In last Thursday’s post, entitled “Greenpeace, CNN, and Sloppy Research,” I referenced a May 24, 2010 CNN.com article “Social Media Can Help Save the Planet, Says Greenpeace Boss” and said that there were two problems in that CNN article. The first problem, sloppy research, you and I discussed last Thursday. Today, you and I will discuss the second problem, that of “semantical terrorism.”
The term “semantical terrorism” occurred to me while participating as a panelist at a recent symposium held at Bernard Baruch College in NYC. While participating on the panel “More than Friending: Social Media and Communication in Business and Education,” I was describing to the audience what I do. One of the other panelists, Alan Levine, Vice President, NMC Community and CTO, The New Media Consortium, looked at me and said something like “Oh, so you’re a counter-terrorist.” I paused for a moment, then agreed adding a modifying statement that “semantical counter-terrorist” would probably be more applicable. So, I will credit Alan with the inspiration for the term that we will discuss today.
In my work, I analyze advocacy groups (NGOs, activists, etc.) who perform anti-corporate actions. My primary area of analysis is on their actions in both online and offline media. That analysis is focused on how these irregular competitors “mangle the meaning” and “diddle the definition” of the corporate images owned by the companies they target. In fact, I have written a book on this subject, this “battle for meaning.” (For further details, please see Insidious Competition – The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image which is scheduled to publish very soon.) And it’s in this battle for meaning that “semantical terrorism” is performed by irregular competitors, who threaten damage, either overtly or tacitly, to the images of corporations who don’t go along with the NGO or activist agenda.
A battle in semantical terrorism it truly is and in the CNN article referenced above, I will point out how Greenpeace has showed their intention to use this tactic to meet their future objectives.
In the second to last paragraph of that article, Greenpeace’s executive director, Kumi Naidoo, says that although Greenpeace has a dialogue going on with a number of companies “if talk does not deliver the results, we have to create the possibility for millions of people who care about the environment to send a clear message.” He doesn’t directly state that the option is semantical terrorism, but I believe his implication is clear; that if negotiations don’t bring Greenpeace its desired results, then they will entreat millions of people to essentially “trash” the image of the targeted company. Greenpeace supporters have a reputation for exaggeration. And based on what I’ve seen Greenpeace supporters do previously in social media, based on how I’ve seen those supporters go off the central issue of the campaign, I can say that I expect many of those “clear messages” would not be based in fact, but rather in innuendo and
Continue reading Greenpeace . . . Will You Use "Semantical Terrorism" in Social Media?
On May 24, 2010, CNN.com ran a story entitled “Social Media Can Help Save the Planet, says Greenpeace Boss.” There are two problems in this article. The first problem is with the accuracy of the reporting. The second problem is with how Greenpeace now looks at social media. The first problem you and I will discuss today in this post. The second problem you and I will discuss in next Tuesday’s post entitled “Greenpeace . . . Will You Use ‘Semantical Terrorism’ in Social Media?”
Regarding the first problem, the CNN article recalled the social media campaign that Greenpeace ran against Nestlé earlier this year. (For a review of this campaign, you may read my article series entitled “The Kit Kat Incident.”) The CNN article states that “Central to the Greenpeace campaign was an online video posted in March — a mock Kit Kat chocolate bar advert that shows an office worker biting into a bloody orangutan’s finger instead of a piece of chocolate.” The article then states “Less than a month after the video was first shown, Nestlé stopped all purchase of palm oil from Sinar Mas, one company Greenpeace claimed was causing deforestation in Indonesia.” The implication is that the social media campaign, extending over several weeks and led by the video, was responsible for causing Nestlé’s reaction.
That’s not exactly correct.
I studied The Kit Kat Incident in great detail and watched it as it unfolded over several weeks. The protracted campaign was not the cause of Nestlé’s acquiescence to Greenpeace’s demands. How do I know that? I know that because on the same day that the Greenpeace social media campaign began, literally within hours, Nestlé agreed to the terms set out by Greenpeace. The extensive and prolonged social media campaign was not the cause of the shift in Nestlé behavior, although Greenpeace claims it to be, and most of the mainstream media through sloppy research backs them up. In support of this point, you may read the chronology of this event, well-researched and linked to supporting documents, by going to my article entitled “The Kit Kat Incident and an Abuse of Power,” with particular attention given to the section entitled “The Acquiescent Result.”
Yet, Greenpeace appears to be congratulating themselves on a social media campaign well-run. (Actually, tactically it could have been better run and my Kit Kat article series points out some of their gaping mistakes.) But, this is not to say that such a campaign could be ineffective. Quite the contrary. And in next Tuesday’s post,”Greenpeace . . . Will You Use ‘Semantical Terrorism’ in Social Media?,” you and I will discuss how Greenpeace now appears to view this version of an online strategy.
If you are reading this prior to next Tuesday, June 15, 2010, then please subscribe to the FREE RSS feed so that you will receive that article automatically. If you are reading this after June 15, 2010, then simply click
Continue reading Greenpeace, CNN, and Sloppy Research
After reading the CNN.com article “Activists Call Foul on KFC Bucket Campaign,” I was reminded of the Spy vs. Spy cartoon from Mad Magazine. (Was there any pun intended on that usage of the word “foul?”) The article describes a contribution campaign that KFC has initiated, donating 50 cents for every sale of a specially-marked, pink bucket of chicken. The contributions go to the advocacy, activist group Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a well-known group fighting breast cancer.
Seems all very well and good. But Barbara Brenner, the executive director of Breast Cancer Action (BCA), described as a “watch dog group” compelling changes “to end breast cancer” doesn’t quite agree. The CNN article describes Ms. Brenner as saying KFC is “pinkwashing” by putting a pink, cancer-awareness ribbon on products that are “bad for health.” Now, this is the kind of dispute that goes on daily between companies and activist groups. KFC, among other companies, are quite accustomed to this. But, what sets this story apart from other stories of activist vs. company and what makes this story interesting is that in this dispute BCA takes a shot at the Komen organization, another activist group. A quote from the CNN article:
“This will keep them (Komen) in business for years. They talk about a cure, but this this partnership will create more breast cancer. And Komen knows this,” said Brenner on the assumed relationship between fast food, excess weight and cancer risk.
Brenner went on to say, “Komen puts the responsibility for health in individuals’ hands, but some people don’t have the option to take care of themselves. Say you don’t have the money or choice — KFC is making money in the poorest communities.”
Komen’s director of communication, Andrea Rader, tells CNN the claims are “ludicrous.”
Activist vs. Activist.
And I must agree with Ms. Rader, the BCA claims are ludicrous. Why?
In the second paragraph of the above quote, Ms. Brenner is saying that if a person doesn’t “have the money” to take care of themselves, then they’ll just “pig out” on KFC through ignorance. Ludicrous, indeed. If a person doesn’t “have the money,” as Ms. Brenner says, then why would they go to KFC to buy food which is, pound for pound, more expensive than what you can find in most aisles of any supermarket? If they didn’t “have the money,” then they could not do so. BCA certainly appears to have a very low opinion of people’s abilities to think for themselves. I can’t believe that the people to which BCA refers can be that ignorant.
However, this ignorance card is one that I’ve seen activists play well over the years. But in this case of activist vs. activist, this play just doesn’t make the grade.
Now, maybe we can get an Activist. vs. Activist cartoon series going?
|
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. |
|
