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.
This post picks up the story of how I became an analyst of “irregular competition” which we know here on Telofski.com to be anti-corporate activists and NGOs.
In the previous post, “You Could Say That This Post Serves as My Annotated Resume,” I discussed my foundational experiences and knowledge that support my current expertise in the analysis of anti-corporate digital activism. If you haven’t yet read that post, you may do so by clicking here.
Now, here in Part 2, I pick up the story where I left off. Here in Part 2, I describe how The Kahuna Content Company, Inc. and I evolved from an Internet content supplier to that of anti-corporate digital activism analysis.
Web 2.0 Appears
Through 2001 I had acquired quite a bit of experience in competitive intelligence analysis as well as an expertise in online business. In Kahuna Content’s early days as an independent supplier of online content, I learned about what people wanted from their online experiences. During that period of time the web was a relatively static communicator of information; there was little “interaction” due to the technologies that existed then. However, around 2005, as the web started to evolve into the more interactive environment that I knew it could and would ultimately become, I began to learn about and experience what later became known as “Web 2.0.” At that time the Internet was truly becoming an “environment,” a social one. Because of technology shifts, it was then that people began to convert the Internet into an “environment,” one which affected them and one which they affected back in return.
It was at that time, in that “2.0″ shift in the Internet, that Kahuna Content, and I, began to change focus. As the wave of what later came to be known as “user-generated content” rose, I saw that the need for independently supplied online content would fade. So, Kahuna Content made a gradual move away from content supply. Watching the rise of the “social web,” I saw that with the tools that were starting then to become available, people could and would transfer their human “conversational jones” for interaction from the real to the virtual, taking it global and making it a 24/7 activity. I saw that people would start talking about every thing under the sun, and out in public. Going back to my roots as a competitive intelligence analyst, this shift told me that people, everyday people, could become “competitors” to the very companies from which they bought their goods and services.
The Insidious Competitor Threatens
Now, I wasn’t really the first person to realize this. The Cluetrain Manifesto had forecasted this change about a half dozen years prior. But at this point in the story, I realized that individuals could actually do what the Cluetrain had predicted. When Cluetrain was written, the “social media” tools that could enable markets to “laugh” at the companies who supplied them weren’t fully configured enough
Continue reading You Could Say That This Post Serves as My Annotated Resume – Part 2
All irregular competitors are not created equal. Nor do they necessarily later all become equal and evolve into threats about which a company should be uniformly concerned. Some irregular competitors have more mojo than others; either because of smarter staff or better funding or both.
When you’re a corporate communications or PR person trying to deal with an irregular competitor who is talking trash about your company, it’s good to know something about them. (That harks back to what Sun Tzu said.) An understanding of the irregular competitor’s strengths and weaknesses will help you: 1) to determine whether you should be responding to them at all; and, 2) if it’s determined that you should respond, to have a knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses which can help you choose which strategies and tactics to apply against them.
To assist in this understanding, today I introduce The Irregular Competition Threat Index. This is a scale rating system that I will use in some of the case study posts on this blog. This rating system will rank the irregular competitors discussed in terms of their general strengths and weaknesses in the use of social media. You may select those irregular competitor case studies specifically under the category Irregular Competition or more generally under the category Research – Case Studies.
The ranking of irregular competitors in The Irregular Competition Threat Index will be primarily along factors of their social media and web campaign strategies, but offline strategic factors may also contribute to their rating, and these will be called out in the case study posts.
So, I look forward to presenting some interesting case studies and I also look forward to your feedback.
(Update: The Irregular Competition Threat Index was renamed the Irregular Competition Social Media Threat Index (ICSMTI) and moved to exclusive coverage on www.KahunaInstitute.com. You may access the ICSMTI ratings on that site by going to the ICSMTI Page.
Competition 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
Continue reading "Irregular Competition" – The Newest Threat
|
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. |
|
