Richard Telofski

on "Irregular Competition"

Posts Tagged Strategy

NGO Social Media: Some Weakness in “Reach”

Feb 4

Posted by Richard in Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Irregular Competition, Research, Strategy | No Comments

Introduction

Social media is an environment that is seemingly tailor-made for NGOs and activists to exploit. Among other characteristics, social media are accessible to almost everyone in the developed world. Social media are pervasive; more and more people use social media every day. Social media are inexpensive. And social media skew young.

Businessman reading newspapBecause of these factors, economically, demographically, and psycho-graphically, social media are perfectly positioned for NGOs to leverage in their campaigns against business. Because of these reasons, and because NGOs are among the chief anti-corporate campaigners out there, companies want to know more about what these atypical competitors, these “irregular competitors,” are doing from within social media.

Today, I am going to give those corporations a “mini-heads-up” and give a little bit of insight as to what two NGOs are up to in social media. This heads-up will be limited to the examination of “reach.” The NGOs examined will be:

  • Greenpeace US
  • Friends of the Earth US (FOE)

I’ve chosen to examine these two NGOs for six reasons.

  1. They’re both about the same age, and therefore have the same opportunity at notoriety, and reach.
  2. They’re among the largest of the tens of thousands of NGOs on the planet.
  3. Because of their size, these NGOs would tend to have the most potential for influence on the companies they target.
  4. These two are among the most active of all NGOs in terms of anti-corporate activism.
  5. In an effort to compare “apples to apples,” I chose these NGOs because they operate within similar issue arenas, such as the environment; their Venn diagrams of issues coverage overlap, not completely but highly.
  6. Again with attention to an “apple to apple” comparison, both NGO operations cover the same geography. Each NGO has an international organization, but in this article I will only be looking at their U.S. operation.

Factors

Reach is significant in social media. Yes, I know that some of my social media colleagues don’t regard “reach” as important in social media as it is in traditional media. But I submit that reach is very important, especially so in a medium that is perfectly positioned for NGO goals, as noted above.

One of the elements which produces the social media”reach” of an organization is its size. The bigger the organization then the more well-known will be its brand. And the more well-known its brand, then the more followers, friends, fans, and/or subscribers that brand should have in social media. The more followers, friends, fans, and/or subscribers had by that brand, then the more opportunities for the brand’s message there are to be transmitted and discussed and forwarded and discussed again and back and forth and so on. Social media is a medium of discussion and “pass along.” So, if the originator of a message, like Greenpeace US or FOE US, has more followers, friends, etc., than a similar organization, well, then there are simply more opportunities for message propagation not only at origin, but also further down the chain of the social web.

So, let’s go ahead and do a bit of analysis on the social media reach of these two NGOs.

Findings

Below you’ll see a table which details, for each NGO, the number of Facebook fans, the number of Twitter followers, the number of MySpace fans each has, along with similar statistics for each NGO’s YouTube presence.

NGO Social Media “Reach” Comparisons
FacebookTwitterMySpaceYouTube SubscribersYouTube FriendsYouTube Channel Views
Greenpeace USA41,58214,850123,5951,8511,00566,372
FOE US11,6153,10314,67672283,102

As of January 14, 2010

Discussion

You can see that Greenpeace has FOE beat hands down, across all categories. This could be a function of Greenpeace being a more established organization, with a brand that is a global icon. People like to follow the leader, and they’ll do so in social media as in any other aspect of life.

The number that particularly stands out in the table above is that MySpace friends number. Since MySpace is a site heavily trafficked by music lovers, this differential would indicate that Greenpeace has some particular strength with music fans. That’s something for corporations in the crosshairs of Greenpeace to keep in mind, i.e., targeting (or not) the music lover segment in future PR battles. But there’s a big disconnect between that MySpace fan number and that Twitter number. The Greenpeace twitter number is only a bit over 10% of their MySpace number. I think they’re missing something there. Greenpeace could be leveraging that MySpace following into their Twitter effort and using it for effect in various campaigns. And the same idea could be applied to Facebook. With only about a third of the following on Facebook as they have on MySpace, Greenpeace doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of cross-pollination. This lack of cross-pollination should be something kept in mind by targeted corporate communications personnel. Now, let’s chat about FOE.

What I find especially disappointing in these FOE numbers is the level of Twitter followers that FOE has. I have more Twitter followers than that. They simply aren’t leveraging their Facebook and MySpace presences to increase their level of Twitter followers which, if FOE had more Twitter followers, could make it easier and more effective for them to spread quick, mini-blog type messages during hot and fluid campaigns. And speaking about their Facebook and MySpace followings, for an organization the size of FOE US, those following levels are terrible. Numbers of that level indicate that FOE isn’t doing an adequate job in developing their social media campaigns. Perhaps FOE isn’t taking social media seriously? Something else for targeted corporate communications personnel to keep in mind.

What about the FOE YouTube numbers? Well, it seems abundantly clear, about 20 times more clear, that Greenpeace is giving viewers a lot more to look at than is FOE. Perhaps FOE isn’t as visually oriented as Greenpeace. Again, you corporate communications managers take note.

So, what can we conclude from all of this?

Conclusion

The take-away, for corporate opponents of these “irregular competitors,” is that between Greenpeace US and FOE US, in social media Greenpeace would be a more formidable foe than would FOE itself. In social media, by comparison, FOE isn’t much of a foe. With such low numbers, for corporations in a social media PR battle with FOE US, corporations should concentrate very heavily on creating, discussing, and propagating their message in social media. FOE has a relatively underrepresented presence there, and any corporation locking horns with FOE US should take advantage of FOE US’s relative absence and comparative disengagement with the medium.

For corporations with high Twitter follower numbers, they should especially concentrate in that mini-blogging venue, both preemptively and reactively. It’s apparent that FOE US doesn’t realize their weakness there in that social venue. And any corporation that has ever been engaged in a “battle” with FOE US, or anticipates one in the future, should act now to build their following in Twitter, so that FOE may be “out-Twittered” if and when the time comes.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Greenpeace CEO Makes “More” Than Exxon CEO?

Jan 19

Posted by Richard in Compensation, Greenpeace, Irregular Competition, Research | No Comments

Money in till 1Does the Greenpeace CEO make more than the Exxon Mobil CEO?

Well, yes and no. In terms of absolute dollars, no. Not even close. But, in terms of a percentage of their respective organization’s revenue, yes. More. Very much more.

In terms of compensation as a percentage of revenue, the Greenpeace CEO pulls in considerably more than does his counterpart at Exxon Mobil.

Recently I performed research addressing this issue. The reason I performed this research was due to activist’s and NGO’s frequent claims that CEOs of multinational corporations (MNCs) take as compensation an unfair proportion of their companies’ overall revenue. After recently hearing this claim again, perhaps for about the 500th time, I wondered, “Who actually makes more in terms of percentage of revenue? Huge multinationals? Or NGOs?” I decided to do some digging, create a comparison, and take a look.

Methodology

Now, to address this question, what I decided to do was just take a “quick and dirty” look. I just wanted to test my theory with some trial research. Therefore, at the outset my intention was not to do an exhaustive study by including a large number of NGOs and MNCs in a representative and statistically controlled sample. When I began this research I decided that I would save that exhaustive study for another occasion should my theory be supported by the results of this “thumbnail” research project.

To commence my pilot research project, I simply selected, very much at random, one NGO and one multinational. The first two of each that came to mind were Greenpeace and Exxon Mobil. These two organizations are often at odds with each other and both are frequently in the news, making them top of mind.

To identify the revenues of Greenpeace I went to Guidestar.org. Guidestar is an organization which aggregates information about non-profit corporations. At their site, you may search for your non-profit of interest and find information you desire, much of it a no charge. One of the pieces of information stored by Guidestar is a non-profit’s US IRS Form 990.

The IRS Form 990 is a document that must be filed by all tax-exempt non-profit organizations operating within the United States. This document is much like a tax return and contains some information similar to what you would find in a for-profit corporation’s annual report or 10K filing. Among the information shown in a Form 990 is annual revenues and executive compensation. On the Guidestar site, I located Greenpeace’s Forms 990.

To obtain the revenue and executive compensation information for Exxon Mobil, I journeyed to SEC.gov, the site of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the United States. At that site, I accessed Exxon Mobil’s Schedule 14A Proxy Statement which contained summary compensation figures for Exxon Mobil executives for the years 2006 – 2008. Also available on that site was the Exxon Mobil 10K, containing the annual revenue figures that I sought. Additional information on Exxon Mobil’s revenue was obtained from their 2008 Annual Report available at ExxonMobil.com.

All information for this research comparison was obtained from US Government documents, or from an annual report, and is therefore considered to be highly reliable. The latest information that could be located for both Greenpeace and Exxon Mobil was from 2008. The 2009 figures were not as yet ready as of the date of this post.

Following is a summary of the information that I obtained from the sources.

Findings
2007 Revenue2007 Compensation2008 Revenue2008 Compensation
Greenpeace, Inc.$19.5 million$126,573$26.3 million$103,624
Greenpeace Fund, Inc.$39.6 million$42,191$9 million$103,624
SubTotals$59.1 million$168,764$35.3 million$207,248
Compensation Percentage0.28%0.587%
Exxon Mobil Corporation$405 billion$16.7 million$477 billion$22.4 million
Compensation Percentage0.00412%0.00469%

Upon visiting Guidestar.org, I found that there are two significant Greenpeace organizations. One is the primary campaign organization, Greenpeace, Inc., and the other is a financial arm, Greenpeace Fund, Inc. When I examined the Forms 990 for both organizations, I found that the same person is the Executive Director for both entities and that that person collects a salary from both organizations. So, that is why in the table above you see two Greenpeace lines.

You can see that for the chief of the Greenpeace corporations his compensation for 2007 totals $168,764 and for 2008 the total is $207,248. You can also see that his total compensation for 2007 represented 0.28% of the joint organizations’ total revenue ($168,764/$59.1 million) and that for 2008 that percentage of revenues increased to 0.587% ($207,248/$35.3 million).

In comparison for the chief of Exxon Mobil, although he pulled down a hefty $16.7 million in 2007 and $22.4 million in 2008, his compensation as a percentage of revenue for 2007 and 2008 was 0.00412% ($16.7 million/$405 billion) and 0.00469% ($22.4 million/$477 billion), respectively.

Discussion

Of course, these two chiefs are not in same compensation range, and I have no doubt that because of their different levels of compensation the types of neighborhoods in which they dwell are probably very much different. Yet there are at a minimum two important take-aways to be had from this pilot study.

Take Away One: The first take-away to be noted is consistent with my thesis, that this data indicates that perhaps NGO chiefs take as compensation a higher percentage of their organization’s revenue. In this comparison, for 2008 the compensation as a percentage of revenue is about 125 times greater for the Greenpeace chief as compared to his Exxon Mobile counterpart. That’s quite a differential.

At least in this case of Greenpeace vs. Exxon Mobil, we can see that my thesis might be true, or at a minimum is well-supported. And yes, this is only one case comparison which as such it is not scientific and may or may not be representative of the greater NGO community, but I noted that research limitation at the top of this post.

However, if the Greenpeace and Exxon Mobil comparison could be used as representative, we would say that NGOs and activist organizations are hypocritical when they accuse MNC chiefs of receiving as compensation an “unfair” proportion of their company’s revenues. In order to make that a convincing argument to be applied across the NGO spectrum, more research would be needed in this area. This Greenpeace and Exxon Mobil sample comparison indicates that such research may prove very interesting, indeed.

Take Away Twoo: Note that for 2008, the Greenpeace chief saw a nice increase of about 23%, during a year when many people saw a decrease of 100% by hitting the ranks of the unemployed. And this 23% increase was during a year when for Greenpeace total revenue declined by about 40%. This Greenpeace compensation increase is, of course, much less than the Exxon Mobil chief’s increase of about 34%. But, for 2008, revenue at Exxon Mobil increased by about 17%. For Exxon Mobil, a legitimate argument can be made that the compensation increase is tied to performance. Can Greenpeace make that same argument? How does Greenpeace justify an increase of 23% for their chief when their revenues decreased by 40%?

There are critics who blast the financial industry for rewarding its executives with compensation increases in companies which underperform the previous fiscal year. Doesn’t this Greenpeace example speak to the same type of criticism? And if so, why is it that we do not hear in the mainstream media these kinds of disparagements applied to NGOs as well as MNCs?

Conclusion

This pilot research has shown that there is reason to believe that NGOs and other activist organizations do pay their executives a higher percentage of revenues than is paid by the corporations that they combat in the environmental, social, and cultural arenas. The test research performed here indicates that further research should be done in this area.

The outcome of more a more statistically reliable enquiry could be used as the basis of counterstrategy against claims by NGOs and activists that executives at MNCs are “greedy” and take more than their “fair share” of revenues. Such a counterstrategy element would perhaps go far in overcoming these corporate image-damaging claims in the eyes of the marketplace.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , ,

An Activist Strategy to Bank On?

Jan 5

Posted by Richard in Activism, Strategy | No Comments

As I mentioned in my last post of last year, “The Warm and Fuzzy Side of the Anti-Corporate Movement,” I would be back on Telofski.com after the first of the year. And here I am. You are now reading the “2010 Season Premier.”

Happy New Year.

Around the time of my “2009 Season Finale,” I caught an article on FoxNews.com about a company called CREDO. The article, titled “Wireless Company Mixes Liberal Politics with Business,” intrigued me. Author Stephen Clark writes about this wireless phone company who positions itself as “an agent of social change.” Stephen says that “It (CREDO) pitches its mobile phone services with a vow to fight for ‘real’ health care reform, free speech, peace and the environment.”

piggy bank 2Continuing from the article, CREDO has reported that it has raised $63 million for liberal causes such as Doctors Without Borders, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, and Earthjustice. That’s a lot of money to be finding its way to various advocacy groups, some of which aren’t very business-friendly.

In the article, the main theme is whether or not this type of business strategy is sustainable (no pun intended). Within the article are quoted marketing experts with some saying “yes” while others say “no.” The naysayers make their case by stating the obvious strategic view that running a company based on a political agenda will alienate too many potential customers. Additionally, the naysayers cite that a wireless company the size of CREDO, regardless of their positioning strategy, will have a difficult time up against such corporate giants as AT&T or Verizon. While, on the other side, the proponents say that given the level of political rancor and political polarization presently in the country, a “highly partisan” approach could be successful.

The naysayers seem to intimate that CREDO is crazy, in a marketing sense. And yes, I must say that I agree. I think that CREDO might be crazy, but crazy like a fox (again, no pun intended). I’d have to see some marketing research data on this question in order to be sure, but my WAG* on this would be that there is a large enough market segment out there for CREDO to attract, a segment consisting of the political partisanship to which CREDO orients, so that such a marketing strategy may have legs. My WAG is based on my estimate that there are probably at least tens of millions of far-left, or at least left-leaning, adults in the United States, all of which might prefer to send their monthly wireless dollars to a company which will use them to further a political agenda, rather than enrich stockholders.

If you read this blog regularly, you will know that my professional opinion is the opposite; I think companies should enrich stockholders and not causes. But this orientation is not the sort that motivates CREDO, nor the people in the market segment that they target. And it is their motivation, not mine, that is critical within this discussion.

Within the United States, with its current leaning to things liberal, a marketing strategy like that of CREDO might actually work, or work at least well enough so that they can survive while they support various causes. One condition for success in this model is that the company would most certainly need to be privately-held, but I see no indication that CREDO is publicly-held.

Another condition for success is that a strategic operation of this sort would need to leverage social media. CREDO seems to be doing that. With about 38,000 fans on their Facebook page they’ve made a good start. Although, their Twitter following is around 3500 (about the same as mine, as of the date of this post), with a little effort they could increase that number and use the additional audience to advantage.

No. I have to disagree with the marketing naysayers. This one might have legs. This strategy may contribute to filling the bank accounts of many activist organizations. Conditions in macro-environment, like the aforementioned political situation, line up in their favor. And if this strategy does take off, then it will literally be an example of using a business against the interests of business.

* Note: WAG is defined as a “wild-assed guess.”

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

The Bully Pulpit of Activism

Dec 21

Posted by Richard in Activism, Anti-Corporatism, Strategy | No Comments

woman-covering-eyes-with-hands-uid-1284669By now the controversy of Climate Gate (climategate) is well-publicized and even starting to simmer down somewhat. Simmer down in the media that is, but perhaps not in the hearts and minds of those deep in the fray and on either side of the issue. Perhaps at this point, the global warming activists are licking their wounds and contemplating a strategic change and a new approach to framing their campaign. And if they aren’t, they should be. Here’s why.

Back on December 1 (09) there was an interesting article by Debra J. Saunders as posted on the San Francisco Chronicle site (SFGate.com). The article titled “When Scientists Behave Like Bullies” reviewed some of the known faux pas of the Climate Gate gaff – the deep six-ing of the contrary data, the threats of boycotts against scientific journals who printed articles countering the global warming theory, and the alleged threatened punch-out of anti-global warming skeptics. (Somehow I just can’t envision scientists getting into a rumble. Can you?) Overall, from her article Debra made a point that:

Polls show that Americans are cooling on the notion of man-made global warming. I must credit the bully mentality of activists, whose claims often defy common sense – and at times simple decency.

Never mind the great opening pun of that paragraph, she makes an excellent point which is . . .

Nobody likes a bully.

Even before Climate Gate we could see that the global warming movement was suppressing honest discourse on points of view contrary to their own. As activists for a cause, the global warming movement has certainly not been alone in using this strategy. Other activist organizations use bullying as well. But when bullying is recognized by the audience the activist wishes to win, counterproductive results may occur. Audiences are more keen observers than many activists realize. Bully-spotting is easy.

In my new and latest book, Insidious Competition - The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image, I discuss some strategies that are undertaken by some activists groups and talk about why those strategies, and their supporting tactics, are effective. Insidious Competition is due out in Spring 2010, so I don’t want to “reveal the ending.” But I can say now that bullying is not one of the strategies that I discuss in the book. And anticipating the publishing of my new, and fourth book, and to give you a clue as to what those wound-licking global warming activists should now be considering for a new strategic direction, I will say that as a model the wound lickers should look to the Mommy Bloggers.

Certainly not an activist organization per se, Mommy Bloggers still have many of the characteristics of true activist groups. They do many things to create effective messages and to get their points across, but one of the things they do not do is wield the bully pulpit. What strategic position do they take which makes them an effective proponent for almost any issue?

More on this idea as we get closer to publication date. Spring 2010 will be arriving soon.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Time, Squidoo, Blogs, and Eating

Apr 16

Posted by Richard Telofski in Blogs | No Comments

For work I’ve been reviewing how some professionals use social media in the promotion of their services. Professionals. You know. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants (not quite like me, though), financial planners. Those kinds of folks.

Here’s one finding that’s quite remarkable. While, I was reviewing one financial planner’s social media strategy it occurred to be that this woman may not get enough time to sleep or eat, or do other quotidian tasks for that matter. She’s got a blog, quite a good one at that. She’s a tweeter. Very active. I’ve been following her on Twitter. And judging by her tweets, she’s been buried by a lot of work. Good for her. Must be that her social media strategy is paying off.

And if that isn’t enough, she’s got about ten lenses on Squidoo. Most of those lenses are fully configured, lots of content, not much of it overlaps either. Gosharooney. When does this woman find time to sleep, eat, feed her cat, take a breath?

Kudos to those professionals applying social media to their practices at the fullest extent! Looks like you’ve got a clock with more hours than mine.

Post to Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes