Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo published this morning allegations by the bromine industry claiming that Greenpeace's report on the iPhone was inaccurate and alarmist. They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturer, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines. While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it."
They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturers, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines.
Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market. I'm sure if they had done a similar report on the XBOX 360, the media would have been all over it in a similar manner.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Greenpeace has been pulling stunts like this for publicity since the 1980s, why should it surprise you that they are alarmist and seeking headlines by bashing one company in particular?
Regardless if you agree with their goals or not, they left credibility behind a long time ago.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.
Personally, I don't really care, because we're all in it to make or raise money. PETA says and does offensive things to grab headlines, the WWE does, and 90% of the articles on CNN and even Digg are sensationalist headlines designed to get you to "click through".
Who cares?
rm -rf
Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.
I love animals and believe we need to clean up the earth and all that, but every time I hear about Greenpeace and one of their stunts, I want to go kill a baby seal and wear its fur. Just like every time PETA does some of their bullshit I go eat lunch at KFC.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
All of you with an ideological bone to pick are frothing at the mouth out of pure ignorance. Not only is it *not* hypocritical to go after high-profile targets, thus extending the reach and efficacy of your message - but it's downright good strategy to go after a target that's more likely to fold and thereby become an industry leader in the values and policies you advocate. In fact, this approach is *standard*. Groups across the ideological spectrum follow this playbook, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
You can certainly criticize Greenpeace for the particulars of this campaign, but criticizing them as "hypocritical" for going after the highest-profile target most likely to achieve success for their campaign? Cry me a river.
I suppose this is what I get for addressing trolls specifically, huh.
BTW, when calling another a pussy, it helps not to have the name "coward".
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Greenpeace is an advocacy group. It uses the same marketing techniques as politicians, for-profit companies, and everyone else. They go for the big target. I think they're being honest in admitting it.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
That happens to other organizations as well... look at MADD.
Nephilium
Effective, that is, until people figure out that you are bending the truth to promote your "message", at which point your reputation as alarmists damages the very issue that you are trying to promote.
The cake is a pie
Problem: People worldwide are concerned about the environment, human rights, and peace/security. Many feel that multinational corporations are making things worse. But multinational companies are really good at avoiding regulation by 'traditional' democratic institutions, namely governments.
Solution: Brands are already signifiers of complex emotional meanings. Marketers would love to define these meanings for us, but the meaning of a brand is a contested space. Holding high-value brands accountable for the sustainability of their actions becomes a powerful tool, but ONLY when those brands defy the values of their customers. Turns out many customers don't like toxics leaking out their landfills and so on. They never did. But now that marketeering has taught us that brands have deep things to say about who we as customers are, well gosh, suddenly brands that represent poisoned water tables are in deep shit. Because branding is about feeling, and poison-water feels bad.
Think about it: Greenpeace's only action was to release information. Not exactly threatening, unless that information drives customers. If Greenpeace doesn't share the values/ethics of the people who shop at Apple, there's absolutely no effect. But they do. Greenpeace picks targets that have value-added brands, brands with emotional resonance. It's hardball tactics and it's completely fair because what they said about Apple is true. Generic companies are also bad, but those companies don't have fanboys and big brand-name markups. Apple makes all kinds of promises to its customers wrapped into "Think Different". Turns out the customers want that to means something.
The interesting thing about this is that far from destroying brands, it actually makes them more powerful. Suddenly brands go beyond marketing language to become signifiers of real corporate ethics, where a value-added brand is even more desireable, because we customers know that a company that claims to "Think Different" but isn't will get crucified. Outing liars increases trust. Good for everyone: markets are more efficient with more information.
until people figure out that you are bending the truth to promote your "message"
And how did Greenpeace "bend the truth"? Apparently (the OP does not contain a link to the original story) Greenpeace claims iPhones contain brominated compounds and PVC. As near as I can tell from the (industry) articles, neither Apple nor the industry disputes that. The defense is 1) everybody does it, 2) the compounds are approved by government agencies so they're ok, 3) there are no alternative materials, and 4) (which seems at odds with #1-3) Apple is in the process of stopping using those compounds. That these industry claims may (or may not) be true does not mean that Greenpeace's claim that the iPhone contains bromine compounds is "bending the truth".
Greenpeace has clearly picked the target that they will get the most media attention from (if they'd targeted Kyocera, who would have paid any attention?) but they didn't say everybody else (except Apple) was fine.
BTW, why are the links in the OP anonymized? I value my tinfoil hat as much as the next guy, but why in the world would even Little Dick Cheney or Mad King George care if I'm reading an article in Gizmodo? Is Gizmodo the new terrorist chic?
Why? Show a me a group or individual publicly campaigning for a cause that isn't cavalier and, in some cases, downright hypocritical. Both conservative and liberal groups and individuals do this all the time and I'm tired of it. Right wing "pro life" advocates who seem to have no problem supporting a war in which innocent people are dieing every day spring to mind. As does Al Gore and the host of other leftist celebrities who try and bring attention to global warming by traveling the world in private energy wasting jets and then get from event to event via SUV once they've landed.
I'm sick and tired of the "do as I say, not as I do crowd". Shut the hell up you shameless self promoters.
the French underground was instrumental in defeating Hitler.
Wrong. While there were some very brave resistance fighters in France, even after the Normandy invasion in 1944 it was little more than a token operation. The SOE (British intelligence agency tasked with things like operations in occupied Europe) only supported the resistance for its morale boosting and propaganda value - most actions in occupied France were carried out by British operatives. De Gaulle acknowledged how unimportant the resistance was, and quipped that if all the people who claimed to have been resitance fighters had been then the Germans would never have been able to occupy France in the first place. The high profile of the resistance in post war France was an attempt to disguise the level of collabaration with the German occupiers by most of the French populace - a classic case of the victors writing the history to favour themselves.
Poland bravely met the Nazis in open battle, and got wiped out.
As did the French in 1940. Had the French and British used similar tactics to the Germans (concentrated armoured attacks, units authorised to operate in a semi-autonomous manner rather than requesting orders from above at critical moments) then it is debatable whether German victory could be assured. It was the piece meal use of French armour (technically on a par with the Panzers of the Low Countries campaign) rather than in massed defensive actions and counter attacks, along with ineffective leadership from the high command that enabled the Germans to win such a stunning victory. It is clear that the Western Allies had learnt nothing from the Polish experience of Blitzkreig at this point.