The Domain of the Enemy?

Public relations activity is central to activism. Arguably, activism is public relations in its most developed and articulated form. Activism is about power and change. Activism is adversarial and confrontational. Activist groups deploy a range of communicative strategies and tools to persuade other groups, organisations and individuals to alter their behaviour. They do this by identifying issues, raising awareness, building legitimacy and shaping cultural norms.

This may be so, but activism is often portrayed in the PR literature as the domain of the enemy, as a threat to be dissipated, even extinguished. Certainly, few organisations welcome the attention of activists. Activists are dangerous competitors, hell-bent on stealing market share, not through sales but in terms of social legitimacy. As L’Etang (2008: 84) notes: ‘Activists appear to be constructed as problematic in public relations. They are the other, the implied organizational opponents.’

Activism seems to contradict much traditional thinking about public relations because it is rooted in conflict and disagreement. It is, by definition, a challenge to the status quo, and as such threatens to disrupt power structures. Activists do not necessarily look for compromise and symmetrical solutions, and may very well refuse to engage in relationships that are based on goodwill and mutual understanding.

To take a UK example, activists fighting against fox hunting are not interested in understanding the motives of the hunters, nor will they be content with a negotiation that leads to half as many foxes being torn apart by dogs. They want the practice to be ended, for once and for all. In many cases their motivations will be linked to a wider worldview that opposes the exploitation of animals, that abhors cruelty. By no means all anti-hunting activists are vegan and bitterly opposed to the fur trade or circuses and zoos, but their efforts can be seen as part of a discourse that reflects a changing attitude to fellow creatures.

Accommodating or nullifying dissonance and dissent is a core part of much PR practice, but it is often framed in terms of compromise and mutual benefit. The literature, particularly that which is associated with the ‘professional project’, shies away from discussing strategy and tactics that amount to a direct attack on opponents (despite the wealth of real-life examples available to theorists).

It is clear that the study of activism offers many insights into the nature of public relations. In some ways activism encapsulates the limitations of traditional, organisation-centric approaches to the discipline, but at the same time it is rewarding to examine the positive contribution activists make to a properly functioning liberal democracy.

The dominant Western/US-centric models of public relations are grounded in market capitalism, and claim the processes of democracy and freedom of expression to be prerequisite to their operation. The articulation of contrary views, and efforts to persuade people to change behaviour, values and norms are seen as vital to the health of a vibrant, progressive democracy, but at the same time, the forces of stasis and conservatism hold great power and, in some readings, steadfastly occupy the moral high ground. Yes, the market will decide, but businesses are naturally much concerned with defending existing positions, and on resisting change when it is driven by other, competing interests.

For Robert Heath (2001a, 2010) one of the great values of activism is that it plays an important social role, elevating a society’s value standards. As Bourland-Davis et al. argue in Heath (2010: 409) this chapter, too ‘is built on the premise that conflict is not inherently bad and is a naturally occurring condition in social life and human communication’.

What is Activism?

Looking at activism in a global context Sriramesh (2009) wrote: ‘Especially in pluralistic political systems activists are a public who choose to become “relevant” for an organization even when the organization does not choose them as a stakeholder.’

The activist is often the uninvited guest, the gatecrasher, who can be loud, impolite, and down right troublesome. Part of the problem for public relations theorists is that activists act. They exist to take action, and take action in a way that impacts on organisations and institutions in a way that reflects the values of potential or actual supporters. Often, there is a dimension of scale, with the activists as David taking on a corporate or institutional Goliath. There is a romance to being the outsider, the underdog, and at least superficially, the activist can assume the halo of Robin Hood, the outlaw whose intentions were good. There is likely to be an emotional dimension to activism, as well as a rational or ideological dynamic; critics might argue that often shallow emotion can be the dominant driver, of far more importance than logical and reasoned thought. Activists and their supporters may share some attributes with ambassadors and fans. They might be activists on behalf of an organisation, say a political party, but are as likely to be opposed to an organisation, and in doing so find that they share beliefs and values with a wider group. One cannot be an activist for Apple, Volkswagen or Dove products (but one can be an activist for some of the values such brands might position themselves as being aligned too). Most often activists aren’t employed by or paid by an organisation – they gain rewards in different way, and if their continued support is to be achieved, the activist cause must satisfy those needs. Motivations might include peer approval, a sense of belonging, or alignment with a cause to define identity, and may be publicly expressed by liking a Facebook page, recognition on a bulletin board, wearing a t-shirt or, say, a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or the smiling sun Nuclear Power – No Thanks badge, and other articulations of identity.

Very broadly, most PR strategy is designed to change the behaviours of large numbers of people, whereas activism tends to target a small number of decision makers. Activism is concerned with achieving structural change (legislative or regulatory), at micro to macro levels, which can be implemented by politicians or organisational leaders. This can be achieved by leverage, by mobilising a significant number of individuals behind a cause, thereby applying pressure.

Of course, neither organisations nor legislators change policy on the whim of one outsider – they respond to pressure of numbers, so it is vital that activists mobilise and demonstrate the values of a significant number of people. They need to demonstrate support, hence place importance on a tactical armoury of demonstrations and petitions, devices designed to enhance visibility. Such action usually requires frequent, sustained communication between activist and supporters, so concepts of dialogue and engagement can be more important than for, say, consumer goods. Most organisations must wish their ‘brand ambassadors’ were as visible.

So who are these activists? Larissa Grunig (Grunig et al. 1992: 504) states: ‘An activist public is a group of two or more individuals who organise in order to influence another public or publics through action … that may include education, compromise, persuasion, pressure tactics or force.’ Here, note the link between activists and pressure groups, an implicit suggestion that the activist group will be smaller than the target organisation. Note, too how Grunig titles Chapter 19, ‘Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent public relations departments respond’.

In the 1980s activism was routinely characterised in textbooks and research as a threat to organisations, a framing that sat well with notions of publics coalescing around positions that might impede organisations in pursuit of commercial goals. In 1984 Grunig and Hunt had called activist publics ‘powerful adversaries for most organisations’ (326) and Larissa Grunig (1992: 132) remarked:

In 2001 the UK IPR (now the CIPR) published with Kogan Page Managing Activism by Denise Deegan. Although series editor Anne Gregory noted the vital role that activists play in a democratic society and advocates a process of building relationships and community relations, which can act as a positive influence on an organisation, the adversarial element is never far away. As the title suggests, activists were a problem that had to be dealt with, or more politely, ‘managed’.

The reality is, as Coombs and Holladay persuasively argue, activists were using PR techniques well before corporations, but (2007: 53) it ‘was not until the mid 1990s that public researchers considered activists to be practicing public relations rather than simply posing an obstacle’.

US vs them Framing

Public relations practitioners can be viewed as playing a bridging role between an organisation and stakeholder groups, and part of this role involves attempting to connect different cultural norms and values, ranging from political beliefs to dress codes and manners of speech. Close your eyes, and imagine a corporate chief executive, and an animal rights activist. If the individuals you imagined were male, and one wore a suit and tie, it isn’t hard to guess which of the two he was.

As Banks (1995: 81) observes: ‘the very fact of their activism indicates that they will be culturally different from organisations they have concerns about. They perceive events and interpret their meanings differently, and they rally around a unifying need not acknowledged by the organisation.’

Indeed, it is rare for public relations practitioners to find themselves engaged in dialogue with external activist groups who are culturally similar to organisational decision makers; as Mintzberg (1983, cited in Grunig 1992: 514) puts it, ‘their purpose is to exert control over the organization even as outsiders’.

This binary distinction is given a very different twist in the work of Holtzhausen (2012) who suggests that in postmodern practice the PR professional will act as an activist within an organisation. Here the PR function is to act as the ‘conscience’ of an organisation, giving voice internally to stakeholder groups.

As Manuel Castells has argued, institutionalised power relations frequently meet with ‘counter-power’, as the social movements that are increasingly built upon networked communication come to challenge state and corporate institutions (Castells 2007, cited in Chadwick 2013). Note that activism is closely linked to both the political philosophy of a society and the state of the economy. The nature of activism will reflect economic development, and wider societal change.

Beginning in the 1990s, there has been an emergence of activist coalitions, to form loose or semi-structured groupings, and also the rise of multinational meta campaigning groups, such as Greenpeace. Those who find themselves targeted by Greenpeace can be quick to point out that far from being a David, in communication terms, this is a multinational organisation, able to draw on a huge bank of experience, and with ready accesses to a significant supporter base, sharing broadly similar, if hazily defined, values.

Strategy and Tactics

Activism is a communicative act. The notion of a lone activist is tricky, and it is hard to conceive of activism as secret or unpublicised (although, an activist strategy could involve threatening publicity as the next stage in spiral of pressure). Activist campaigns almost always involve ramping up pressure until an end is met – it is hard to see success following a threat to say less and less about an issue!

Activism usually demands significant change from an organisation or legislator. If a course of action suggested by an outside agent is immediately accepted there is no need for activism; without conflict or tension, activism has no meaning.

Activist groups need to raise awareness, often by means of publicity stunts – vigils, rallies, demonstrations, sit-ins, and pseudo events such as photocalls and flash mobs – through to civil disobedience (non-violent but also non-legal) and, potentially, more violent acts that may stray towards terror (some animal rights activists are among the groups who adopt tactics that stretch the limits of public relations beyond breaking point). In the United States, violent environmental groups such as the Earth Liberation Front are considered to be domestic terrorists (see Jarboe (2002). Their actions include burning buildings under construction and spray-painting graffiti on expensive, fuel-inefficient automobiles.

Activist literature talks about choreographing protest, creating narrative and fitting actions to strategic plans, which can be seen as analogous to increasing desire for engagement and storytelling in consumer and brand PR.

Publicity is of great value, as it brings leverage. The activist group can then bring pressure directly to bear on the target organisation (shaming or boycotts), and also by seeking leverage by targeting crucial stakeholders, for example key elements of the supply chain, perhaps the manufacturer of vital components, or the source of funding (banks, shareholders etc.). An effective tactical device, if used with care, is newsjacking, where a topical event is reframed to highlight or amplify a particular cause.

Rallies and demonstrations work most effectively as graphic, physical representations of support, carrying a similar communicative effect to petitions, where the number of signatories is of significance. The presentation of a petition to a decision or policy maker – say, the handover on the doorstep of Number 10, Downing Street – creates a symbolic news event that plays a role in legitimising the cause (as does the decision of the target whether or not to receive the petition).

Figure 20.1 Manchester Airport elephant protest

Source: Accessed at www.flickr.com/photos/planestupid/5422782017/. Used under Creative Commons licence

Interestingly, Smith (2013: 114) groups activism among seven actions types in a list of Proactive Strategies, along with audience engagement, strategic philanthropy, sponsorships and alliances and coalitions. He describes activism as a confrontational strategy focused on persuasive communication and the advocacy model of public relations, concluding, ‘It’s a strong strategy to be used only after careful consideration of the pros and cons.’

Smith draws a distinction between advocates who essentially are vocal proponents for causes and activists who are more inclined to act out their support for the cause.

Heath and Palenchar (2009) identify five stages in the emergence of activist action: strain, mobilization, confrontation, negotiation, and resolution. Here, strain refers to the opening up of conflict between an organisation and a stakeholder group – usually when an organisation acts in a way that harms a particular interest, or resists change in a way that is detrimental to interests or values. The battleground is legitimacy. ‘Activists attempt to convince publics of the legitimacy of their issues by questioning the legitimacy of target organisations or industries’ (Smith and Ferguson 2010: 401).

Activists will seek to take control of the news agenda, from interrupting a shareholders annual meeting to creating a parallel event that might distract from or overshadow the official agenda, and will also seek to frame the debate in a way that reflects the wider values. At a higher level, climate change activists might highlight the threat to the environment, projecting attention on to a discourse coloured by images of polar bears on shrinking icebergs, while supporters of the carbon-based economy might frame the debate in terms of threat to jobs and an attack on the free market. Here, the alarmist activists are attacking industries that form the backbone of the economy.

Organisations attempting to defend an established position will often try to portray the activists as extremists, or somehow having a hidden agenda of self-interest. A classic defensive strategy is to introduce a trope of uncertainty (Cox and Pezzullo 2015: 135), to suggest that the counter argument is ‘not yet proven’, or ‘requires further research’. Cox and Pezzullo identify an article by Lesly (1992) as a classic source for the strategy of nurturing doubt:

As well as undermining the credibility of the activist case, this approach – kick the issue into the long grass – delays what may be inevitable, and allows revenue streams to remain open as long as possible. The concerted efforts of the tobacco industry to discredit, play down and generally hinder the acceptance of growing scientific evidence that linked smoking to cancer, might be a good example, one of several discussed by Ewen (1996).

To underline the qualities of activism as an evolved form of public relations, contrast the contribution of publicity in the ‘marketing mix’. For, say, a consumer brand, be it a hotel chain, an airline, a washing powder or a smartphone, the scale of exposure can be mapped against reputation and sales. Even the most informed publics are influenced by repetition of messages and visibility. This dynamic underpins search engine optimisation and the discredited evaluation technique of advertising value equivalence; as long as the exposure wasn’t hugely damaging, it was better to be in the news than not, and ‘mentions’ served a purpose. Nobody buys a product they have never heard of, and many people will opt for a familiar, safe brand, rather than shopping on price or detailed comparative investigation (see Chapter 16).

An activist organisation cannot work like this. Relatively few campaigning organisations have truly high name recognition. The battle is not like for like, not the same as a white goods manufacturer trying to win market share by brand exposure. Activist groups gain momentum and leverage by promoting values, by gaining acceptance for certain forms of behaviour, for associating policy with changing cultural norms. An interesting example that both confirms and challenges this framing would be Occupy, a grouping with an unusual strategy in that it has few clearly defined goals, and a very loose structure, but is held together by the ultra inclusive slogan ‘We are the 99pc’ and generic #occupy hashtag, which encapsulates post-economic crash, post-Arab Spring cultural values (We Are the 99 Percent 2015).

Figure 20.2 99% poster

The Activist Organisation

Smith and Ferguson (2010) suggest that activists use public relations for two reasons, clearly, as a means to rectify conditions identified by activist publics, but also to sustain the activist movement. The processes of change are expressed as goals, to elicit or resist change on the part of the target organisation or individual; to seek policy changes that bring about institutional change; and to change social norms. Organisational maintenance is needed to win the continued support of followers, volunteers and donors – the core issues must continue to appear relevant and pressing, and the group must be seen to be making progress towards desirable goals. Often, activists groups are heavily dependent on volunteers, in the same way as charities will be, so need to give supporters rewards, feedback and affirmation.

Longevity brings rewards for an activist organisation. An organisation such as Greenpeace derives power and influence from structures and access to public attention that has been built up over many years. A cause taken up by Greenpeace gains in legitimacy by association; even opponents will take the argument more seriously. Conversely, a successful campaigning organisation will need to be persuaded of the merits of a particular campaign before risking any erosion of this legitimacy.

It is possible for the time lapse between strain and resolution to be quite short, from the announcement of a planning application to a developer withdrawing the proposal, but wider campaigns are likely to be ongoing, and evolving. Battles may be won, but for an organisation such as Greenpeace, fighting on many, many fronts, the war can never be over, the troops must always be in a state of readiness; plans for a drilling operation in an environmentally sensitive area may be thwarted, but big oil will be back with an equally controversial proposal, and, more importantly, other environmental challenges will emerge. Superman cannot retire, job done.

The need for resilience is reflected in the choice of campaigns taken up by large or coalition activism; major players seek to ensure a noticeable proportion of their campaigns are winnable, and carry symbolic and iconic benefits as well as ideological value. Just as a corporate giant will highlight its successes rather than its failures, so too will an activist group; supporters must feel that their efforts are worthwhile, that their sacrifices are not in vain.

Worthy but Dull?

Marketers strive to emphasise a unique selling point, media relations specialists work to identify a news angle. Information becomes a public relations message when it is set in a newsworthy context, and its influence arises from attention. Whether considering the lead story in a national newspaper or a YouTube phenomenon, the key to attention is novelty, relevance and human interest; the mirror image of sensational is significant but routine. When the UK’s The Guardian newspaper announced an unprecedented campaign to highlight issues surrounding climate change, Freedland (2015) explained:

Adding urgency to a focused campaign is at the heart of effective activist public relations.

Leverage

The fashion industry offers many illustrations of how carrot and stick activism can make a difference to corporate activity, and create normative changes that do reflect a win–win situation. Activism by groups such as PETA has changed the attitude of many to the wearing of fur: PETA’s tactics have been controversial, and its aim is not for less use of fur in clothing, but the elimination of a whole range of practices it sees as cruel and inhumane.

Likewise, the threat of being exposed as using child labour has encouraged many fashion brands to look more carefully at supply chains and to make a virtue of transparency. There is a very long way to go, but the cumulative effect of many activists campaigns has been to make consumers more likely to consider, however briefly, the reason why clothes can be extremely cheap.

Access to Platforms and Channels

The growth of social media has opened new platforms and channels for the expression of discontent, and made the discourse of protest more visible. Online communication seems to offer two significant opportunities for activist groups – a way of jumping traditional media gatekeepers, coupled with access to highly usable forums for conversation. The reality, of course, is nowhere near as simple, but an activist cause can now create a news event, highlight an issue, share visual, audio and written content (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc.), demonstrate support (clicks, likes, followers) and choreograph targeted opposition to businesses, organisations or institutions.

Social media allows supporters to amplify messages in a more efficient way than ever before. Activist content has the potential to combine high emotional resonance, visual appeal, and sender gratification, resulting in rapid distribution across social networks. Those on the receiving end of the protest or pressure might also add that messaging spread through such networks has to cross much lower thresholds of veracity or credibility. In terms of economic resources, wastage is not an issue – transmission carries no direct cost, and there is no financial penalty for loose targeting (it doesn’t matter if the content reaches people well outside a target demographic, as ‘post and packing’ charges do not apply.

At best, this new dynamic is profoundly democratic, opening up the public sphere to a limitless range of voices; in reality, the online environment is very much open to the advantages conferred on elites by economic and social power. An organisation such as 38degrees offers stakeholders the opportunity to express support for a wide range of opinions, and does so in a way that is ‘measurable’ and has the exposure to be newsworthy.

In operational terms, the creation or hijacking of Twitter hashtags allows activists to frame and focus debate, and allows sympathisers to express their support in quantifiable ways. Helpfully, social media such as Facebook are highly visual, offering an ability to package complex messaging in attention grabbing form, without needing great explanatory detail.

Clearly, the Twitter discourse surrounding the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil leak, coupled with streaming video, and less than brilliant media relations work, brought into focus unprecedented challenges for BP. For an analysis of the Twitter storm surrounding Deepwater, see Walton et al. (2012).

Within four months, embattled CEO Tony Hayward had left the company. Remember that parody, caricature and satire all thrive on social media, adding to the armoury of the activist. (This is an example of the advantages conferred on a ‘rebel’ David when battling a corporate Goliath – large institutions or businesses cannot easily deride their opponents, or undercut their credibility with savage humour. The Kony (2012) video unleashed by Invisible Children in a bid to force action against an indicted war criminal showed how it is possible to attract massive support by slick use of social media tools – but how much harder it is to actually achieve results. Published on 5 March 2012, the YouTube video, which runs for a few seconds short of 30 minutes, had been viewed 100,593,731 times by 31 July 2015, and the Pew Research Center found that 58 per cent of US adults aged 18–29 had heard of the video. At this time Joseph Kony remained at large.

Raising awareness is of great value for activist campaigners, but it is easy to overestimate the impact of social media discourse, and the true commitment of supporters. Critics talk of ‘clicktivism’ (White 2010) and ‘slacktivism’ (Karpf 2010), highlighting the gulf between low commitment support and meaningful engagement. Worryingly, for activist groups, there are grounds for believing that ‘reflex’ social media engagement can actually be counterproductive in that supporters can feel they have done their bit for a cause without actually contributing anything of significance.

The ease with which people can register protest, especially when this is done in ways that are visible to peer groups, and thus invites conformation, leads in the view of some commentators to a culture of indignation, and worse, the commodification of righteousness.

A further cause for concern is that, in practical terms, the burden of proof can be lower for activists than for established institutions. Unproven, unfounded rumour can spread very quickly, often passed on by those with good intentions, and again it is very difficult for organisations to respond to false claims, especially when the medium is online word of mouth across networks of individuals. It is almost always easier to attack than defend a position. Aggressive soundbites are easier to craft than detailed explanation or refutation. For example, those opposed to siting a science research station near a town might highlight ‘radiation danger’, alarming local residents and grabbing headlines. It may in fact be the case that although processes planned for the centre do indeed involve radiation, the emissions could only be at a very low level, but a thorough account, giving comparative information could require significant and complex detail. Likewise, a product recall might be sparked by a hypothetical situation or in response to an isolated incident happening in circumstances that were highly unlikely to be replicated, but again the explanation would be much more complex, and harder to digest than a simple ‘danger/risk/horror/harms babies’ headline or tweet.

Agitators and revolutionaries have used soundbite and slogan tactics for centuries, but the internet has made distribution easier, and anonymity more attainable. As Michie noted, a key reason why negative PR is so effective is the difficulty of refuting a harmful allegation and remaining completely untainted: ‘Like an insidious virus, once stories are in the system, they are well-nigh impossible to expunge’ (1998: 117).

Activist literature talks about choreographing protest, creating narrative and fitting actions to strategic plans, which can be seen as analogous to increasing desire for engagement and storytelling in consumer and brand PR.

In the era of clicktivism and slacktivism, everyone could be considered an activist – while it is true that few are engaged in the direct action a twentieth century protester would recognize. People in modern democracies have more power than ever to express ideas and voice anger, but unpopular wars or unwanted bank bailouts, executed against the expressed will of voters and citizens, suggest that those in power listen less and less.

Conclusion

Activism’s purpose is persuasion, and its operational style can be confrontational; it may well be that the activist has little or no desire to foster goodwill and understanding. Activism works by focusing attention on a particular issue, in order to implement change or resist change. Its primary mechanism is leverage, applying pressure directly, and focusing opinion and sentiment on the target organisation in ways that impact on reputation and stakeholder interests. This might involve economic tactics such as promoting a boycott on products or services, or targeting key stakeholders in the supply chain. Often its tactics are designed to produce leverage – by public shaming, the promotion of embarrassment, and putting pressure on organisations and functions that are further down the supply chain, etc. In effect, the actions of activism add to the cost of doing business with the targeted organisation, and if that cost becomes too high, something must be changed.

The perhaps controversial message of this chapter echoes Bourland-Davis et al. (2010: 419), who note: ‘Ultimately the precept that we as public relations practitioners will strive for consensus may be damaging to our most defensible and applauded role in democratic society.’

Be that as it may, it is hard to disagree with Smith and Ferguson: ‘The perspective that activism is a legitimate public relations practice, contributing to the marketplace of ideas essential to the development of a fully functioning society has not been fully embraced by either scholars or practitioners’ (2010: 405).