[Video Link for Email/Other Subscribers - 2min]
I’ll let the video speak for itself and not pass any judgment on Kimberly Clark nor Greenpeace. It never ceases to amaze me what video, social media, and activism can do for a communications campaign. Throw in some nature, children/babies, animals, senior citizens, veterans [insert other truly empathy-drawing subject material], and craft a message that supports your group’s goals while highlighting audience benefits and personal social values, man we got a WOM vehicle.
The important thing to consider though is if facts are being properly conveyed. Even if they are, how is the imagery and emotional appeal affecting the audience? While an organization cannot be responsible for the multitude of possible interpretations, there is a subjective personally-assessed degree to which the message is appropriate. At which points are communication pieces informative, marketing, or propaganda?
With the advent of social media and increased ability for individuals and organizations to express themselves beyond mere words, and for others to easily spread those messages (particularly if it’s multimedia), citizen and social activism (active and especially passive) will be dramatically increasing. However, the importance of objectivity and fact-based reporting will still be highly revered, particularly in a world where publishing and sharing your/others’ content and opinions will be easier than ever.
Via Greenpeace Member Blog and Hugh Byrne on Twitter