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?
In a Forbes article from a couple weeks ago, “When It Comes to Social Media, Many Marketers Jump the Gun,” Jeremiah Owyang, web-strategist extraordinaire, discussed the March-April 2010 Greenpeace assault on Nestlé, much of which was conducted within social media. I discussed this social media attack in an article series entitled “The Kit Kat Incident.”
Jeremiah, in his Forbes article, makes the point that Nestlé was unprepared for this assault. Of this there is no doubt. Much of the popular press on this event also pointed out this fault. As a suggested remedy for this unpreparedness, in his article Jeremiah outlines how marketers may prepare a social media marketing program to prepare for:
. . . opportunities to connect with customers . . .
Generally, I agree with what Jeremiah is proposing. Preparation is paramount. Proaction is preferred to reaction. And the steps that Jeremiah outlines in his article will get marketers moving toward that proaction. But, specifically and with particular regard to Jeremiah’s pairing of what I labeled “The Kit Kat Incident” together with the idea of using social media marketing, what I find unsettling is that, in his prescriptive remedy, he seems to be categorizing those involved in the assault on Nestlé along with customers. Indeed, in his article, for the first step of his plan “to help marketers prepare for social media interactions,” he says:
Have a strong understanding of your customers.
Those involved in the Kit Kat assault are not customers. They are not consumers.
They are competitors. Irregular competitors.
And they must be regarded as such.
For three weeks, I watched the Greenpeace assault conducted against Nestlé. These attackers were not there to register complaints as would customers or consumers. These people were present to attack the name of the corporation. Period. And nothing would dissuade them from that. They were “tasked” with that mission by Greenpeace. Customer/consumer “nice-talk” was not going to quell their actions. In the early days of the attack, I saw how the Nestlé corporate Facebook page administrator attempted to assuage the “crowds” attacking the Nestlé name. It was clear, from his/her writings, that that administrator regarded those in the “crowd” as customers or consumers and attempted to interact with them as such. In fact, they were not customers or consumers. What they were was a crowd with a mission. Understanding them as customers or consumers would lead to the wrong web 2.0 strategy selection, proactive or reactive. Understanding them as a crowd, a protest crowd, would lead to better strategic selections.
So, although Jeremiah proposes using social media marketing strategy, one typically directed at customers/consumers, to quell or preclude the ire of a protest crowd such as that in the Greenpeace/Nestlé incident he cites, I think he might be suggesting a “cookie cutter” approach to a situation that requires the selection of a competition strategy, not a customer strategy.
Just when you thought it was dying down, you find that it isn’t.
Yesterday, Greenpeace continued their direct action against Nestlé over the usage of palm oil as an ingredient in Nestlé products. This Greenpeace campaign, which has been going on for years, heated up a month ago when Greenpeace initiated a social media protest against the food manufacturer. For background on this protest action, which I have labeled as The Kit Kat Incident, you may click here.
The continuation of The Kit Kat Incident hit another sour note for Nestlé yesterday at their annual shareholders meeting held in Lausanne, Switzerland. Although not widely reported, Greenpeace, in addition to the employment of common street theater tactics and building on their breach of security at, and the scaling of, the Canadian parliament building last December, managed to break through the ceiling of the building where the Nestlé annual shareholders meeting was held. Activists rappelled down through the opening, showering leaflets over the crowd and displayed a protest banner.
As I mentioned above, reports of this incident are difficult to find in the mainstream press. However, I’ve assembled this information from, although not objective, fairly reliable sources. One source is a YouTube video. Even though the video appears to be shot by a Greenpeace supporter, it does appear to be an accurate visual record of the event as I’ve summarized here and as was reported by a “green” news site, Mongabay.com. The video visually corroborates the Mongabay story.
When I learned of this event yesterday, the first thing that went through my mind was “Where was Nestlé corporate security?” The second thing that went through my mind was “Will the director of Nestlé corporate security be able to keep his or her job?” They should have seen this brewing.
Given the recent social media action against Nestlé (i.e., The Kit Kat Incident), given the aforementioned Greenpeace-engineered security breach of the Canadian parliament building, and given that Greenpeace mounted a similar action last July at Mount Rushmore, how is it that Nestlé corporate security didn’t see this one coming? Of course, there wouldn’t be much corporate security could do about the street theater demonstrations taking place at the shareholder meeting. But the scaling of the building? The penetration of the ceiling from the exterior? The activist entering the building through the ceiling and the rappelling?
It’s as plain as the nose on anyone’s face. In today’s business environment, social media protest actions need to be considered as harbingers to direct actions occurring in the non-virtual world.
|
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. |
|
