But please don’t get me wrong: My view does not reject capitalism at all! Possitive and negative reinforcement are both part of capitalism: “make us happy (to win more)” and “do not make us angry (to win more)” are the two sides of the same coin. Companies react to both kind of stimulous, and both of them help thus capitalism to blossom, and companies to produce better products and policies.

What I’m proposing is to adopt a comprehensive understanding of capitalism and “companies’ psichology”, which acknowledges their capacity to react both to positive and negative feed-back from their customers. This kind of understanding is missing in the CarrotMob approach, which seems to rule out anything but “possitive feedback”. I also consider CarrotMob an interesting idea; I’m just trying to build upon it to make it even better.

The reason why I put the emphasis on the “stick” over the “carrot” is not ideological, but practical.
Positive reinforcement tends to work only for as long as it is sustained. And actually: because of the growing threshold of perceptions… probably stimulous needs to keep growing through time, in order to maintain its effect.
This kind of approach would thus require a long term mobilization of customers… that I think is difficult to sustain. How would you keep people continuously remembering virtuous companies “we are buying from you, and not from your competitor, because we like that you are GOOD”. It’s… very difficult, as you know. People does not seem to have energy or time for that.

Negative feedback is different, it is somewhat more “reactive”. You exert localized pressure… that forces a change to good behaviour. Then you can relax the customer’s pressure, and the change tends to be sustained. Because as soon as the misbehaviour returns, an even more intense boycott could be quickly summoned.

So… Bengt, to summarize: It’s both kinds of actions that should be tried. In fact: it seems the best approach is to combine both: to send the message “I’m not buying from you, and in fact I’m buying from your competitor, because of your not-enough virtuous behaviour. Others companies: please take note or be the next!!”.
Best regards, Bengt!

I would like to give reactions to your statement:

1.) Your view on capitalism is a very bleak one. And one I do not agree with. Businesses are run by people who can be good or bad. Business decisions can be motivated in many different ways – not only though fear.

2.) I think the Carrotmob idea is interesting because it does accept the rules of the economic system and does not fundamentally reject it. Its activism through consumption not through NON-consumption and might therefore be beneficial to the consumer and the business at the same time.

The real capitalist way… would be much more based on sticks than on carrots.

One-shot actions where you say a business: “be good and we’ll buy a lot from you”… is like petting a wolf. As soon as the caresses finish, or stop being pleasant… the law of the jungle would return.
For sure: a “wolf” may like the petting for a while, but if you want him to stop biting the dogs and kids around him… you better put him on a dog muzzle, or even better… cut his neck.

The whole approach of Carrot-Mob shows a very naive understanding of how the “corporate beast” thinks, and which kind of incentives better influence its action.

As Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop puts it: “Governments should regulate and they don’t. Businesses are useless at selfregulating. I think where the
regulation is coming from, is from where perhaps it is least expected: from the vigilante consumer”.
What is the most efficient tool for the vigilante consumer to carry out his task: carrots… or sticks?
Anita has no doubt, she thinks it is sticks. As a Shell executive told her once: “We don’t fear regulation, we only fear consumer revolt”.
Bettina Farrera, the CEO of Ogilvy in Spain (Ogilvy is a very knowleadgeble international advertising, marketing and public relations agency, with more than 16.000 employees worldwide) recently declared: “Consumers are getting a new power. They have become interactive, very demanding, they communicate through Internet, they organize themselves and are able to ruin a brand”.

This is what really motivates business. FEAR! And consumers are about to learn… how to become persuasive in regards to setting standars that go much further than the current Public Relationships trend toward exhibiting a (frequently just faked) “Corporate social responsibility”.

e-Participation is going to first flex its muscle, in the next years, attemping to influence the actions of “politicians”, by pressing “there where it hurts” to politicians: PR and votes. Once this works… the next aim will be the corporate world, with pressure being exerted… again, where it hurts: PR and money.

Fascinating times lie ahead of us. Long life to the e-Participation of citizens… and consumers!