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
