Harmless protest group, or an insurgency?

Mark Linder, Bell Pottinger Sans-Frontières

Dana Eyre, Bell Pottinger Special Projects

A direct action group called Liberate Tate, backed by a coalition of high-profile artists, is targeting BP, asking that BP discontinue arts funding in London, and more broadly attempting to bring public focus to what they maintain is BP’s irresponsible behaviour in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. Their tactic is a series of disruptive art performances that are conducted on Tate premises by surprise, over time, until BP and the Tate agree to part ways.

On BP’s list of pressing strategic issues this would seem a minor item. If anything it’s raised the low profile that BP has historically had in arts sponsorship. It’s given artists-cum-protesters a new angle which is media-friendly. The issue is not “real”, in that there is independence between the funding and Tate’s choices for commissions. Any defensive move from BP or the Tate would only call more attention to the points that the protesters are making.

So why are we writing about this? Because behind a democratic right to protest can lie reputational knock-on effects that are not apparent. The protagonists, are, after all, creative figures with their own followings. Pouring an oil-like substance over a nude man in the middle of the Tate gets coverage. And that coverage will be most impactful with the influential classes -- who shape the climate in which entities like BP operate. It could make BP more of a pariah with its peers, cause even more isolation. Other groups of artists may be drawn to this cause. BP is in an extractive industry, a magnet for protest. Other activist groups may be watching this interaction, perhaps building their confidence to take action against BP.

Here are some other questions that should be asked, based on experience in dealing with complex antagonist ecosystems in conflicted states:

1. Is this more than a protest, an insurgency? Does it matter?

Insurgency differs from protest in that the objective of the insurgent is to directly disrupt, destroy or end an ongoing relationship using quasi legal or even criminal methods in a way that captures a larger public empathy.

This is a protest, but it shares insurgent characteristics. It is up to the protagonists to choose the actions that label themselves. The tactics that Liberate Tate are using are more artistic than Greenpeace, but it is the same strategy of public embarrassment.

2. How significant could this be?
This depends on who the organizing actors are, their long-term interests, and the support they capture. You cannot judge this on the effects or non-effects of one particular campaign. This could be a first step for the organizers towards taking on bigger issues. It all depends on the interests of the leading actors, their supporting networks, how sustainably they raise resources.

Without some understanding of the ecology of the systems these protesters belong to, it is not possible to say with any authority whether this are significant or not.

3. Is this important enough to respond to? Could responding create a larger contagion?

We have to be careful about the issue of response, because the significance of acknowledgement can be to increase the legitimacy and recruiting power of the original protest.

It is now accepted that the US’s response to Osama Bin Laden helped legitimize Al Qaeda. Deeming a core organization to be a “terror network” created a mutually beneficial magnification of the movement, and enhanced its recruiting power.

The core of a movement can be drawn from subcultures that in effect become dry tinder, in which any spark will create its own core. Broad phenomena like animal rights -- active for 100 years -- can be thought of as a broad tract of tinder. The overall field attracts individuals and groups looking for action, “rebels looking for a cause”.
At its heart, this protest reflects the broader issue of society’s uneasy relationship with its oil producing sector. We depend on a small number of companies that are individually more powerful than most nation-states.

In a resource-constrained world, as society puts more disruptive resource into extracting and transporting energy that is more valuable and harder to get, there will be more incentive for protest. Some of that protest will be democratic, some insurgent, and some of that will be criminal or violent. The discourse about this will be wide ranging, and it will be challenging to predict where a spark might provoke unreasonable or violent protest without a substantive knowledge of the ecology of the originating movement, and, importantly, the media environment actors operate in. And most of this activity and media environment will be benign.

Anonymous is a complex movement

The world is full of protest groups that are buried inside complex ecologies that have benign, even constructive elements. The challenge is to develop enough knowledge of the context to be able to delineate potential sources of threat.

4. How do you analyze and plan, when it is hard to justify activity of this sort before threat or incursion?

Entities often start developing a plan after an antagonistic event has already taken place. Then this plan is inserted an ecosystem and media battlespace that is not fully understood.

What a targeted entity needs is a form of forward planning based on deeper understanding that anticipates potential actions and reactions. But it takes time to fully understand the complexities of an ecosystem with potentially antagonistic strands. With this understanding it is possible to understand the chains of influence and the key dependencies. This is essential to developing an effective plan.

Those dealing with reputation and risk are learning that is cheaper to take a strategic engagement and communications approach than correct reputational downfalls.

The sum total of the above is to suggest that situations like BP/Tate and the artists should be examined, not only from the point of view of immediate effect on community affairs or reputation, but from the point of view of the ecology of this particular group in the larger relationship the oil-producing sector has with society. The occasional disruptive art performance may not seem to have much effect. The real question is, what’s really going on, who is interested, who else in different movements is supporting them, and who is watching this with related interests, and importantly, what are the triggers that might catalyse a whole different kind of action. Only with some, even imperfect understanding of this, can the targeted entity begin to understand the risks, contemplate use of (or avoidance of) strategic actions, communications and engagement to mitigate damage and shape the future.

We are not imagining a world of anarchy. But we do imagine that global corporates that have such power and visibility will have to have a much better understanding of the world of protest against their sectors. Some will need a better understanding of insurgency. It depends on the sector, and the ecosystems that are around that sector. Strategic communication and coalition-building techniques are far cheaper than repairing reputational or physical damage.

Organizations such as BP have (or should have) a Chief Risk Officer. That office has to evaluate all insurgent risks, not just to evaluate present danger, but to develop better theories of how less civilized actors might behave.

     Mark Linder, Bell Pottinger Sans-Frontières -- mlinder@bell-pottinger.co.ukdana@bellpottinger.net
     Dana Eyre, Bell Pottinger Special Projects -- 

     Contributions by Eleanor Kelly, Bell Pottinger Special Projects -- ekelly@bell-pottinger.co.uk

Bell Pottinger Special Projects and Bell Pottinger Sans-Frontières focus on strategic communications for conflict transformation. Their clients are entities, industry sectors, governments and societies. Mark, Dana and Eleanor transfer lessons learned from the world of conflict in unsettled states to the private sector.

Creating a global diaspora for the transition to democracy

By Mark Linder (Bell-Pottinger Sans Frontieres), Dana Eyre(Bell-Pottinger Special Projects)

What on earth could a couple of “old hands” from the private sector in the US and UK possibly contribute to the formation of New Egypt?

One of us is from the world of marketing -- big brands and their competitive relationship with users. The other is from the world of peace-making -- conflicted states and their relationship with citizens.

Between us we see the potential and the threat. New Egypt is a promise. Old Egypt has been partially destroyed, but incumbent forces could put substantial “drag” on the progress forward.

Put this another way -- the spirit of freedom has succeeded in partially disabling the old system, but the challenges are greater than any existing system to solve them. These challenges will require New Egypt to invent new systems to address them. That is the journey you are on.

Our key advice is, involve the whole world in your journey.

Don’t let the west tune out of this great drama. Invite countries, brands (especially), people, to witness, to participate, make contributions, to engage. Solicit sponsorship of your magazine itself! Create involvement. Because it’s going to take the pulling power and creative energies of the world to help New Egypt become a reality. We have listed practical steps at the end of this article.
Remember, man is a small-group animal. We can feel for each other, but we have not developed sufficient capacity for large-scale empathy. Large scale empathy is only possible through the accumulation of small stories that win our emotional attention.

And you have a lot of competition for attention, and not just in the region. There are three other global dramas playing out. Climate change is a source of deep anxiety. The end of cheap oil is limiting growth and accentuating national interest. The world’s finances are a vulnerability, as we see states start to go bankrupt.

New Egypt is at the center of the fourth great drama -- global social realignment.
Social realignment is aided by technology, both the mass media of television and the connectivity of the internet. Most colleagues in our industry would say technology has had an accelerating factor.

What the streets of Cairo show is that a much more fundamental change has taken place, from people who want their voices heard now, who want change now, who are willing to give up personal life now to pursue this kind of change. This is painful, but enormously charismatic and aspirational. You will succeed to the degree that you can maintain the participation of those who are working with you now, and to the degree you can extend, strengthen, and enhance the coalition for change you’re building.


Here’s what we recommend:


1. Recruit brands. Make a list of the world’s top brands that have self-determination as part of their brand character. For example, in the tech space we would identify both Apple and RIM/Blackberry as standing up for the freedom and security of their users. Make your own list. Write to these brands, ask them how they can become involved. Offer them ideas, but listen to their suggestions.


2. Put together a team of 100 “ambassadors”, your most articulate and engaging representatives. Offer sponsorships to enable them to be hosted to tell the story.


3. Make films.... not just for your own people, but for the extended diaspora. Your target audience is “us” -- the part of all of us that is anxious about excessive concentration of power.


4. Get academic “brands” involved. You need premiere brands from the UK and the USA. Approach Stanford University and University of Cambridge looking to build a joint transition culture programme. As mentioned, you are going to invent new systems to deal with new problems. You should have an academic partner to help capture this work and spread the word.


5. Tap into the global leadership and change community. What kind of leadership skills are required for New Egypt to succeed? Who will lead New Egypt? How can you continue to work together, incorporating new allies, with differences, into a common project?


6. Treat New Egypt like a brand. It’s not too early to form a national brand committee. You don’t need to pay for consultants to help. You’ve already got a powerful start – a brand that, in our view, symbolizes energy, positive change, peaceful change, and the importance of the individual. But it’s not about our view: it’s much more about deciding what you want the rest of us to feel about Egypt, living that, and creating engagements like the above to bring this to life.


7. Last, practice radical openness. This process will be imperfect, subject to personality disorder, confusion, ignorance, polarization -- in other words it will be a very human process! Acknowledge the imperfections, acknowledge that this is an invention – a new way of doing – open up the discussion, commit to a way ahead that engages the positive energies of the world.
----------
Dana and I look forward to hearing more, and if there’s a way we can help, we will.


mlinder@bell-pottinger.co.uk
dana@bellpottinger.net

Bell Pottinger Special Projects and Bell Pottinger Sans-Frontières focus on strategic communications for conflict transformation. Their clients are entities, industry sectors, governments and societies.

One thing about the web 2.0 movement – it’s putting a lid on unilateralism. By this I mean the exploitation of ignorance, and the “selling” of a single point of view through propagandist marketing. 

We need more openness – to address the ignorance and the complexity of issues. 

Here is an example: 

In a recent biofuels study, only 26% of UK opinion formers agreed they don’t know enough to have a real opinion about biofuels. Whether the other 74% really know enough to have an informed opinion is matter of debate. At any rate, only 56% gave biofuels their stamp of approval. But 92% said their opinions about biofuels could be favourable if their concerns were addressed. 

·         92% majority agreed / strongly agreed that if their concerns were addressed they would be happy to use biofuels

·         What are these concerns? Impact on food production and impact on the natural environment come first, and cost viability comes third.

·         The “cost” issue is not just individual economic cost.   59% strongly disagreed with the statement that they were ‘not bothered’ as long as the fuel in their tank is cheap and doesn’t damage their car.

What this says to me is there is a massive upside to getting the right open, multi-lateral discourse going. There are real issues, there are ignorance issues, and different stakeholders will see these differently. 

The question is, can we count on the biofuels or larger energy industry to do its bit to change the conversation, address these concerns, fill this ignorance vacuum? Would we trust them, anyway? 

·         Biofuel producers and specifically oil companies are flagged as the least trustworthy source (only 10% support) for information on biofuels.

·         Scientists are at the top of the trust hierarchy with 83% support.  They are followed by NGO’s at 48% and Government at 38%. 

We expected the financial services industry to keep us appraised, and they didn’t. The US automotive companies put tremendous resource into making darned sure the right discourse didn’t happen. As a result, two of the automotives will essentially be dismantled. 

Why should we expect anything different from the energy majors? 

“The oil companies have frequently run advertisements expressing their interest in new forms of energy, but their actual investments have belied the marketing claims. The great bulk of their investments goes to traditional petroleum resources, including carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands and natural gas from shale, while alternative investments account for a tiny fraction of their spending. So far, that has changed little under the Obama administration.” (NY Times, April 7, 2009) 

I believe the web 2.0 movement could be harnessed to help the energy industry be more straightforward, without threatening them in a traditional sense. 

Knowledge in today’s societies is about connections, links, participation, transparency and openness, and speed. This results in better listening, better trust, generosity, efficiency as well as effectiveness. In effect we are able to harness the creativity and wisdom in all of us. 

Here are some things I think about: 

1.                  Who will play the trusted interlocutor and broker? Trust is earned and conferred, not claimed. All parties must feel this entity (or person) is suited to convene the right debate, that this entity cannot just act to further their own interest. Academia sometimes fills this role. Some commercial entities are granted “permission” to convene the industry.

2.                  Is there a grand “unifying theory” of biofuels? It’s simply too complicated. There are too many ecosystem ripples. Anyone with one approach cannot be trusted.

3.                  There has to be a way for “sectarian” groups to interact and have dialog with each other. The key is to create environments where the other parties’ context – as they perceive it – can be understood and shared.

4.                  The ignorance in the general population must be addressed for political support.  The population at large must have access to information and must be aware that there are no absolutes. It becomes imperative to throw open access to information, through learning environments.

5.                  Disruptive players, if their purpose is simply to prevent discourse, have to be managed. 

What matters is transparency, and a multilateral knowledge and relationship building process. And transparency cannot be a trite tip of the hat anymore – industry has to be seen to be transparent rather than just talking about it. Knowledge is not about the content – it’s about the networks of contributors who test and improve that knowledge, round it out. 

The energy industry has an opportunity to profit from the fallout in other strategic industries, and radically open the debate about alternatives, and the industry’s own strategy, so that the market can address the shortfalls. 

Source: Opinion Leader Research Reputation Thermometer, Feb 27, 2009

Posted by Mark Linder  mlinder@wpp.com