Sweet success thanks to social media
Posted: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 by Kathryn McConnachie in
0
People expect a lot from activists. Their campaigns are said to be either too commercial or not commercial enough. They're either too broad or too narrow. Too edgy, too offensive. Demanding too much or demanding too little. It's difficult to find a formula that works.
Greenpeace is particularly creative in their approach. They are also very strategic. They are in fact one of the few organisations able to successfully combine on-the-ground activism with the supportive potential of online platforms. The Kit-Kat campaign was run earlier this year and resulted in victory for Greenpeace in less than a month.
What was the Kit-Kat campaign? Well in a nutshell, Greenpeace targeted confectionery giant Nestlé for the company’s use of palm oil from companies that are destroying Indonesian rainforests, threatening the livelihoods of local people and pushing orang-utans towards extinction. Hence they devised a campaign appealing to Nestlé to “give the rainforests and orang-utans a break”.
The campaign started with extensive on-the-ground research and work by Greenpeace in the Indonesian rainforests in order to establish the strength of their case. They then opened up the campaign to the public via a number of channels, attracting millions of supporters.
The most controversial aspect of their campaign was a video advert that was released on YouTube. The advert depicted a man taking a break from mundane office work and opening up a Kit-Kat. Inside the wrapper however are not the usual chocolate and wafer fingers, but rather orang-utan fingers. The man continues to break one off and start munching, oblivious to the blood dripping down his chin. A shock tactic indeed, but unsettlingly true.
Nestlé proceeded to have the video removed from YouTube for copyright infringement on the same day it was posted. But it was too late, the video had already received over one million hits and Greenpeace simply continued to post it on various other websites.
Greenpeace also encouraged its supporters to post messages of condemnation on Nestlé’s Facebook page, change their profile pictures to the "Killer" Kit-Kat logo, send emails, make phone calls and generally bombard Nestlé with demands to stop their role in the destruction of the rainforests.
Nestlé was backed into a corner and with their public profile at great risk, it took less than a month for them to issue a statement saying that they would no longer be using palm oil from companies that were destroying the rainforests. They were also eager to express their dedication to sustainable development.
So far they appear to be living up to their promises and have already cut ties with the palm oil companies that Greenpeace targeted in their campaign. Social media has also offered a great opportunity for the public to hold Nestlé accountable – just skimming over the comments on Nestlé’s profile illustrates this.
Greenpeace's executive director, Kumi Naidoo said in an interview (see video below) that this campaign illustrated how combining traditional activism such as on-the-ground protests with online campaigning and talking directly to the power in question, achieves the best impact.
It drove the message home in more ways than one and I’d like to see the usual Negative-Nancy’s try and criticise it.
Greenpeace is particularly creative in their approach. They are also very strategic. They are in fact one of the few organisations able to successfully combine on-the-ground activism with the supportive potential of online platforms. The Kit-Kat campaign was run earlier this year and resulted in victory for Greenpeace in less than a month.
What was the Kit-Kat campaign? Well in a nutshell, Greenpeace targeted confectionery giant Nestlé for the company’s use of palm oil from companies that are destroying Indonesian rainforests, threatening the livelihoods of local people and pushing orang-utans towards extinction. Hence they devised a campaign appealing to Nestlé to “give the rainforests and orang-utans a break”.
The campaign started with extensive on-the-ground research and work by Greenpeace in the Indonesian rainforests in order to establish the strength of their case. They then opened up the campaign to the public via a number of channels, attracting millions of supporters.
The most controversial aspect of their campaign was a video advert that was released on YouTube. The advert depicted a man taking a break from mundane office work and opening up a Kit-Kat. Inside the wrapper however are not the usual chocolate and wafer fingers, but rather orang-utan fingers. The man continues to break one off and start munching, oblivious to the blood dripping down his chin. A shock tactic indeed, but unsettlingly true.
Nestlé proceeded to have the video removed from YouTube for copyright infringement on the same day it was posted. But it was too late, the video had already received over one million hits and Greenpeace simply continued to post it on various other websites.
Greenpeace also encouraged its supporters to post messages of condemnation on Nestlé’s Facebook page, change their profile pictures to the "Killer" Kit-Kat logo, send emails, make phone calls and generally bombard Nestlé with demands to stop their role in the destruction of the rainforests.
Nestlé was backed into a corner and with their public profile at great risk, it took less than a month for them to issue a statement saying that they would no longer be using palm oil from companies that were destroying the rainforests. They were also eager to express their dedication to sustainable development.
So far they appear to be living up to their promises and have already cut ties with the palm oil companies that Greenpeace targeted in their campaign. Social media has also offered a great opportunity for the public to hold Nestlé accountable – just skimming over the comments on Nestlé’s profile illustrates this.
Greenpeace's executive director, Kumi Naidoo said in an interview (see video below) that this campaign illustrated how combining traditional activism such as on-the-ground protests with online campaigning and talking directly to the power in question, achieves the best impact.
It drove the message home in more ways than one and I’d like to see the usual Negative-Nancy’s try and criticise it.