That Greenpeace is an “irregular competitor,” certainly should be news to no one. No one, that is, who knows what irregular competition is. If you’re unfamiliar with that definition, please click here.
Given Greenpeace’s recent direct action against Nestlé, an action which I labeled as “The Kit Kat Incident,” I must award that NGO at least a “7.5″ on the “Irregular Competition Threat Index;” that’s a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest threat level). Greenpeace would have rated higher, except for their mistakes and competitive weaknesses which I pointed out in my five article series about The Kit Kat Incident. To access those articles, please click here.
Another reason that they lose points is due to their own hypocritical action when a social media campaign turns against them. And you and I will talk more about that action in my next post, “Greenpeace Hypocritical in Social Media Action,” which posts on Thursday, April 15, 2010.
If you are reading this prior to April 15, please subscribe to the FREE RSS feed so that you will receive that next post automatically. Or, if you are reading this after April 20, please click here to go directly to “Greenpeace Hypocritical in Social Media Action.“
Over the past couple of years, I’ve seen several companies get “rattled” when they are attacked by activists, advocates, or NGOs via the social web. Two examples stand out in particular: The Motrin Incident (November 2008) and The Kit Kat Incident (March 2010). In The Motrin Incident, the makers of Motrin, Johnson & Johnson, were unsettled by a swarm of Mommy Bloggers who objected to the nature of an online ad for Motrin. In The Kit Kat Incident, Greenpeace attacked Nestlé, the makers (except in the United States) of the Kit Kat bar, as another salvo in their ongoing battle over the meaning of “sustainable” palm oil.
Each incident had different types of players, with different types of characteristics, operating under different conditions. But there is one element which is common to both of these incidents; neither of the attack victims remained calm and assertive.
At a book signing, Richard with Cesar Millan.
The term, “stay calm and assertive,” is largely attributed to Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer. If you watch the show, the Dog Whisperer, on the National Geographic Channel on Friday nights, you will know of whom I write. Briefly, Cesar Millan is a “dog psychologist.” Now, don’t think that he sits dogs down and shows them Rorschach drawings or asks them about their deepest feelings concerning their parents. (Imagine if it was the latter, certainly the patient would always call their mother a “bitch.” ) What Cesar does is, as he says at the beginning of each Dog Whisperer episode, that he rehabilitates dogs and trains people. From his 20+ years of observing canine behavior, Cesar achieves his amazing rehabilitations by adopting a positive mental attitude and then communicating that attitude by “speaking” to each dog via a body language that is based on the core of the animal’s pack instincts. In essence, via body language, Cesar says to the dog that he, Cesar, is the “pack leader” and not the dog.
I’ve watched this show for several years and, even though the disclaimer at the beginning of each show says not to use Cesar’s techniques without first consulting a professional, I have done it anyway and have had success in using his techniques. Now, I don’t have a dog myself, but I have tried some of his techniques on neighborhood dogs as I take my daily constitutional. The results are amazing. Calm assertiveness wins every time.
What’s this have to do with companies being attacked by online activists?
Here is another thought regarding The Kit Kat Incident, about which I blogged earlier today. So far in the blogosphere, or in the mainstream media, I haven’t seen this concern raised as yet.
Greenpeace’s argument over palm oil and image attack on Nestlé has been tactically oriented toward the Kit Kat bar. (Please see my previous post, “The Kit Kat Incident and an Abuse of Power,” for a synopsis of this direct action/PR event.) Nestlé produces the Kit Kat bar internationally, but Nestlé does not produce the Kit Kat bar in the United States. In America, the Kit Kat bar is produced by Hershey who, at least at the time of this writing, is not being targeted by Greenpeace.
Greenpeace has not made this distinction abundantly clear. Yes, they did note this difference on their initial call-to-action page. But their notation was extremely tiny, brief, and at the bottom of the page. And in subsequent Greenpeace Web sites posts and actions in social media, I am hard-pressed to find further references to this distinction between Nestlé and Hershey as it relates to the production of the Kit Kat bar. Clearly, this situation represents a business threat to Hershey.
So, this situation begs four questions:
Concerning Hershey, is this a responsible way to conduct an anti-corporate direct action?
In the form of lost sales, will there be “collateral damage” against Hershey, who at this point in the protest appears to be an innocent by-stander?
If there is collateral damage, will it form a basis of legal action against Greenpeace?
And if a legal basis is formed, will Hershey pursue it?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
|
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. |
|
