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...