Social Media Warfare: Greenpeace attack Nestle
Greenpeace: Not that green or peaceful!
Right, I’ve just been having a look at all this “Nestle are horrible” stuff that Greenpeace are coming up with and I just want to make sure people have another view of this.
I’m not protecting Nestle
I had heard bad PR regarding Nestle’s treatment of the rain forest in the past when my uni’s student union (The University Of Manchester) banned all Nestle products to boycott them. I’m sure there is no smoke without fire so the point of this post isn’t to protect Nestle, it’s merely to shine some light on Greenpeace not being as green as they.
Greenpeace are no strangers to PR battles
In the past they have attempted to destroy the reputation of multinational companies in order to make them seem like 60s “Peace & Love” Hippies from Woodstock! They have good experience with good old fashioned war strategies and it seems that they have kept up with the ages and they are now using their old tricks by using social media. If you aren’t aware of the campaign I’m referring to, this is the site they have made attacking Nestle: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/kitkat
Well, just before you stop buying Nestle products, think about the people making the allegations:
Are they clean? are they green? or do they too have their flaws of their own?!
Greenpeace attack Shell
Greenpeace attacked Shell…
In 1995, Shell planned to put an end to their Brent Spar North Sea oil tanker by disposing of it in the Atlantic and for obvious reasons this raised public concerns surrounding the project. So, the tree-huggers at Greenpeace saw this as a perfect opportunity to absolutely slate Shell, in fact they went all the way with this one and physically took over the oil rig and had members of their team literally fighting to siege the tanker. To explain how far they went, they actually had huge water guns and attacked Shell!
…without due cause!
Well, just to show you this was a publicity stunt, Shell had actually done their research and leading scientists had advised them that dumping the tanker in the sea was actually more ecological than dismantling it on dry land. Greenpeace, chose to omit this information and because sea disposal seems like a terrible thing on the surface, they used this opportunity to attack Shell in public. This means Greenpeace were actually doing something that prevented Shell from doing the ecological thing! Shell were doing the best thing according to experts so this really isn’t great for an environmental charity!
Greenpeace vs Nestle – an effective social media assault!
It seems Greenpeace are now using a similar strategy against Nestle but this time making great use of social media. They have once again gone all the way, using:
- A micro-site (like boats against Shell)
- A viral video (like guns against Shell)
- And by getting every Greenpeace employee to slate the Nestle Facebook page (like the number of people they had against Shell)
This is a great social media strategy because it is working and meets their objectives to damage the reputation of a big company to make them look like the cool kids. In fact, take a look at how this has affected Nestle share prices!
Nestle’s response
The allegations appear true and Nestle are conscious of the impact this has had on their brand. On the 17th of March, Nestle released news that they have ceased buying palm-oil from indonesia Sinar Mas following a similar move made by Unilever. This makes sense, the move they’ve gone for is, in my opinion of the best options (2nd to not doing this in the first place!):
- Admit (a little bit) that you got it wrong
- Make the right change to solve the problem
Question them before believing!
I’m not saying Greenpeace have done it again, I’m just saying question them. Don’t fall in the trap of believing them because the title says “Green” and “Peace” in it, or because they have made witty video using a Kit Kat that says “Killer” on the packaging!
Just because they wear flowers in their hair doesn’t make them right the whole time!
OTHER POSTS RELATED TO THIS ARTICLE
15 Comments to “Social Media Warfare: Greenpeace attack Nestle”
Leave a Reply
An interesting post… with things like this I always find it hard to form an opinion aside from the knee-jerk reaction of “none-profit organisation good, multi-national corporation evil” especially since it’s normally difficult to find unbiased facts on the internet about these issues.
I agree with you that you need to examine those making the accusations and highlight their hypocrisy if needs be – I have always felt GreenPeace are a little like the Animal Liberation Front. Their hearts are in the right place, but the way they go about carrying out actions is often debatable.
However, I think it’s a bit much to liken a social media campaign to a physical campaign like the Shell one. Yes, both are damaging to Nestlé at the end of the day, but social media didn’t endanger lives or have an actual physical impact on people indirectly involved in the decision-making process – i.e. the people working on the oil-rig who had no direct say in what the company decided to do.
It’s nice to see something that isn’t just the usual one-sided argument though
Indeed Ali! Thanks for your comment! I will look into the Animal Liberation Front, it sounds interesting…
I particularly your comment: “none-profit organisation good, multi-national corporation evil”. I think I may write a short article on this soon as it seems quasi-impossible for a charity to fail in social media. They’re always gonna be seen as the good guys! This is why I feel it’s important to question them at times…
Regarding Greepeace vs Nestle, I’m not literally saying that Social Media is like shooting somebody in the head with a jet hose! Haha! But, I am comparing the impacts both stunts can have on a companies public image!
Social media won’t hurt somebody physically but it could significantly harm their brand’s reputation!
[...] Facebook fan page brand jacking is the new form of tree hugging. As movements form, the organized groups can stage mass attacks on brand Facebook fan pages, overrunning it with negative messages. Like sitting in trees with banners to slow down clear cutting and spray paining messages on buildings, this is simply the digital form of protest. Expect more of this in the future –not less. (Update: interesting perspective on social media warfare) [...]
[...] Andy Shaindlin, he writes a smart blog on this topic, also read Alumni Futures. Update part 2: He’s expanded the matrix. Share This [...]
[...] and their questionable practices. This was referred to as “social media warfare” by Jonathan Barnes - a coordinated attack on brand, and likened to real-life protests. While part of me feels sorry [...]
How good it is to see some balance. Thanks for providing another aspect to this story. It’s far far too easy for people to get so caught up in something when they haven’t done their due diligence, when they haven’t verified their facts but instead choose to run with the swarm and let the swarm think for them.
My initial thoughts on all of this were simply that Nestle had it’s brand hijacked by some rogue employee. I just couldn’t believe that a brand could be so un-smart
It appears it is in fact Nestles page after all, but I picked up the phone and called their Canadian office to find out.
Social Media makes it far too easy for people to simply tag along. Like the mainstream media, it appears Social Media can also be slanted and manipulated. So long as we know that… we can do our own vetting.
Great post – we need some balance in all this.
Thank you for you kind words Shannon!
As you say “It’s far far too easy for people to get so caught up in something when they haven’t done their due diligence, when they haven’t verified their facts but instead choose to run with the swarm and let the swarm think for them.”
I couldn’t agree more! I think this is due to the fact that Social Media often appears natural and human, which is why people are more prepared to believe it. Users often believe what they see in social networks more than the media and press. This, added to the fact that in this case it was a charity doing the talking, just makes people believe what they hear without even questioning it!
For this reason, I think charities are extremely well equipped to be successful within social media!
The only form of protection against such attacks seems to be easier said than done though: “just don’t do anything wrong in the first place!”
Thanks again for your comment,
Jon
Well said.
From what I can gather, Nestle capitulated on the 17th when they issued their official statement. They restated their willingness to comply following their Facebook faux pas on the 19th with a Q&A.
I’m not defending Nestlé – they obviously did some stupid things – but I can’t help suspecting that Greenpeace have been sustaining this for their own benefit as much as the Orang-Utans’.
According to the statement on their corporate website, Nestle conceded defeat on the 17th March and were, apparently, committed to fixing the Palm Oil issue.
The battle appeared to have been won. Mission accomplished.
It’s quite possible that the whole affair might have blown over if someone (allegedly at Nestlé) hadn’t asked YouTube to take down the “killer” spoof video – after all, nothing generates demand more than banning it.
Now Greenpeace had a shiny new stick to beat them with – censorship!
I’ve written a slightly more detailed breakdown of the events here and I’d appreciate your thoughts.
http://bit.ly/bGMpbY
Cheers for you input Alec.
Censorship seems to be one of those actions that really does annoy people and if you’re seen to do this in the public space, then you’re basically just putting your brand in danger! Nestle have made that mistake in a big way and Greenpeace are clever enough to exploit it to great effect!
I still wonder about Greenpeace’s motives in these situations, I think they’re just in it for the PR, as I mentioned in this post, I’m not sure they care so much about the cause. They just want to take the limelight with their crusades!
Cheers for the comment and well done on a fantastic site! Great layout!
Jon
HOLD UP HOLD THE **** UP in response to the information under the title “Greenpeace attacked Shell…”, you somehow seem to think that Shell’s decision to do the ‘right thing’ (according to them) justifies them dumping a toxic waste heap into the ocean. It is simply the lesser of two evils, regardless of which method of disposal is more ecologically friendly they both have a absolutely devastating impact on the earths environment..FULL STOP! Doesn’t that then at least justify action toward them??? It was hardly violent (from a corporate perspective that is)
Taking digs at Greenpeace and justifing the actions of corporations who treat earth as if it were a toilet are two completely different things, try not to do the latter.
And this line “This means Greenpeace were actually doing something that prevented Shell from doing the ecological thing” is an absolute joke – please explain to me how dumping an oil rig into the ocean is the “ecological thing”?????there is something wrong with you guys if you think that’s even fractionally ecological. This is the BS that justifies action, regardless of whether it will have the desired effect – Greenpeace used the opportunity to further their noble cause and they taught a lesson to an evil planet killing corporation
.
Wow harsh words! :-s
I see your point when you say: “It is simply the lesser of two evils”. I also agree I probably shouldn’t say “the ecological thing” because throwing a huge oil rig in the sea is hardly “ecological”! It’s obviously a joke!
So I do agree with you on those points… but what I’m saying is that in my view, Greenpeace aren’t as friendly as they try to portray. I think they’re very clever at using spin in order to promote their brand and I don’t believe they always do it in the fair and decent manner that a charity should behave in. In this situation, they forced Shell to do something that they had been warned against and they did it by creating a weird almost Hollywood like scenario with boats and guns! I find it pretty weird for a charity to behave like that!
Going back to your point though, dumping a huge oil rig is obviously not ecological and you describe it well as “the lesser of two evils”.
My aim here wasn’t to approve of Shell’s actions but rather to ask people to question charities (and not only multinational companies) as I don’t think Greenpeace acted as a voluntary organisation should. ie. using spin and deceit.
Cheers for your input although pretty intense! haha!
[...] the video be taken down. This resulted in a fairly coordinated protest (some have called it attack) on Nestle’s Fan Page. Then, Nestle certainly didn’t do itself any favors – [...]
[...] asking that the video be taken down. This resulted in a fairly coordinated protest (some have called it attack) on Nestle’s Fan Page. Then, Nestle certainly didn’t do itself any favors – with a few [...]
[...] asking that the video be taken down. This resulted in a fairly coordinated protest (some have called it attack) on Nestle’s Fan Page. Then, Nestle certainly didn’t do itself any favors – with a few ham [...]
[...] asking that the video be taken down. This resulted in a fairly coordinated protest (some have called it attack) on Nestle’s Fan Page. Then, Nestle certainly didn’t do itself any favors – with a few [...]