Earlier today I wrote about the punking of Chevron’s new “We Agree” promo campaign. For background on this campaign and how it was punked by activists, you may read that article “Could the Yes Men Get Punked in Return?” by clicking here.
In that article I noted that Chevron announced their “We Agree” campaign on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010. There is further information concerning the timing of the announcement and how it was made.
A New York Times article states that Chevron made the announcement, in the form of emails sent to reporters, after an article about the promo campaign was published in The Wall Street Journal on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010. Chevron also announced the new promo campaign via a corporate press release on their Web site on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2010.
The New York Times article also states, however, that several hours prior to those Chevron emails being sent out, emails resembling Chevron emails were sent out, referencing a Web address different from what was mentioned in the actual Chevron emails. These first emails turned out to be spoofs. That other Web address referenced in the spoof emails was a Web site that the Yes Men used in their spoofing campaign, Chevron-WeAgree.com.
If the information in the Times article is correct, (and it appears that the Times article is not a spoof itself) it would seem that someone on the activist side of this affair had foreknowledge of the announcement of the “We Agree” campaign.
Indeed, that possibility can be supported via an independent check of the domain registration for Chevron-WeAgree.com.
Go to Who.is and check the registration for Chevron-WeAgree.com. You won’t learn who registered that domain. But you will find out WHEN it was registered. The registration record for Chevron-WeAgree.com, according to Who.is, states that the domain was created on October 16, 2010. That’s two days before Chevron announced the “We Agree” campaign publicly.
This information raises at least two questions.
Was there a leak in the “We Agree” campaign? If so, where did it occur?
You have the information as shown above. You may draw your own conclusions.
UPDATE: October 19, 2010 – 7:45PM ET, In a post on their site (which does not appear to be a spoof), Rainforest Action Network (RAN) admits playing a role in this Yes Man protest campaign. RAN also admits sending out information prior to the Chevron emails “. . . we had the element of surprise . . . before Chevron’s press release announcing its ‘We Agree’ campaign could hit reporters’ inboxes, we sent out a press release of our own on their behalf.” RAN also admits to creating the Chervron-WeAgree.com Web site along with the first fake press release by saying in that same post “before we sent out our press release, we put together a spoof website and a fake press page.”
To do all of this along the
Continue reading Was There a Leak in the "We Agree" Campaign?
A few weeks ago, Josh Gerstein wrote on Politico.com about how some activists are upset with Facebook because the king of social networks is enforcing its usage policies. The activists are specifically upset because enforcement of its own policies enables Facebook to prevent its social network from becoming the “semantically terrified” playground of any activist with an agenda. (And wouldn’t that be pretty much any activist?)
In the article titled “Activists Upset with Facebook,” Gerstein pointed out how some people, activists among them, believe that the Facebook usage policies (i.e., terms of service) are somewhat confusing and at times variable. The confusion and variability, they say, makes it difficult for some people to use the network for their own purposes. (Read that as activists who want to leverage the Facebook audience.)
Mr. Gerstein made his point in that regard. But I think the point that Facebook is making is a very clear point. That Facebook point is that they want people to present information and express their opinions, but Facebook is not going to allow their corporate property to be hijacked for every war of words and semantical battle under the sun. Perhaps they fear that allowing such usage of their network would simply “junk up” the environment with so much polemical trash that the average user would be “turned off” and cease visiting the site.
Whatever the Facebook motivation behind the control of runaway “activism” on the site, my compliments go out to them 1) for protecting and controlling their property (Facebook built the environment, not the activists) and not succumbing to activist rhetoric (against terms of service enforcement) as do so many other companies and, 2) for trying to prevent a chaotic environment filled with one mindless activist message after the other.
Kudos.
In the digital world, most everyone keeps their eye out for what will be the “next big thing.” Usually it’s a technology, either hardware or software. Lately Google’s been hitting it hard and heavy on the forecasted next big thing stage, Google Wave and Droid.
But I’ve been thinking lately that the next big thing in the online world might be a movement, rather than a technology. And that movement I have in mind is “slacktivism.”
What’s slacktivism? The word itself is a portmanteau of “slacker” and “activism.” Thus, the meaning becomes clear. For further edification, let’s take a definition from the UrbanDictionary.com. They define slacktivism as:
One of those feel-good internet campaigns that doesn’t actually help anybody or has political impact. It’s your way of pretending to care while sitting on your butt in front of a computer playing WoW. Also used for people who want to get a million people on their page by before bettering themselves (sic) or the world instead of just doing it.
Other than the grammar or typo error there in the last sentence, the UrbanDictionary.com is clearly saying that slacktivism is something like what we could call “armchair activism.” It’s being an “activist” without actually being one, although you could still wear the black tee shirt and/or beret while sitting at your computer.
Slacktivism is a way for people to make themselves feel like they are advocating for a social cause, while actually committing little or no time or money to the effort. It’s, for the most part, a feel-good activity. Not only does slacktivism make individuals feel good about themselves when they sign up to be a friend, fan, or follower on the page of a cause’s website or social network or Twitter page, but the act of slacktivism impresses others with the individual’s “social awareness.” That impression, of which the individual is aware, further adds to the individual’s ego gratification.
I don’t think we need any social psychology references to support these assertions. It’s all pretty much backed by common sense acquired from our years of experience with the human condition. So, given the ease of slacktivism as measured against its psychological benefits, it would follow that many people would sign-up online for an activist’s cause, and not really add much to the activist effort in the process. To test my theory, let’s have an example.
On Tuesday, January 19, 2010 which is the day on which I wrote this post (Yes, I know it’s dated January 28th, but thanks to the magic of the Word Press scheduling function such miracles are possible.), I went to the Greenpeace.org/usa site and clicked on the link to their Facebook fan page. When I went to their Facebook fan page, I noticed that, on that date, Greenpeace USA had 41,728 fans. I wanted to see how “active” these individuals might be, so to test my slacktivism theory, I scrolled down to the Greenpeace USA “Causes” box and clicked on “See Greenpeace USA’s Total Impact.”
For
Continue reading Could Slacktivism Be the Next Big Thing?
Today I came across an interesting idea in World Out of Balance by Paul Laudicina. Yes, I’ve mentioned this book before. It’s been a while since last mentioned and that’s because I’m reading it slowly. This one I read while I Nordic Track in the morning, so I might do only about ten pages at a time, and some days I listen to the radio while working out. So progress in this book is slower than normal. But my reading strategy on this book is not because it is not interesting. Quite the contrary. Here’s one intriguing thought that came from my reading of this book.
From pages 148 to 149 Paul presents an interesting concept: that there will be an increase in activism because of the Baby Boom. He doesn’t say it in quite this way, but he does say that because of the aging of the U.S. population that there will be a decrease in the number of employees working for the American government. Paul hypothesizes, from the perspective of the publication year of 2005, that these retiring employees would likely not be replaced at a rate that would equal the attrition. The reason he gives is that government employment is not as attractive as that in the private sector, and that because of this handicap the attrition rate may exceed the replacement rate.
Of course, that viewpoint was from 2005, before the stuff hit the fan in Fall 2008. Currently, with government being one of the few employment sectors that is expanding its hiring, Paul’s theory may not be entirely sound. Yet, analyzing from a current perspective, there are valid take-aways that may be had from this line of reasoning. Paul’s theory relates to the quantity of government workers, but he says little to nothing about the quality. Having worked for the federal government at one time, I could say something about the quality of federal workers. But that’s material for a different post. For now, let’s extend Paul’s thinking into present circumstances.
Because the aging U.S. population will cause more and more employees to retire from the ranks of federal employment, there will be progressively fewer experienced workers to carry out the regulatory mandates set down by the feds. Right now, because of government’s mania to hire more workers, the issue isn’t so much about the quantity as it is about the quality, i.e., the experience factor.
So, my point is that due to the Baby Boom the quality of federal regulatory enforcement may likely decrease because less experienced employees would need to takeover for those with decades of experience in regulatory matters. And if there are fewer experienced regulators, then businesses might be less likely to adhere to federal regulations than if the feds were fully staffed with experienced regulators.
How does this problem create more activism? Well, when activists see this situation, and believe me they won’t miss this, there would likely be an increase in their efforts. Activists and NGOs would increase their efforts to
Continue reading Will the Baby Boom Create More Activism?
By 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
Continue reading The Bully Pulpit of Activism
An opinion article about childhood obesity and activism recently appeared in the The Daily Camera, the daily newspaper for Boulder, Colorado.
The article was written by J. Justin Wilson, who is the Senior Research Analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom, (CCF) a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices. Hmmm . . . could this organization be considered an activist organization themselves? Well, certainly if they are representing the interests of a particular business sector. Although, what I like in that description of the CCF is the promotion of “personal responsibility” as their stated primary goal. More of that sort of “PR” would do us all well.
In the article Justin refers to selected activist initiatives aimed at getting some state legislators to tax certain sugary foods, soft drinks in particular. Many of the usual arguments are made in Justin’s article. Such as this one, which for me personally is a bit hard to swallow. (pun intended) He cites no scientific link between soft drinks and childhood obesity. From his article:
There is no scientific consensus that sugary drinks are a unique cause of obesity. A scientific review published last year in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition evaluated the evidence of 12 major studies and found virtually no association between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and children`s weight. And an October study found no association between soda consumption and youth weight gain over a 5-year period.
I suppose the key term in that quote is “unique cause.” And you can argue from here to Sunday about whether or not there is a scientific cause underlying this particular issue. Perhaps the children studied don’t drink soda, although that idea seems almost as far-fetched as the idea that there is no association between sugar-sweetened soda and weight gain. (If that indeed is true, I going to drink myself silly with Coca-Cola.)
But that’s where I think Justin went wrong in his argument. He chose the scientific path as the main basis to support his argument. Science doesn’t always a good argument make, and I believe that is especially so when one is representing an activist group, er uh . . . excuse me, a non-profit coalition of businesses that supports personal responsibility. I feel that Justin’s argument would have been better made by hammering home as the central thrust of his article the principle of personal responsibility, because after all that’s the declared objective of his organization. Although in the article he did turn briefly to the idea of personal responsibility, his discussion of this form of “PR” was too late in the article and the point was not made nearly powerfully enough. I think he missed his chance here.
Well, hold on, now. Perhaps he didn’t make personal responsibility the central theme of the article because that is something kids have very little of. No kid is going to eschew soda for milk if
Continue reading Activism or Just Keeping Your Mouth Shut?
|
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. |
|
