So finally the dust is starting to settle on this Chevron fake ad campaign fiasco, but I must say that I’ve really enjoyed this one. For those who’ve been living under a rock (or watching Fox news… ouch! sorry), Chevron’s new advertising campaign was recently hijacked by a watchdog group called the Yes Men, who did a bang up job of not only fooling the public (which really isn’t hard to do) but they fooled the media (which is slightly more impressive). Quick note on the Yes Men, I personally view them as social revolutionaries, but I realize that the word “boundaries” isn’t in their vocabulary.
Now while I’m a big fan of upsets, I can’t help but wonder how these guys are getting away with completely slamming Chevron. Also as a journalism major, the first amendment is pretty much tattooed on the inside of my eyeballs, so it got me wondering how they’re skirting the law on this one. So after checking into this, it turns out the Yes Men don’t have completely legal tactics. The big word that comes to mind is libel, which is according to dictionary.com is “defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.” Basically this means you write something is isn’t true and pisses someone off, you’re in trouble. Libel law gets really fuzzy when it comes to commercial speech, and the fact that there is a ridiculous amount of disagreement over the scope of protection for the first amendment, when it comes to commercial libel it’s really a case by case basis. To prove libel you need things like intention, publication of the message, was it fraudulent, actual malice, and were there any losses (tangible or intangible). Individuals can sue before they die, corporations can sue as long as they can prove a loss, and it varies but just about everyone else can do it too. Defending libel is supposed to be a little easier, with defenses like truth and using the first amendment.
So let’s take a look at what went down. Chevron starts production on a new campaign, information about the campaign gets out, and thanks to the internet, this information gets into the hands of some very sneaky, very anti-giant corporation people who aren’t big fans of Chevron. So do they just post anti-Chevron comments on their Facebook’s? No! These people actually created a fake campaign that was so brilliantly executed it fooled just about everyone and their dog. Except for Chevron, who knew, and wasn’t too thrilled. So did Yes-Men fraudulently claim to be Chevron? Uh, yes. Did Yes-Men mean for people to read these ads, turn into instant Chevron-hating zombies and never buy their products again effectively affecting their bottom line? Double yes. So let’s see, that’s intention to cause harm and malice right there. But wait, this is where it gets tricky. Did Chevron lie? Did they say anything that wasn’t based on factual evidence? Are the Yes-Men and similar groups using the first amendment as a shield to hide behind? Hmm, let’s see what the court room of public opinion thinks.
I found this great video called “Chevron thinks we’re stupid”, which I find very entertaining, but from the get go, they make it very clear that it’s satirical. Now check out this “Chevron” ad from Yes-Men’s campaign “We Agree”. If you didn’t already know that it was a fake, how would you react to it? Would you think, “wow Chevron’s really stepping out there?”
Not wanting to miss out on a piece of the action, Ad Age posted an article online that was aimed at companies for things they should keep in mind should they be “Yes-Men’d”, like having a back-up plan, monitoring for “anti-you” information, and not overacting but acting quickly. But you’ll notice that “have ethical business practices so you don’t get caught” isn’t listed on there. While Chevron may in fact be slowly killing our planet, the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove that their statements are true, and that their speech is worth protecting. So will Chevron sue Yes-Men? If it weren’t the Yes-Men, they’d probably SLAPP the libelers first, (not physically, but I’m sure they’d like to do that too), which is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. This is basically when a corporation bullies someone into a corner and buries them under 300 years’ worth of paperwork, so that they either can’t defend themselves or they call it quits. This scare tactic usually works, but for the Yes-Men, I don’t think it’ll do any good.
Ultimately I believe that the Yes-Men’s choice to publish these ads was premeditated, thought out, well planned, and brilliantly executed. It was also fraudulent, sneaky, and in the end doesn’t really do a whole lot for the notion of free speech. The hijacked “We Agree” campaign was executed in a completely unethical way, but the thing is, I really don’t think the Yes-Men care if their decisions are ethical. I think the whole point of their actions was to stir things up and get people talking about big issues, I just think that they stirred the pot a little too much and ended up with some questions they might not want to answer.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment