I am reminded of the 1990s “Mc Libel” trial where Mc Donald’s in the U.K. sued two British activists for defamation. After a long court case, and a whole lot of publicity, Mc Donald’s ultimately won the case in court, but, as many have argued, probably lost in the court of public opinion. The monetary damages charged to the losing defendants were relatively miniscule given the value of the plaintiff’s corporate reputation, and in fact were reduced upon appeal to a higher court. In both business and activist
Continue reading Tatas Push Back
The ways to transition from slacktivism to digital activism have been debated in the social web for a while now. Recently, there was another entry in the on-going debate.
In an Ad Age Digital article, “How to Get the Social-Media Generation Behind Your Cause,” Ann Marie Kerwin writes about a TBWA Chiat Day study, “Social Activism 2.0,” that recommends various ways marketers can get young adults to break the divide between slacktivism (e.g., merely hitting a “like” button on a Facebook “Cause” page) and activism (e.g., first-person involvement in corporate cause-marketing efforts via donations of money or volunteered time). To attempt to bridge this gap, summarizing, the article says the study recommends:
Make the cause “fun” for young participants.
Make participating in the cause “social.”
Make prospective participants believe that they will “make a difference” by participating.
Make it “easy” to participate.
These are certainly good words of advice for getting anyone to do anything that you want them to do, and as such really aren’t much of a revelation. Yet, if corporations take the advice to heart, they may indeed succeed in helping young adults break that barrier between slacktivism and activism. But, I don’t want to let this idea go stale. In that article there is some other information that is a bit more enlightening, and can provide a different insight.
Per the study, 75% of young adults (ages 20-29) think that corporations have the resources to assist social causes, while 60% believe that corporations have the knowledge to support such efforts. Hmmm. This sounds like a market segment that can be primed and ignited for activism, especially digital activism, involving corporations. For sure, those corporations would want that behavior directed at cause-marketing programs of their own selection and creation. But once you light the fire of activism, controlling it can be difficult. The United States discovered how this “wildfire” phenomenon can turn around after it supported the Afghani Mujahideen in their 1980s battle against the Soviet Union. The Mujahideen later turned around to fight against the nation who helped make that victory against the Reds possible.
The phrase “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind. Corporations should understand that, if they help break that slacktivism/activism wall in support of cause-marketing, the energy penetrating that wall can be easily converted into anti-corporate activism, (i.e., irregular competition) especially given that 75% of the demographic segment targeted believes that corporations have the resources to assist in social causes.
Perhaps a “burnt butt” is better saved by not lighting the fire?
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
