By Joseph J. Honick
“Occupy” is a failure and it needn’t have been.
As a longtime supporter of strong public expression by demonstrations, marches and other means on major issues to the nation and the world, I can only conclude the so called “Occupy” movement is nothing more than a failure.
Worse, it is and was a necessary effort that turned into little more than a well publicized nuisance to most places.
I am not only disappointed that this has occurred, but, as with many others, I am offended to a great extent by what this may have done to the demonstration concept elsewhere.
So what is it that has been so counterproductive despite all the hype here and around the world? After all, in most of the so-called “liberal and progressive” media, we are daily treated to the trumpets of the spread of “Occupy”?
Here, in a few nutshells, is what has turned a potentially useful movement into a major combination bore and irritant:
1. No clear message: beyond a lot of yelling, screaming and complaining, hardly any, if any, participants could tell willing media what the message was or is;
2. No leadership: there is no central sense of identifiable leadership, if any, either locally or nationally and certainly not internationally. Result: neither the public nor media already occupied with political campaigns have anywhere to go for the message if one actually exists.
Actually, I raised the possibility of such displays of dissatisfaction some months ago in a column that asked essentially: “Will we now fear parades?” ...the idea growing out of the problems of heavy unemployment, home foreclosures and all the rest of the obvious concerns. My expectation was that someone or some group would do as many have before and produce a coherent message in writing and some accepted and respected leader personalities.
Neither has occurred.
Had either of these efforts been pursued effectively, the situation could have been more productive, perhaps even a major success.
Instead, in many places, crowds supposedly the “occupy” crowd in each location have wound up leaving public spaces in a mess and causing the local taxpayers to have to clean it up. Along with such events have come conflicts with police and others that have often deteriorated to much damage and personal injury both to demonstrators and law enforcement.
Pardon the repetition, but having marched as a very young man in that historic parade of a million people when MLK made his “Dream speech, we all could see what it was for and how this massive collection of humanity treated the nation’s Capitol respectfully.
When gays and others have similarly demonstrated, the groups knew the value of the impressions they wanted to make and the message they wanted to convey to be successful.
None of this has been the case with the “Occupy” effort. There are those who see my view as cynical. I choose to see it as sadly realistic.
On a potentially positive side, I am told it has galvanized the participation of heretofore apolitical young people to become involved in the political process. But there is little time to see this potential pay-off.
Now that the nation is engulfed in a less than civilized presidential campaign that floods the media and international fiscal and physical conflict of major importance, the likelihood is most people couldn’t care less about moaning, groaning crowds who came too late to the party and without identities that could be deciphered.
As the nation and the world stand incoherently on the brink of still newer potential wars and major political debates, fewer and fewer of those who could have helped will pay much attention.
That reality is both realistic and costly to any movement that might have made a real difference.
*
* *
Joseph J. Honick is
president of GMA International in Bainbridge Island, Wash. |
Wes Pedersen (2/28):
"Occupy" is a failure by almost any standard of measurement. It has failed to produce any definable goal. It has failed to produce a leader in an era in which when every achieving movement has brought forth a strong voice,a forceful personality capable of carrying a strong message to the people through TV.
There is no dynamic image the movement can offer either through leadership or rhetoric or example of an irate yet sensible assembly leaving in their wake a reason for being and the popular impression that the demonstrators are responsible citizens who want to improve, not foul or dirty neighborhoods or the nation.
In most instances of popular demonstrations,the demand has been for positive changes. In the case of "Occupy," there has been no specific challenge, no focus on specific issues. The causes are out there: none stands out in "Occupy" demands. We are left with a rabble without a rabbi, public lands and buildings defiled, and an overall impression that the one thing the demonstrators want is anarchy.
Some will say "Occupy" has achieved the impossible -- rousing the young, including the college fraternity, to a keener appreciation of the evils of politics and the challenges of need. If that is true, I have not seen it.
[email protected] (2/28):
Joe, With great regularity we are usually on the same side of the political fence. Not this time.
I believe that Occupy is a success, even though its organization is non existent. Why? Because its message of the ever-growing division between the 1 and 99 percent has caught on and is now part of our daily political discussion and I think that discussion will now have a permanent place in the political and media landscape.
What makes the Occupy message even more noteworthy is that it was accomplished by disparate groups without a central leadership. History shows that it takes many years for even organized groups to have their messages be taken seriously. Examples -- the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. And way before those, the union movements.
Whose to say that the Occupiers will not some day become an organized force? Not I. But even if it never does, its message of economic unfairness is here to stay.
Just last week, in conversation with a top corporate official, I almost fell off my chair when, discussing economic problems, he volunteered, "It's reall y hard not to agree with the OWS message.
Maybe that was because he was a financial official and saw first hand the disparity in salaries Maybe that was because he has a child who soon is to graduate from college and he was concerned about what type of employment future she faced.
Yes, the Occupiers are not organized. Yes, there are many who protest that should be arrested for their conduct and others that do not know what they are protesting. But that hasn't prevented their theme of economic unfairness of being heard and being believed by many who are not on the street. Some months back, when discussing politics, an editor of a well-known New York-based print and Web outlet asked me if I agreed with what OWS was doing. I told him I did and he said so did he. The movement might disappear in a couple of years unless it becomes organized.
But I believe its message is loud and clear and here to stay.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (2/29):
To both Wes and Arthur, my profound appreciation simply because of the thoughtfulness in both comments. Arthur, I have "been there" on stuff dealing with fairness and demonstrations. Some have cost people their lives, but the successful ones always had at least a minimum of message and leadership before going public in the streets. Are you marching with the Occupiers, not only in New York which hardly resembles Occupy in Oakland or Paris etc. My real hope is thast, if there is something durable in all of this, kjy article may have given some impetus to substantive debate that might lead to soething beyond photo opportuhities.
[email protected] (3/01):
Joe, I'm surprised at your question asking me if I'm marching with the OWS crowd. Are you saying that only someone who marches can support a cause?
To answer your question, no I am not marching with OWS. But I've walked in the past, and also supported causes without marching.
As for the lack of messages: way before our business came up with the rule that message points, etc. are necessary to express a viewpoint that people would understand, others found ways of doing so without professional communication help - the revolts against dictators and kings; during our lifetime the Chinese, Viet Nam and Cubans didn't need professional message points to communicate disgust with their rulers.
In our country, the Boston Tea Party got across their message with direct action, despite not having media or event training. Sometime the best communication points are expressed by direct action without the help of people like us. Just because many Occupiers act in a manner that disturbs us, doesn't mean all Occupiers are wrong.
During the union movement in the U.S., many anti-American, pro-Communist agitators were active, but the movement eventually threw them out. During the American Revolution, the ranks of the rebels included all sorts. but it eventually found a way to unite and win the war. During the Viet Nam war, kids who went to Canada, to evade the draft, and returning G.I.s were both vilified. Everything seem worse than it is when it happens under one's nose, but time gives a better perspective of actions. I think OWS is a success because its message of financial inequality is now a daily discussion.
You think its a failure because of the actions of some Occupiers and the lack of message points.
We'll both know who is right in a decade or so. But as I write this, OWS is all over the news here because they are now marching in front of some major N.Y. businesses.
They must be doing something right because the media is explaining why they are marching. The media gets the message and so do many politicians and millions of other Americans.
Joe Honick (3/05):
Arthur, first, I did not mean to upset you as you do sound that way. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I disagree the media are so taken with the movement. One of the major problems is precisely what you disagree with: that neither message nor leadership are really required. Also, it is unfair to so challenge what I have said which did HNOT condemn the idea of what Occupy could have been but did criticze what it did not become. Your friends in NYC do not comport with those of other places, a little more sophisitication up there perhaps. As to the Boston Tea Party and the other matters, unfortunately to many of those events have been romanticized in what purport to be school history books. I not only predicted almost two years ago something like what Occupy started out to become, I went down to our local Occupy operation to ask my own questions and to get a greater sense of what was being told to very receptive media, finding too little of what was necessary even from amateurs. You cannot compare New York with most of the rest of the country. As to the 1% vs the 99%, this message was already out there from political sources and others, making the potential for Occupy almost ready made for reasonable preparation. I wanted it to succeed and worry, even resent, how it might have negatively impacted the potential for other needed demonstrations, So I'm truly sorry you seem upset, but please define for me three specific Occupy demands and three successes. But do not blame me for reality. Finally, my sincere appreciation for your taking the time and energy to respond. Believe my, I have stirred a substantial response from my mailing list of over 200 elsewhere.
[email protected] (3/07):
Joe, I'm not at all upset,or mad at you. I just do not believe that movements can't succeed without the help of professional communicators or specific talking points. Helpful, yes. Always necessary, not in my opinion.
I've been involved in PR campaigns, political and business, where the "best minds" in the business couldn't move the needle, and one of those campaigns, in which I was involved during my presidential political PR days, has been trying unsuccessfully to do so since the days of FDR.(No, I'm not that old.
I didn't work on the FDR campaigns.)As for what OWS has thus far accomplished, I think a lot, by having their message of inequality of income become a national media talking subject. John Edwards, with all his "best minds" PR help couldn't get anyone excited with the subject. OWS did with direct action.
We in PR often think we have all the answers to everything, as do our relatives in advertising.
I never thought that was true during my politica l PR and journalist days; that opinion was reinforced during my more than 30 "corporate" years in PR, working on some of the most significant national and international (with high-ranking foreign government and Olympic officials) campaigns, both foreign and domestic.
If you go back, not too long ago, the PR campaigns that often garnered the most media talk and TV publicity were action-oriented, known as stunts. OWS is a stunt, but a much more important one than many of the past great ones. Maybe what today's PR needs are more stunts and less message points. At least people can see the outcome of a stunt. Too often message points are ignored.I think this is the last I'll say on this matter. E
nough is enough, for me. (Not surprisingly, I'm writing a couple of "going against the PR rules grain" articles for a PR media guide that will be published later this year.)
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (3/08):
Athur, a crowd, even a big crowd, is not a path to success. Your comparisons to efforts of other generations do not comport to today's realities and what is essential not only to be heard above the dins of war and other noises, but also to be persuasive. And just one more time: please do not see all the so called Occupy efforts in the same breath with the Wall Street thing, which really is doing little more than proving people are upset...with no new laws or aid to those who need it in New York or elsewhere. Be well.
Kathy Lewton (3/21):
Joe, I posted a comment to your piece back when it was first online and it got lost somewhere in the space between my keyboard and O'Dwyer's. It was long and (I thought) well reasoned. Now I have to rush it, but the core of my thesis was that to say a movement that has, literally, changed the language and the vernacular of America and to a great degree, the world -- both with the "Occupy" verb and with "99%" -- is to me, a huge success.
Fortunately for me, the NY Times said it far better than I can: "Most of the biggest Occupy Wall Street camps are gone. But their slogan still stands. It is a phrase that has become ingrained in the cultural lexicon. Send us photographs of signs, slogans, advertisements, billboards and other uses of the words “the 99 percent” (or “the 1 percent”).
Whatever the long-term effects of the Occupy movement, protesters have succeeded in implanting “We are the 99 percent,” referring to the vast majority of Americans (and its implied opposite, “You are the 1 percent,” referring to the tiny proportion of Americans with a vastly disproportionate share of wealth), into the cultural and political lexicon. First chanted and blogged about in mid-September in New York, the slogan become a national shorthand for the income disparity. Easily grasped in its simplicity and Twitter-friendly in its brevity, the slogan has practically dared listeners to pick a side. " For any of us in public relations, to be able to say our message has "become a national shorthand . . . easily grasped" would seem to be a huge success, as long as we don't let politics cloud our vision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/we-are-the-99-percent-joins-the-cultural-and-political-lexicon.html?scp=1&sq=Occupy+Wall+Street+lexicon&st=nyt
And even the certainly-not-sympathetic Wall Street Journal concurred: "The slogan “We are the 99%,” born out of the movement, is now a part of the American political lexicon." http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/03/17/occupy-wall-street-six-months-later/?mod=google_news_blog
Perhaps it depends on how we all define success or failure. Wes says failure because it didn't produce a single leader who could galvanize things. He's right - but I'm not sure that metric of success isn't from another era, and isn't always essential in this new era of instant communications and "the masses" quite literally bring about change via their sheer numbers.
Did it fail in dimensions that we used to use to judge success? Yes, in many ways.
Are those dimensions significant today? Not sure.
I look at situations from Komen to Penn State to Rush Limbaugh and see the impact of thousands of people, loosely aligned around a common belief, who don't even know each other, will never see each other, have no identified "leader" or hierarchy directing the cause . . . . . and think "oh my, perhaps time to re-think."
Just one (oldish) woman's opinion.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (3/23):
Kathy, and to all here who have responded in agreement or disagreement, my heartfelt thanks. Best of all we have permitted open discussion.
Lest any of you doubt or misunderstand my intent, I said and say I had hoped for success but resent that the methods have caused difficulty for the idea of necessary demonstration and still feel that way. That the word "occupy" has leapt into the public vocabulary is not a measure of success at all.
We have all sorts of terms thst signify good and bad that are hardly measures of success. Nor is a Occupy of Wall Street very meaningful in other areas where the Occupy effort has had no definable screed or much else except continuously diminishing crowds.
Kathy , please do not diminish your comments by branding yourself unfairly. When I speak with numerous people, what I get is anger about unfair distribution of money gbut little as to how those so angry would fix matters. The lavish nature of Wall Street cannot simply blow over to people who happen to succeed and make good livings while others may not.
In the meantime, thank you and please be clear yourselves about whast of your own success you would be willing to give up.
|