We all know the power of peer pressure. Research shows that 2/3 of us will conform in public. And no one wants to be the dumb one.
Given the persuasiveness of those feelings and the reach of social media is it any wonder that public shaming is on the rise?
Perhaps it started with the Karens. The pattern is predictable. First the bad behavior is captured on video and posted on social media. Then the person is identified by name. Shortly thereafter they are fired while protesting furiously that their actions have been misunderstood.
Last week the law firm representing Donald Trump in his bid to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania resigned after the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of the lawyers involved were published on Twitter by The Lincoln Project. One has to wonder how many calls and emails they received.
This week the advocacy group Fossil Free Media has launched a campaign targeting advertising and PR firms, designed to pressure them into discontinuing their work with fossil fuel clients. The Clean Creatives campaign will seek to expose relationships between shops and clients that mysteriously don't seem to appear on the companies' websites and sustainability reports.
They are also reaching out directly to high-profile players in the industry and running targeted ads on LinkedIn seeking people willing to sign pledges to discontinue work with fossil fuel companies. (Faw, 2020)
Apparently the inspiration for the campaign came from Amy Westervelt in her podcast "Drilled."
https://www.amywestervelt.com/
What do you think of this approach? Does it make you uncomfortable to shame people in public? Should people be held accountable for their actions? What about the actions of the companies that they work for?
Have you ever contributed to any advocacy groups that promote shaming? Have you ever called or emailed someone to pressure them into doing something? How would you feel if someone did that to you?
Faw, L. (2020, November 24) Advocacy Group Seeks To Shame Ad Agencies, PR Shops Hyping Fossil Fuel Industry. mediapost.com. Retrieved November 25, 2020, from
14 comments:
I thinking shaming is a powerful social persuasion tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil. It depends if the social norm you are shaming someone into is for the greater good.
Anecdotally, in Japan, they are exceptionally honest with certain crimes due to "reintegrative shaming." The common narrative is that Japanese don't chain their bikes and misplaced money is taken to the police lost and found department. Apparently, if you do something wrong in Japan, a primary method of punishment is to call your boss, your mom, your grandma, for public shaming. It is meant to be highly effective. Other incidences such as when Ashely Madison was hacked and cheaters names were published, surely that curbed cheaters for a while. Alternatively, social shaming can make teenagers do stupid things, and is probably a key manipulative tool in date rape.
In the situation of shaming creative agencies for taking fossil fuel accounts, it is great that it works. I support fossil fuel divestment, and I know activists are also shaming banks and investment funds for financing fossil fuels. Moreover, they also are pleading the public to divest from the big banks that support fossil fuels. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8DgI-wln4Y&feature=youtu.be
If a specific person's actions are public, that person is more likely to act morally. That person is not lost behind a "company name" or secretly in a situation where nobody knows. Real people, real emotions and real reputations. In a highly segmented global world, sometimes that gets lost in the shuffle, but each person's decisions and morals make a difference. Companies are made of real people. Households are made of real people.
I wrote a paper on sustainable fashion purchases and although sustainable purchase intentions on questionnaires are high, only about 5% of consumers actually act as they say they will and buy sustainable fashion. Money, convenience, the status quo are very powerful motivators.
Highlighting the damage fossil fuels create for the planet is also important because special interest has such enormous ad budgets, and the planet doesn't. Thats the biggest issue is that money from huge corporations can persuade and direct "norms", ways of life and purchasing through advertising. It shows that advertisers need to take responsibility of the powerful tool they use on the public. Do advertisers and the media have the responsibility to curb plastic pollution, fossil fuels, prostitution, human trafficking, drugs, junk food and so on? To what extent?
When a product like fossil fuels has a clear substitute that is cleaner, cheaper and will mitigate climate change, then the moral answer should be easier to make. Plus, the ad agencies that publicly denounce fossil fuels might pick up some new business with other brands who support that cause.
T e r e s a
It definitely would make people feel uncomfortable to shame them in public. However, if someone is littering and you remind him/her gently, they probably wouldn’t do anything differently. Let’s say if you are filming that person with a phone and yelling to him/her to pick up the trash. In this scenario, shame became a kind of motivation to force them from picking up the trash. Adding on to that, I want to share a personal experience. I was working on a team project for a coding class. One of our group members just never did his work, but in fact, he is really good at coding. We just can’t get him doing the team project. So we decided to write him an email and we really pressured him, he finally did the work! I’m not saying that we should encourage people to approach others this way because it’s not polite after all. It depends on who’s our target audience, and we should choose the appropriate way to approach them.
Zhengbiao Ji
Peer pressure is a real persuasion tactic. While the connotation is often perceived as negative (i.e. high school bullies, sorority/fraternity houses), peer pressure as a marketing tactic can be quite effective when used appropriately.
Distilling fear is just one way to utilize peer pressure. For example, one of my friends mentioned all the negative side effects of using deodorant containing aluminum. While brand deodorants are typically significantly cheaper than cleaner deodorant options, I felt pressured to make the switch almost immediately. The same is true with clean beauty. Natural beauty products are more expensive, but the ‘unknown’ side effects of using generic makeup brands (i.e. Covergirl, Maybelline) is enough to persuade me to make the costly switch.
Shaming people in public can be daunting, and something that I myself avoid doing. That said, written communications such as email or text can be used effectively to get a certain persuasive message across.
By in large, we are a more impressionable society today than we were 10 years ago, primarily driven by accessibility and visibility into others opinions and lives. For example, pre-social media, you had no idea that 50k people disagreed with your statement online. Today, if you post something and it goes viral that's not necessarily the case anymore.
That being said, social persuasion is a powerful tool and can have positive and negative outcomes. I'll give you two contrasting perspectives. 1) The personal savings rate of the US in 2019 was half of that in 1980. I think this is primary driven by the social pressure to keep up and the peer pressure that younger generations are putting on each other to have the latest and greatest. 2) The #Metoo movement was a powerful and long overdue step in the right direction, primarily fueled by the social shaming of these men in leadership positions. I don't believe the movement would have gained the same traction with the public shaming and pressure put on these men.
At the end of the day, we have to use our moral compasses to pass judgement and whether it's warranted or not.
With every aspect of the digital age, there have been more advancements towards the connections to our personal and digital identities. Whether or not that is a positive connection is something that is interesting to analyse. We expose ourselves daily on social media, through our search queries, and what we choose to spend time viewing. When you see these stories about people being called and questioned about their connections to certain administration’s decisions-- it comes as a direct result of their decisions to list themselves and their firms publicly. Everything is public domain, even your personal data. You can try to scrub your records from certain sites, but your name, address, and phone number are all one google search away. I think that with your personal decisions comes accountability. If you are willing to work for a company and put their best interest into your work, you should be able to handle or be prepared for the general public’s opinion. People should be held accountable for their involvement in certain procedures and their actions, especially if they are a group of lawyers actively working on this job together. Assisting in trying to stall a democratic process is never a good look. These professionals should have known this. Part of being digitally responsible is knowing what you post, and how that could come back around to bite you.
Personally, I have never been the specific target of something like this. I know of many stories that involve targeted harassment, and it is a topic that is really developing recently. I think that if it is a confirmed evidential case where you are responsible for a campaign like this -- there are, and will be public consequences for you in the future. No one is invincible on the internet though, and there will always be flaws when it comes to what is fact or fiction.
- Ridgewell
I definitely think that people should be held accountable for their actions, especially in public. The only issue with this is that the approach that is commonly used in social media to do this is not right. I believe that brands owe some responsibility to the community and their customers. Brands should be involved in ethical behavior through the way that they treat their employees, the quality of products that they make, and the manner in which they interact with the environment. This is important because if the community is supporting this brand by buying their products and providing the company with the raw materials needed, it is only right that the brand offers accountability and transparency to the same community.
When the public does not get the responsibility that they expected from a brand or even an individual, I do not think that shaming is the best approach. The call-out culture has become so rampant and it is in a way appealing to regular users of social media. People have socialized conflicts where it is normal for people to shame and hate on individuals. Public shaming through whatever media should end. Regardless of whether it is a big company found for example polluting the environment I believe there are better ways to handle such cases. Because how we treat these brands will be the same way that we treat individuals which is wrong because it spreads a hate culture and also fear in our society. Brands and individuals can be held responsible for their actions through the right legal procedures and courts.
Xiaoyu Zheng.
I don’t think this approach will be effective unless the campaign is effective enough to cost a greater loss to those companies than discontinuing their work with fossil fuel companies. In other words, money is always the first priority for those companies to consider.
I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable to shame people in the public as long as they are doing something that really cross my bottom lines. I think people should be held accountable for their own actions. But they are not responsible for their companies’ actions as long as they are not contributing to those actions.
I haven’t contributed to any advocacy groups that promoting shaming, but I used to call/email some people to pressure them into doing the work they were responsible for. I’m good with that as long as I am responsible for the work.
Public shaming is a powerful technique to force people and companies to change their behavior. I engaged in public shaming to spread awareness of injustice and unethical actions such as police brutality and racial discrimination. However, recently, I think that the information I am spreading is correct or biased by the person who posts an article. Thanks to the internet's advance and the rise of social media, injustices lost in the void are exposed to the mass. I believe there are many positive sides, such as many sex offenders face the consequences due to the #metoo movement. However, sometimes such claims are false, and someone loses their job and reputation for no reason. The problem of public shaming is that many people are not fact-checking and believe everything in the article or post. Also, since information is shared by just one tap, people automatically spread it without considering the validity. Moreover, unlike traditional media outlets, it is usually told from a one-sided perspective. I believe public shaming is a double edge sword like capital punishment. Once the false information is spread, the accuser cannot correct the statement or recover his name. Because the name will remain on the internet forever, it is hard for a victim to reclaim everyday living ever again. I believe that everyone needs to understand each individual's power and its impact on someone's life. The information has to be shared only after individual research and fact-checking.
Masa
It makes me SO uncomfortable when people are shamed in public- it’s almost hard to watch. But are they deserving? Yes. Do I think public shaming will prevent others from doing wrong simply because they don’t want it publicized? YES. I wish wrong would be wrong whether or not it was put out to the public.
For example, have you ever walked in your local pharmacy or grocery store and see the pictures of people who stole ON THE WALL? That literally makes me cringe, if I planned to steal that definitely went out the window in fear that my face will be there for my neighbors to see. Is it necessary? Yes- unfortunately people don’t think their actions are wrong until they get caught or “put on blast”. That in itself is holding them accountable for their actions.
I’ve never been around a circumstance where I had to record anyone for their wrong doings- but I wouldn’t hesitate to if need be- seeing how much awareness it brings to Karen’s and Black Lives Matter for example. Especially because social media is trending- people often get recorded before they are even helped
I think people should be held accountable for their individual consequences, not their companies. Shaming people is not the right way in teaching them a lesson. We all have done things we are not proud of. We would not like for them to be publicized.
Now, in a legal matter, this is different. The publication of their faults and their photos or mug shots should be shared. Now, shaming and bullying are not right. Constantly, posting a video of someone falling or doing something considerably "funny" in today's society is just abusive.
I personally think people are accountable for their actions, however, publicly shaming would make anyone uncomfortable including me. There is always a way of doing things even if it's something wrong because we all make mistakes and something we do wrong without knowing. Also I think brands should be always in a neutral position when it comes to publicly shaming. Personally I have never been contributed in any advocacy group that promotes shaming, however, if I ever need to I would personally talk to that individual and try to make them understand.
It seems as though Fossil Free Media has a belief that their mission is to adjust the ways in which organizations operate. I admit that maintaining and aiding the earth for the greater good and for years to come is essential. However, the idea of shaming organizations or even leaders within those organizations is a bit rigid. Does defunding organizations that aren’t as mindful of their corporate social responsibly dismantle the economic strength as it relates to supporting one’s family? I’m not exactly sure, but I do believe it is important that an organization operate with transparency, purpose, and a clear mission.
I strongly believe that “business leaders have the duty” to ensure sustainable efforts as they operate their businesses (Chemical Industry Snapshots). But will shaming an organization make them responsible immediately? Not so much. Perhaps it’s a matter of creating a pathway that proves that environmental concerns should be addressed, through education. Fossil Free Media’s aim is honorable, but I worry about how long people will actually care. Perhaps the current pandemic (COVID-19) is a way of educating organizations on the importance of doing the right thing. With a generation like millennials who care and about and “demand” an organizations’ “stated values and actions” it might be advantageous for an organization to make adjustments (Moore, 2020).
Karen Moore, a council member for Forbes acknowledges that “CSR can’t be about checking a box” and should be “authentic and transparent” (Moore, 2020). As organizations and organizational leaders continue to evolve, perhaps creating a coalition within an organization (if not, every organization) on how it might be able to change its negative impact on communities them perhaps we may be addressing the issue in a more advisable manner.
Personally, I don’t think I could be a part of advocacy groups that promote shaming. While the work being done is admirable and much needed a different message needs to be defined. This regulation can be done by educating new and existing organizational leaders while promoting these initiatives positively for full collaboration.
References:
Moore, K. B. (2020, July 30). Council Post: Corporate Social Responsibility: Consumers Will Remember Companies That Led In 2020. Retrieved December 01, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/07/31/corporate-social-responsibility-consumers-will-remember-companies-that-led-in-2020/?sh=271c193eeb65
“Running businesses the ethical way more important than just adhering to CSR spending norms.”
(2014). FRPT- Chemical Snapshot, 1–3.
Jonathan Antoshka
Public shaming to me can be very powerful when it comes to creating awareness on people who are both victims or would have been victims of such behaviors from such companies. However, some individuals might be innocent and going public and spreading the negative rumors can be fatal to them as I have been involved in one such event in my life. With the recent wake of social media activism, it is hard for one to substantiate the given allegations especially when you cannot acknowledge the author or such information. I wouldn’t feel okay to shame people publicly as I know how it feel when people spread allegations against you or the company you work for by mere propaganda. However, if the unethical actions happening are true, public shaming would equally help in creating awareness.
November 25th Blog Review
- Qi
Once, there was an article talking about humiliation of a person and its consequences (Losing trust in the world 2013). A Jewish refugee was arrested in 1940s condemning Hitler and the war. He was immediately subjected to physical humiliation and then got hung from a hook publicly where he had his joints fall apart while undergoing apathy or even animus from the “world’s justice. People in every specific time period reckon their views as righteous and hold conviction that It is right to destroy other different groups. It can be viewed as a cognitive bias and sometimes even worse, false consensus effect. At present, public shaming is still not new. It is being abusively used on the Internet against ordinary individuals or a corporation. A Welsh journalist and documentary maker Jon Ronson portray in one of his books that social media shaming has become a social menace. In any circumstances, one’s private info, his related networks could be dragged out when one individual is publicly accused. Information security is never an enough protection. A serious wrongdoing by someone should be punished if it is against by law or at least educated by moral codes. But by passers who have thousands of different views upon the issue should not shame someone publicly, especially in a transmissible way. People should be accountable for their public behaviors, as in any form i.e. posting, commenting, or recording, etc. One harm done on the others who seem to be vicious could cause chain effects on people who relate to them. This is solely from an individual level.
When it comes to corporate level, as of the social media campaign shouting out for environment protection while trying very hard to destroy Fossil Fuel businesses, fossil fuel businesses could meet with substantial PR collapses. An interesting story similar to this is the epic Twitter advocating animal protection. It was a brave movement for animal protection. People make pledges to tear down Canada Goose from killing coyote for authentic thermal parkas. A good outcome is that Canada Goose claimed that they would no longer buy fur from trappers but only purchase fur which already exists in the market. It sounds sustainable, eco-friendly and the Company seems to respond to the media pressure. But I still doubt that the coyote killing will stop because of this act. What really happens is that some people who wore Canada Goose during that time were assaulted publicly by affected animal lovers. It seems that this chain effect won’t start if the social media shaming on Canada Goose did not go on. My question out of this is could public shaming really fix the core problems? Not quite for solid corporations. Moral codes are mostly unrestrained from judicial system. If righteousness could be proved or glorified by humiliating someone in public, then the victim could also hold justice by posting whoever is initiating an unmoral stalk or intrusion to his privacy. “Shaming doesn't mean that people won't engage in risky behaviors. Rather, it drives the behaviors underground, says Julia Marcus, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.” I personally support her view and would not agree with public shaming.
Referrence
https://www.peta.org/features/epic-twitter-backlash-canada-goose/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/pandemic-shaming-wellness-trnd/index.html
Post a Comment