Posts Tagged activists

A Journey in Anti-Corporate Thought

For those interested in learning about the anti-corporate movement, I recommend a book that I recently completed. The Rise of the Anti-Corporate Movement by Evan Osborne is a first-rate work.

Student studying behind bluSubtitled Corporations and the People Who Hate Them, in this book Evan does good work in laying out the history of the corporation, taking us back about four millennia to the origin of what evolved into today’s modern corporation. He then moves us forward in time, tracing the development of the corporation from ancient Assyria, up through 18th century Britain, and then to its current form both worldwide and in the United States. At each stop in this journey through corporate time, Evan stops to impress upon the reader the details of corporate myth created at each stage, emphasizing how those myths trickled down into today’s collective social conscience, but debunking the myth before continuing the journey.

During the early parts of the journey, he deftly points out that previous forms of the corporation had, by virtue of their legal foundation in significantly less democratic societies, much more power than the corporate form takes in today’s America, decrying the claims by anti-corporate activists that modern corporations are omnipotent and all-powerful. He punctuates this illustrative journey of countering the claims of the anti-corporate movement (ACM) with profound insights, based on common sense and everyday observations. One such insight undermines general ACM claims of runaway corporate power by observing the corporate disdain for the corporate income tax and stating that if corporations were truly as all-powerful as the ACM makes them out to be, then indeed there would be no income tax.

About a third of the way through the book, Evan, an economist at Wright State University, takes on the economic assertion often put forth by the ACM, that society is actually poorer because of the existence of the corporation. Over many pages, he does an excellent job explaining how this claim is invalid. His counter-argument is clear, cogent, and convincing. I’ve read other books making this same argument (For example, The Role of Business in the Modern World, by David Henderson.), but they were not nearly as on-point or as substantially sourced as is The Rise.

This is definitely a book that should be read by all engaged in business issues involving activists and NGOs.

It’s also a book that could benefit members of the general public, to help dispel some of those corporate myths generated over the past few hundred years. I have no illusions that members of the general public will read this book any time soon. But, the loss is theirs because of the great insights they would miss. I’ll close with one of those insights.

Near the end of the book, when Evan invokes the late economist Milton Friedman who stated that the corporation owes no more “social responsibility” than any other member of society, Evan states that it is just as improper for the anti-corporate campaigner to use the law to force a corporation to pursue the campaigner’s objectives as it is for a corporation to use the law to force the anti-corporate campaigner to pursue the corporation’s objectives. We see many examples of the former and, I’d dare say, none of the latter.

Of course, all the issues found within this book could be debated incessantly in philosophy and business ethics classes. But that’s part of what makes this book so interesting, the intellectual challenges found within.

Thanks, Evan for a great book.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

Could Slacktivism Be the Next Big Thing?

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.

Black laptop computerSlacktivism 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, 2009 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 those unfamiliar with Facebook fan pages and causes, following is a brief explanation. Any organization, or company for that matter, may sign-up on Facebook for a “fan page.” On the fan page, the organization can gather fans and communicate, interactively, with them through text and pictures. The organization, and individuals can do this on Facebook also, may then sign-up for “Causes” pages, which are pages featuring a particular charitable organization’s agenda. On the Cause page, the organization can then accumulate “members,” who can be different and/or the same people as on the fan page, and solicit donations for the featured cause.

When I clicked through on Greenpeace USA’s “Total Impact” link, I was taken to their page which summarizes the four Greenpeace causes they feature via Facebook: Climate Rescue, Greenpeace Organizing Term, Kleercut, and STOP the Whale Hunt. Clicking through on each cause listed revealed the following activity and support:

  • Climate Rescue – 473 members for this cause with $0 contributed.
  • Greenpeace Organizing Term – 574 members with $25 contributed.
  • Kleercut – 1,202 members with $40 contributed.
  • STOP the Whale Hunt – 153,941 members with $23,756 contributed.

Until I got to the Whale Hunt cause, I thought slacktivism was going to make the Greenpeace/Facebook contributions endeavor a total bust. The Whale Hunt cause showed 153,941 members with almost $24,000 in donations. But that means that on average each Whale Hunt member contributed only about 15 cents.

Perhaps after signing up for the Whale Hunt cause, most of those 153,941 members, feeling good about themselves, went back to playing World of Warcraft (WoW).

Slacktivism? Is it the next big thing?

At least judging by this test case, yes, I think my theory holds.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

An Activist Strategy to Bank On?

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: , , ,

Who Says Doing the Right Thing is “Right?”

Archetypes are ephemeral.

A couple days ago I finished a really great book, Contention and Corporate Social Responsibility by Sarah A. Soule. Although, I purchased this book while wanting to obtain more information about the structure of anti-corporate activism, I bought this book because I also wanted to get additional information on corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, which are often a knee-jerk response to anti-corporate activist initiatives. Believing that this book was oriented more toward my CSR hunt, and not toward the anti-corporate activism anatomy search, I thought, “Well, I’ll buy this one now while I continue to hunt down more works on the anatomy of anti-corporate activism.”

After receiving this book and jumping into the first chapter or two, I was pleasantly surprised. This book concerns itself more with the structure and process of anti-corporate activism than it does with the response of CSR. To this point, here is an excerpt from a review I wrote about this book. (The full review appears on both Amazon.com and on my Reading List page in my LinkedIn.com profile.)

Although I would have chosen a different title, Sarah Soule turns in a great book here. In this work, Sarah contributes one of the first academic examinations on the structure of anti-corporate activism and its effects on corporate behaviors . . . Sarah examines activist initiatives in two time periods: 1960 to 1990 and then from 1990 to present day (2009). Her findings characterize activism, as it affects the corporation, into two different groupings each with historical context, creating a typology by which corporate analysts can categorize activist efforts and devise mechanisms for coping. This typology can be invaluable to corporate analysts attempting to devise various strategies in response to various anti-corporate activist initiatives.

So, in the end, I received that which I sought, but in an indirect manner due to the abstractness of the book’s title.

Generally, I liked everything I found in the book such as her approach and her argumentation process, but on page 154 I found a comment with which I must take umbrage.

In the section entitled “The Impact of Anticorporate Activism on Corporations,” Sarah talks about the key theme of her book being that anti-corporate movements do matter to corporations. As evidence of this assertion, she points to an earlier discussion in the book citing research into the effects of protest on company stock price, as well as other examples of activist influence on corporations as discussed in the book. Of this influence she says,

“This is good news for activists, of course. But it is also good news for corporations who can find that doing the right thing can actually make good business sense.”

Here comes the umbrage.

The right thing? Who says it’s the right thing? This is an attitude that I have found in much anti-corporatist literature, one which automatically assumes that any activist action against a corporation is “right.” Right is not always right. To quote Bill Clinton, it would depends on “what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

“Right,” in this sense, is a subjective term, left widely open to interpretation. So, let’s go ahead and interpret it.

I have to criticize Sarah here. Throughout the book, I found that she was very objective and didn’t appear to lean to one side of the anti-corporate activist argument or the other. That is, until that phrase “doing the right thing” appeared on page 154. Perhaps a more objective way for her to say the same thing would have been “But it is also good news for corporations who can find that doing what the activists suggest can actually make good business sense.” Such sentence would have expressed the same thought while preserving her objectivity.

In many cases, yes, a “corporate social responsibility” response to an activist demand can make good business sense. Corporations should not eschew such demands wholesale. But in many cases corporate responses to activist demands do not make good business sense, yet those responses, “right” and “wrong,” are positioned under the CSR program, at the expense of the stockholders.

Who says doing the right thing is “right?” Who gets to interpret what is “right” in terms of what activist requests should be folded into the company’s CSR program? The answer to that question would turn on who is financing the company. That would be the stockholders. Not the stakeholders.

The stockholders. It’s their money which is at risk. And as long as society is still capitalistic, and at least for now in America this is still the case, then I believe that it is up to the stockholders to say whether doing the “right” thing actually makes good business sense. Or not.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

“Irregular Competition” – The Newest Threat

abstract fiveCompetition comes in several classes. Let’ discuss.

First of all, you, as a business person, have obviously known about the class of “direct” competitors since you went into business, and probably you have known about this class of competitor as far back as those tender years when you were first able to sit up and recognize for what money was actually used. Direct competitors, of course, are those other companies which sell the same products or services that your own company sells.

Secondly, you’ve most likely known about the class of “indirect” competitors, also just about as long as you’ve known for what money is used. When you were a kid with five bucks burning a hole in your pocket, you knew that you could use that moolah to buy a toy or you could use it to buy a movie ticket or you could use it to buy an ice cream cone. None of the companies which produced those goods or that service were direct competitors, but they were indirect competitors vying for that five bucks in your pocket.

The classes of direct and indirect competition are not new. Business people have always taken seriously the impact of direct and even indirect competition, and have planned and altered their business models accordingly. This is well-known.

“Irregular Competition” Introduced

But what perhaps isn’t as well-known to you is the class of competition which I have named “irregular competition.” That is a term I coin and a concept which I define and introduce to you today.

When your direct and indirect competitors bring their offerings to market, they tell that market just how great are their offerings and how well those offerings can meet the needs and wants of the market targeted. And while making their sales pitch, those direct and indirect competitors play with the image of your company. Your competitors, direct and indirect alike, will take every opportunity to portray your company image in a manner that would not please you and by doing so communicate to your common market how well your products or services do not meet the needs of those consumers that you jointly serve.

Either through comparative advertising, or through innuendo, or via some other communications mechanism, your direct or indirect competition promotes the image of their own company and demotes the image of your company. Again, this is well-known. So if it’s well-known, why am I writing about it?

I write about this in order to make a point about competition in general, either direct or indirect, and to tie that point into the less well-known concept of “irregular competition.” Competition is not just about promoting competing products or services. It’s also about demoting, about tearing down, tearing down the image of the competitor. To tear down the image of a competitor means to battle for what the competitor’s company or brand image means, and to achieve an agendized goal in the process.

In the case of your direct and indirect competition, that agendized goal is to sell more products or services than does your company. The irregular competitor is similar in this regard; they have an agenda and a goal. But in the case of the irregular competitor, the nature of their agenda is different. The irregular competitor is not selling products or services. The irregular competitor wants to promote an advocacy agenda at the expense of your company. The irregular competitor wants to promote a program which has as its goal the attainment of some political, social, or cultural change. And one way the irregular competitor achieves its goal is by altering the meaning of your company or brand image in the marketplace.

The irregular competitor which I introduce today is more specifically known as the activist organization, the NGO (non-governmental organization), or the IGO (inter-governmental organization) which pursues an agenda of advocacy for a political, social, or cultural issue and in so doing competes with your company for the meaning of your brand or company image.

Why Would They Do This?

This irregular competition does this because they recognize that by attempting to influence, or even control, what your company or brand image means, the irregular competitor can use the notoriety of that image to achieve publicity and legitimacy for the cause that they pursue.

The irregular competitor is not interested in selling their own products or services that will replace those of your company’s in the marketplace. But they are interested in reducing the sale of your products or services, just as are your traditional direct or indirect competitors, in order to pressure your company into helping them achieve their political, social, or cultural goals.

Just As Much a Threat as the Regular Competitor

And because of their agenda and its intent, this irregular competition is no less a threat to your company than the direct or indirect competitor. Indeed, in many ways irregular competition may be more of a threat than the direct and indirect competitor. Therefore, the irregular competitor must be regarded with as much seriousness as the regular competitor.

The irregular competitor is here. They are not going away. They must be dealt with just as any other competitive threat should not be ignored. And it is within this blog, Telofski.com, that we will discuss the ins and outs of dealing with this new competitive threat in your business environment.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Personal Charity vs. Charity-By-Law

There are three primary concepts on which society functions: faith, rule of law, and commerce. When these three key functions are allowed to find their optimum, society can really hum along. They act independently, but yet together. There are some overlaps among their functions, naturally. Such as when the ideas of

Each key has a function.

Each key has a function.

faith form the basis of law, or when the principles of law are used to modify commerce, or when the fruits of commerce are used to support faith or government. Venn diagrams are always interesting and revealing.

The dangers to society though, I think, are when the Venn diagrams of the three primary concepts overlap too much or when one circle overshadows the other. Perhaps we have reached that point of overlap and overshadow.

Over the past few decades I’ve seen the influence of faith fade in the daily lives around me, with its replacement coming either in the sphere of government or commerce. Faith serves many a purpose. One of which is to support charity, and the caring of individuals unable to do so for themselves. As the influence of faith has receded, so has its ability to offer care to those who need it. And instead of that faith-based care, that which was originally called “charity,” the need has been replaced by a faceless societal driver. That driver is from the rule of law, or what we call government.

The Venn diagram of the triad has changed, such that the circle representing faith has gotten smaller, while the circle representing rule of law has grown larger, usurping some of the functions of faith.

When charity was faith-based, the charity was provided by individuals. Charity was then personal. Faith called upon us to be charitable, individually, personally, and offer ourselves to the service of others, on a one-to-one basis. Those in need benefitted as did those who helped. Society was enriched, one helping gesture at a time. We felt good about ourselves.

In an article entitled “Government Usurps Charitable Giving and Nature,” author John Atwood explores this idea. He says:

An act of charity ennobles the grateful recipient and burnishes the kinder spirit of the giver.

As the circle of government has grown larger in the Venn diagram of society, as government, aided by NGOs and activists, has increased its influence within society, we are poorer for the lack of good that is created. As John Atwood points out:

Government can’t bring good to its people, it can only bring force and power and results, numbers, outcomes. The good is within the individual and the people. The “good” government does is only defined by the elites who determine those results, outcomes, numbers and forces to exert.

John makes an excellent point. In other words, governments aided through NGOs and activists, have taken the “good” out of charity. They have helped remove the “faith” we used to have in each other. The faith that we would all do right by each other. That faith has been reduced to nothing more than the payment of a tax to a body of law or the payment of a donation to a NGO or activist organization, which is to be distributed by a bureaucrat, and disguised as charity.

And what about that third circle in the Venn diagram of society? That circle representing commerce.

The three concepts of faith, law, and commerce complemented each other. Faith bound us to each other and provided the spiritual needs. Commerce drove the economic engine and provided the earthly needs. And law? Well, law was there to be the arbiter in the inevitable human breakdown of the other two processes.

With the diminution of the faith circle and the enlargement of the law circle, the circle of commerce is left to finance the process of secular charity by law. The circle of commerce becomes the financier of organized, governmental charity. It’s a function that commerce was not created to fulfill. Yet, governments, and their assistants in NGOs and activists, call upon commerce to make those contributions, stressing the economic system and pushing it toward dysfunction.

What happens when the circle of commerce ceases to play its new and imposed role in the Venn diagram of society? What happens when governments, with NGOs and activists, push commerce beyond its capability, or willingness to provide? What happens to charity then?

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , ,

Activism: Harm to the Body Politic?

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: , , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes