I’ve seen some campaign group emails that failed to reflect reality before. Equally I’ve seen many that are right on the money, and have helped deliver change. I’m a big fan of campaigning. I’ve been a Greenpeace member for years and I’ve taken part in campaigns myself.
However, there are ways of doing things. In recent times, some groups, particularly those who make up www.Sumofus.org (which claims to be an umbrella group of many campaign organisations), seem to be going way too far.
What does going too far actually mean?
Well, reverting to the “give us money or the big eyed animal gets it” is one such message that I would say, goes too far.
Equally, as part of the same campaign email, directly linking blame for the tragic death of an Orang-Utan, to big brands sourcing criteria and performance is another.
It’s really unhelpful for their own cause when campaigners do this. Why is this?
Well, firstly, it’s incredibly cynical, and ignores the complexity we all know exists at the end of supply chains and in conservation areas.
Secondly, it alienates business from supporting their ultimate cause (saving wildlife, if that’s what the aim is, rather than bashing brands for cash) and loses them credibility.
Thirdly, it actually just looks really desperate. The “give us money or the cute animals die” line.
Check out the below, and see if you agree. This is pretty outrageous stuff:
(Also, one of the links at bottom more than two years old, which is odd, given there is much more recent coverage that could have been used. Cock up or conspiracy?)