The anarchist ice cream truck, equipped by the Center for Tactical Magic. Now making its rounds in New York, it is equipped to supply activists in case of confrontation with security forces.

” … The ice cream inventory is limited, because cabinets are used to store rolls of film for documenting police action, Ibuprofen for billy-club headaches and rain ponchos in case of fire hoses and water cannons. There were pepper spray treatment kits and the counter-weapon of choice: water balloons. There is an ample supply of work gloves.

“These are for throwing tear-gas canisters back at police so you don’t burn your hands,” explained the driver, Aaron Gach, 34, who wore a skinny bow tie and black-and-white saddle shoes, and a uniform with “Art” on the name tag and the words “Tactical Ice Cream Unit” on his white captain’s hat. He was not wearing his usual big fake mustache …” (New York Times)

The truck is also equipped with 12 video cameras to produce an independent record of any confrontations, and an audio/video transmission facility.

It’s an interesting and provocative project, but it makes a lot of assumptions (and perhaps overstatements) about the extent of confrontation between activist organizations and security forces. It operates in the United States, not Germany, after all.

As you know, I love a good quote. I admire an executive that can turn a good phrase. That’s why I was impressed by Seth Heine’s quotes in a recent feature on the recycling of cell phones in the New York Times magazine.

Heine runs Collective Good, one of several companies that recycle cell phones, phones discarded for a variety of reasons, from the barely out of fashion to the brick-sized.

Heine has obviously had some experience in describing his business, managing to wedge references to a 70s television show and popular Japanese game parlour games in the same interview:

“…A store in Beverly Hills had been sending boxes of gold-plated, limited-edition Dolce & Gabbana Motorola Razr phones, turned in when customers traded up for something even newer. “That phone can’t be more than six months old,” Heine said at one point. Later, he handed an employee a Nokia with a note rubber-banded around it. It was something a friend gave him at dinner; that happens all the time, he said, “when you’re the Fred Sanford of phones.”

“…Heine’s business succeeds or fails based on how well it can assess and then realize the value of each phone. “I refer to that as the pachinko machine,” he told me. “You dump in a phone and it rattles around. It’s got to come out somewhere at the bottom.” The question is, where?

Phones beyond repair, or with little value, are dispatched … for their gold. …. The most valuable handsets find their way to a room across the hall from the storeroom, where two employees sell them on eBay. Most, however, are sold via private auction to a stable of about 20 different resellers.” (NY Times Magazine)

I think this reinforces one of the keys to building corporate value from a corporate social responsibility program: the ability to sell the intent and benefits of your business, and to do it in a familiar and evocative way. Much like what Yvon Chouinard has done at Patagonia.

Technorati Tags: Sanford & Son, CSR, corporate social responsibility, cell phones, mobiles

Apologies for the affront to the collective genius of Frankie Goes To Hollywood/Edwin Starr. What is the true, quantifiable, worth of corporate social responsibility? Aside from polishing up Nike’s annual report? Or pulling a veil over the dirty workings of international oil conglomerates? Wal-mart must be wondering that as it tries to marshall positive voices in favour of its banking application, currently being heard by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Voices like Andrew Young and the Salvation Army.

Arrayed against the corporation, it seems, is every community bank in the country, local activists, and a sizable number of members of Congress. And the Wal-mart haters. Wal-mart flavoured haterade must be on sale, because there are some people with some real issues speaking out on this banking application:

“walmart has decided to try to rule the world. The stores and their domination are bad enough. If they have control of a financial institution it could be a disaster. All their friendly, good old boy, we’re with you America ads are just a sham. They are out for one thing, the all mighty dollar, and it has to go into their pocket. I’m not fooled by their folksy attitude one bit. If they control a bank in any area they control the area, if you’re not with them, you’re against them and you get no loan for your new business.” (FDIC submission, .pdf)

Hearings are on now at the FDIC offices in Virginia, and:

“At times, the hearing felt more like a referendum on Wal-Mart’s integrity than the wisdom of allowing it to open a bank, with friends and foes of the retailer marshaling character witnesses. Testimony touched on Wal-Mart’s role in port security, its efforts to recover missing children, the generosity of its health insurance plan and the cost of a shovel at its stores.”

(New York Times)

The corporation’s certainly facing an uphill battle. The lobbying battle against the application seems to be led, in part, by the Independent Community Bankers of America. Common themes, and phrases, run through many of the letters filed with the FDIC. Quite a few seem awfully similar, like the 49 or more nearly identical letters from the Citizen’s Tri-County Bank.

I understand the value, from the pespective of sheer quantity and physical impact, of organizing a petition or letter campaign. But what is the real effect of all that work (or, in the case of an online email campaign, not that much work)?

Research with members of Congress has shown that form letters, or letters that are evidently the product of an organized lobbying or petitioning campaign, are discounted by politicians. Communicating with Congress: How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy, prepared by the Congressional Management Foundation, provided quantitative and qualitative backing for this finding:

“I wish that outside groups would understand that overwhelming our office with form letters does
more harm than good for their causes.”

—House Correspondence Staffer

“One hundred form letters have less direct value than a single thoughtful letter generated by a constituent
of the Member’s district.”

—House Correspondence Staffer

“In cases where the Member/Senator has not reached a firm decision on an issue, 44% of staff surveyed said that individualized postal communications have “a lot” of influence, compared to 3% for identical form communications. As one House staff member noted, personal communications are more effective than form messages “because the recipient knows that the author was truly motivated by the issue.”

Technorati:Wal-mart haterade CSR

I ran across a piece with that title a while ago, and it’s prompted a few thoughts about “astroturf” - the practice of creating an apparent grass-roots movement through subterfuge, careful marshalling of opposition, and the construction of apparently independent third-party coalitions and organizations.

Of course, whether it’s Kentucky bluegrass or astroturf is in the eye of the beholder. There are always two sides to a story - but money (or lack of it) is usually a high hurdle for one side in an issue campaign. Campaigns with well-integrated advertising, lobbying efforts, sophisticated and well-maintained websites and apparent widespread grass-roots support are sometimes viewed with suspicion. The charge of astroturfing, because it requires relatively large amounts of money, is frequently associated with big business or right-wing interests.

Way back in 1997, Mother Jones ran an examination of the astroturf organizations being coordinated by the Global Climate Coalition, an umbrella group apparently organized by the Washington PR outfit Ruder Finn.

Of course, astroturf campaigns can also benefit from charitable organizations and their in-house capabilities. (for example)

A non-smoker’s rights org has prepared a clear guide (.pdf) for activists trying to track the money, organizations, lawyers and lobbyists working for the tobacco lobby. It’s also a quick reference for any effort to uncover astroturf organizations.

A radio ad has been running on Chicago radio for the past few weeks, opposing an upcoming change to the fire code. The ads make a passionate and credible safety argument, and close by pointing the listener to a third-party site. Jumping to the site, you can see it’s sponsored by the firefighter’s union and others. I know nothing about the issue, but alarm bells always seem to ring when the safety card is heavily played in an issue campaign.

The shareholder uprising at Disney has been branded a “grass roots revolution,” but is it? Roy Disney and Stanley Gold have spent a lot of money convincing the public that their fight with Michael Eisner is over corporate strategy and proper governance mechanisms.

Their campaign has relied upon a sketchy protest website, a growing irritation in the entertainment industry towards Eisner, and Roy’s goofy but familiar features - which certainly remind me of good old Uncle Walt and his Sunday night TV program. But is it really a grass-roots revolution?