Web 2.0 Case Study Overview - Greenpeace versus Nestlé (2010)

On March 17, 2010 Greenpeace launched an online campaign against Nestlé using multiple social media channels. The first phase began with the publishing of a 13-page report called ‘Caught Red-handed: How Nestlé's Use of Palm Oil is Having a Devastating Impact on Rainforest, The Climate and Orang-utans’. It outlined the following two key demands:

1.   STOP THE PROBLEM: NO MORE TRADE WITH THE SINAR MAS GROUP a.   Stop trading with companies within their Sinar Mas group. This includes Golden Agri Resources and its subsidiaries, as well as Sinar Mas Forestry and Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) b.   Stop buying Sinar Mas palm oil and pulp products from third-party suppliers 2.   START THE SOLUTION: SUPPORT ZERO DEFORESTATION a.   Engage with the Indonesian government and industry to deliver a moratorium on forest clearance and peat land protection.

Source: Caught Red-handed: How Nestlé’s Use of Palm Oil is Having a Devastating Impact on Rainforest, The Climate and Orang-utans

This report was published on Greenpeace’s main website, urging its supporters to share the report via social network channels such as Twitter and Facebook and asking them to ‘Tell Nestlé to give orangutans and rainforests a real break’. The report’s release was simultaneously supported by a social media campaign aimed at popular Nestlé brand Kit Kat. The dedicate campaign website contained the modified Kit Kat logo (“Killer”), a call to action (“Ask Nestlé to give rainforests a break”) and readymade letters with a call to boycott Nestlé products over the coming Easter period, an orangutan becoming the main face of the campaign. Greenpeace then posted a spoof KitKat ad, the ‘Have a break’ video, on popular video sharing site, YouTube.  Only a few hours after the online video was posted on YouTube, Nestlé demanded the video be taken down due to breach of copyright. YouTube removed it but this did not stop it from being seen by thousands.  After thirty hours the total number of views on the different versions of the video was over 180,000. As a result, the video went viral. Many web users re-posted the clip to YouTube and other destinations on the Internet, resulting in over 300,000 views in a day (Armstrong, 2010).  On 19 March, Greenpeace posted the video on an alternative sharing site, Vimeo and turned to social media such as Twitter, to announce the video’s disappearance. On 20 March, Greenpeace created another microsite (or landing page) in response to Nestlé’s actions stating “Nestlé don’t want you to see the video above because they complained to YouTube that we were infringing their copyright. YouTube removed the video but now we’d like to offer it to you, as a gift” and urged their supporters to download the video and post it on their favourite video sharing site (Douglas, 2010). It also contained a ready made e-letter to the CEO of Nestlé which was another call to action available to their supporters. Greenpeace encouraged their supporters to change their Facebook profile photos to anti-Nestlé slogans that often incorporated one or more of the company’s food logos and post messages of protests on the official Nestlé Facebook Fan Page. Within a matter of days, Nestlé’s Facebook Fan Page was essentially hijacked by activists and supporters protesting Nestlé’s use of palm oil and its associated destruction of the rainforest.  The page was inundated with a range of different messages that were mostly negative and some even bordering on abusive. By March 20, the issue had gone mainstream with reports in major news media outlets such as BBC and CNN. Much was made of Nestlé’s handling of the crisis, particularly the way the Nestlé Facebook Fan Page moderators were responding directly to the protestors on its page. On 17 May 2010, exactly two months after the campaign started, Greenpeace declared victory when Nestlé announced it would stop using all products that come from rainforest destruction.

Web 1.0 Case Study Overview - Piracy Advocacy Groups versus Intel (1999)

On 20 January 1999 Intel, a leading manufacturer in the computer processor industry, announced that it was planning to include a unique Processor Serial Number (PSN) in its new generation Pentium III computer chips. This announcement caused a stir amongst privacy watchdog groups as they believed that providing a unique PSN would significantly damage consumer privacy. They claimed that the PSN could facilitate information gathering about Internet users on a large scale with web sites able to collect these unique identifying numbers from visitors and keep a record of pages viewed, purchases made and any other data submitted. The site could then sell this information with questions around whether electronic dossiers could be compiled and used by corporate or government information-gathers alike. As one of the privacy group leaders said “The PSN is the greatest threat to the privacy of the American consumer since the social security number” (Kornblum in Leizerov, 2000). Using their existing websites to generate awareness amongst local and international media, these internet savvy tech-lobbyists mounted pressure on Intel resulting in an announcement that Intel would now modify the PSN to allow users control over its activation by creating a software patch. However, the privacy groups were not satisfied and despite meeting with Intel officials and in January 1999, three groups; Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC), Junkbusters Inc. and Privacy International (PI) joined together and declared a boycott on Intel until the PSN was completely disabled and subsequently mounted a massive online protest. A central, standalone website was created to headquarter their campaign and contained links to news, media reports, question and answers, links to more information, along with other campaign related information. It also contained several ways for supporters to take action, making use of new tools and technologies that were now available thanks to the Internet that had not existed before, such as the ability to download graphics and text, and a link to a downloadable copy of campaign flyers that the public was encouraged to print out and distribute. In addition, the public was urged to put a text line referring to Intel’s misuse of power in the signature bloc of their emails and to write to leading PC makers to let them know that their computers would not be bought if they had the PSN in them. In April 2000, 16 months after the start of the campaign, Intel declared that it would stop using PSN in its next generation of computer processors (Kannelos in Leizerov 2000)

Discussion: Online video and 'image events' for the social media age

Greenpeace has consistently taken progressive approaches to new media and technology. Since the 1970s, the environmental organisation has proven itself adept at creating 'image events' or 'mind bombs' that are designed for mass media consumption and dissemination.  Who could forget the incredible TV footage of a small rubber dinghy containing two Greenpeace activists, armed only with a film camera, which managed to position itself directly between a whale and a huge Russian whaling vessel and its supporting flotilla bearing down on them, harpoons at the ready. Apparently taking the bet that whalers wouldn't risk killing humans in order to kill a whale they found out the answer the hard way when without warning a steel harpoon cable slashes into the water less than 5m away. While they didn't manage to save the whale they managed to film the dramatic confrontation which was then broadcast across media organisations across the world creating an image event that exploded 'in the public consciousness to transform the way people view their world' - DeLuca (1999) Image Politics: the new rhetoric of environmental activism.

While by no means as dramatic as the TV footage described above, the release of the 'Have a break' video it has successfully created an 'image event' for the social media age. They demonstrate a successful model of how to exploit the immense possibilities of social media. The controversial and graphic nature of the 'Have a break' video, the spoof Kit Kat ad produced by Greenpeace, played a key role in their social media campaign against Nestle. It had a slick and polished feel to it, not dissimilar to the kind of media product you would expect from a large corporation, and contained a modified KitKat logo which read 'Killer'.

It was initially placed on YouTube and Greenpeace urged its supporters to share it with friends and through other social networks. Nestle reacted swiftly by requesting YouTube to take the video down citing breach of copyright issues. This move was counteracted by Greenpeace quickly reposting the video on an alternative video sharing site Vimeo,  now with the added message to its supporters that Nestle had tried to ban the video. The video went viral.

Not only was the video reposted thousands of times in a myriad of places, it generated customised videos and original content created by supporters such as the following:





It has been argued throughout the media and blogosphere that Nestle made the wrong move in demanding the 'Have a break'video was taken down what action could they have taken? While they succeeded in taking down the video from YouTube, they should have anticipated that the next obvious move on the part of Greenpece was to post the video elsewhere and that they did not have control over the spread of information through social networks such as these.

Firestorm in the Twitterverse

Really excited about the responses to Malcolm Gladwell's critique of digital activism and its use of social media tools which was published in the New Yorker last week. Provocatively entitled 'Small Change: the revolution will not be tweeted', Gladwell's comments have created much debate across the twitterverse and the blogosphere and is fantastic affirmation that my thesis topic is indeed proving to be very topical!


Blog Roll: Responses to Gladwell

Henry Jenkins | Blog | Perhaps a revolution is not what we need
Maria Porpova | Blog | Malcolm Gladwell is #wrong
Jaz Cummins | GuardianEco | Is digital activism an effective medium for change?
Micah White | Guardian.co.uk | Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism
Juliette H | Greenpeace Blog | An answer to critics of online activism

Privacy Advocacy Groups Versus Intel - a possible comparative case study?

Social movements using the internet to fight multi-billion dollar corporations isn't new. In 1999, Intel, a giant in the computer processor manufacturing industry, faced a public relations crisis when they launched Pentium III, which included an electronic personal serial number (PSN) that would allow web sites to verify the identity of those who wished to use their virtual facility. Controversy ensued when three privacy advocacy groups joined together to boycott the new processors and mounted pressure on Intel to change its product due to privacy concerns. This campaign was almost exclusively headquartered and executed on the internet. They created a website to headquarter the campaign www.bigbrotherinside.com (a clever play on words of Intel's marketing slogan)which contained all relevant information about the campaign.

Similar to Greenpeace versus Nestle, there was an extreme imbalance of power with Intel being one of the largest manufacturers in their industry, making 85% of the world’s computer processors at the time. Also similar to Nestle, it was not the first time that Intel had been accused of controversial practices (in 1995, Intel introduced the first Pentium processor knowing that it was faulty). This campaign was also a huge success as within 16 months, Intel capitulated and said it would stop using the PSN in its next generation of computer processors.

So by comparing the online tactics used by social movements in 1999 (Web 1.0) to the way that online tactics are being used in 2010 (and the associated advent of social networking tools and technologies) (Web 2.0)), this could be a really good way of illustrating just how (or if) social activism has changed in the 21st century...

Day 2 - Data analysis

I have now printed out the first batch of primary source data of the Facebook wall posts and have started to analyse using a simple coding system to help identify any patterns/themes. So far have been surprised that the level of conversation has been diverse, ranging from the angry, hysterical, mob-like responses that were so hyped up in the media to genuine fans of Nestle pleading with it to halt its perceived unethical practices. Some individual's have also shown a well informed understanding of the debate. The media portrayal of an unthinking, mechanistic, and mob-like protest has been somewhat exaggerated from what I can see so far...

Spent the morning reading an article which I think will be really important for structuring my final paper - R.Kelly Garrett's Protest in an Information Society: A Review of Literature on Social Movements and New ICT's which provides a useful framework for explaining the emergence and development of social movement theories across a wide range of disciplines such as sociology, political science and communication.

Notes and observations

Framing processes
Feel this is an important point to consider how Greenpeace was able to frame the issue or 'tell the story' in a way that was engaging and compelling to the public. The 'anti-globalisation' message is not a new theme and has been used in activist strategies in the past.

Levelling the playing field
Again this theme comes up when we discuss new media and social media technologies. "By lowering costs and increasing opportunities for communication, new ICTs (information and communication technology) provide the largely passive support base a low-intensity forum for issue-based communication, potentially strengthening their identification with the movement."

"Micro-contribution strategies"
This case study demonstrates that very small contributions can be effectively aggregated to achieve a net result. Garrett explains that in the past coordination costs have outweighed the benefits of these small contributions, but new ICTs can be used to lower costs. He mentions the 'click and give' websites that are used for fundraising as another successful example.

Intensity of conflict
Garrett discusses future diffusion patterns which are now possible due to rapid-fire social networking technologies and their ability to spread information across geographical boundaries. He says that Myers (2000) concludes that "cycles of mobilisation and response will be more rapid, causing issue support to wac and wane more quickly." and that other scholars have come to the same conclusion and surmises that ICT's may ultimately contributing to an intensification of conflict, something which has clearly been seen from the case study under examination.

Timeline for Nestle-Greenpeace PR crisis

A timeline showing how the first four days of the online PR battle between Nestle and Greenpeace . It shows the numbers of people online who helped drive the PR disaster for Nestle over the company's alleged use of unsustainable palm oil and resultant damage to rainforest.

NESTLE KERFUFFLE on Prezi