Is “We are the 99%” one of the best campaigns in recent memory?

Culture

October 17, 2011 by Big Orange Slide

Please leave your response in the comments section below

12 Comments

Permalink●Subscribe to this feed

12 Comments on "Is “We are the 99%” one of the best campaigns in recent memory?"

Brook Johnston
October 17, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

Since they have yet to define a clear demand (or, in ad parlance, an objective), I would say no. I’d be poking holes in that brief like a microwavable dinner.
John Maden
October 17, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

I believe it’s far too early to tell if this campaign has been successful at all. While it has, no doubt, been successful at getting people to show up, it has been incredibly ineffective at much else (though this can change over time). Specifically, it has failed to announce any “real” objectives. I don’t believe we’ll be able to judge success or not for about 18 months. This will give them time to organize more effectively and, potentially, have an impact on the 2012 elections. Should the movement affect elections, similar to the Tea Party, I would deem it a success. However, what needs to be remembered, from Game of Thrones, Winter Is Coming which is going to make “Occupying” much more difficult. Should the movement fizzle out then all it will be known for is creating a semi-successful meme.
John Maden
October 17, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

*I believe it’s far to early.

I hate how you can’t edit your posts. Also, these are two of my favourite posts on the subject: bit.ly/mUnB2S and bit.ly/mVlZrD
Rikia
October 17, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

It’s broad enough to be genius.

Usually a great brief is a tight brief. But when you’re trying to get people off their couch to give a damn about the world you have to speak to the broad values that unite us all. Get bogged down in tactics at this early phase and you’ll fizzle out.

99% sounds like “me”. I’m not sure how to fix the problem, or even what is causing it, but I know I’m not in the 1%, so sign me up.
Tanvi Swar
October 17, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

I love the % included in there. The 99% is my favourite part because it really demonstrates the value of unity and the strength of majority. It’s something that is connecting people all over the world, that number has no colour, no religion, no race and no nationality. That part is absolutely brilliant.

I do agree with previous comments however. The fact that there is no clear direction in what people want. This campaign can be used in any way because there’s no clear direction in what people want and what they expect. Maybe though, this is a good thing, because that means this campaign has legs? You can use it over a variety of mediums and cultures and it still works? I’m just a student of advertising though so I’m probably not even making sense but I think that it’s managing some really important things – it’s inspiring, it’s uniting and it’s creating hope.

Not sure what will come out of it, but the quick spread of this campaign is very interesting. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what we think, what works will work.
simonbilling
October 17, 2011 @ 5:47 pm

I actually think it is brilliant. Yes the ‘movement’ at the moment is incoherent and lacks direction. However the 99% idea will always eventually circle back to the issue of wealth and income distribution (which is in the end what has most people riled about).

From the POV of an unrepentant leftie, it’s also a wonderfully insidious way of getting to Tea Party twits and fellow travelers – ‘cos 99% of them are part of the 99%.

Something they somehow fail to understand to date.
Joel Derksen
October 17, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

I think it’s a good one, but it’s actually a spinoff of Anonymous’ creed, which is a spinoff of V for Vandetta I think (mixed with a bit of 300 probably).

That being said, I don’t really understand the idea of “direction” and “coherence.”

The framework for that commentary comes from an idea that there is a systematic way to approach an occupation; that there is an idea to be sold or bought or to be persuaded on.

Protests aren’t about making demands. This is not a marketplace. The protesters are not negotiating. They are not offering their compliance for sale. They are not saying, “Give us these 10 things and in exchange we will go back to being your obedient servants.”

So, considering the numerous things to be angry about and the many interlinking issues, 99% is a pretty good moniker.
John Maden
October 17, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

@Joel

The bases for anonymous is more based in hacker lore than anything seen in pop culture. The masks, which were used in V for Vendetta (excellent movie for those who haven’t seen it) , are known as Guy Fawkes masks (burned down British Parliament in the 1800’s?) and have been a sign of social rebellion ever since.

I disagree with your point that protests aren’t about making demands. If you’re not making demands then why are you protesting. Merely drawing notice to the fact that you are disadvantaged does not actually do anything to solve the problem that you are, in fact, disadvantaged. Going back through history, I would question you to find a protest that did not have clear and specific demands.

What will happen if they don’t eventually become focus is the movement will splinter and drift. You cannot continue of movement based solely on the hope and enthusiasm of others. For this to be successful it needs to be a long and drawn out struggle with clear and definable goals. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Tanvi Swar
October 17, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

You make excellent points.

I do agree they are about making demands. I just meant that it is good that they don’t have a very specific one so that it is easy to spread to a variety of cultures. For example, in Canada, we do have healthcare and we do have student loans from the Government, but we have other economic problems. Same with the UK and Europe- they might have different economic problems. I definitely think though, that the movement needs specific direction and objectives in a particular area. Canada’s demands need to be clear and specific, the US’s demands need to be clear and specific – but demands are needed yes. Just not one universal demand all over the world.

I meant that the reason I think it is spreading so much is because you can change it depending on your country and what you want. I do hear, however, that the Canadian one has no specific demand either which is quite disappointing!
simonbilling
October 17, 2011 @ 9:59 pm

@joel you don’t think the ‘V’ masks are a bit naf?

FYI Guido Fawkes/Gunpowder plot and stuff happened in 1605. Fawkes was a mercenary hired by Catholic aristos who were being persecuted (as in burned at the stake) by then Protestant government (Henry VIII/Anne Boleyn etc.) to blow up Parliament.

It was actually one of the first “terrorist” attacks (albeit failed).
Andrew
October 18, 2011 @ 9:07 pm

The frustration everyone is feeling is nothing new. It happened in the 1980’s when the US (and the world) where coming out of a period of stagflation and high unemployment. Yes, its hard out there.

The only thing that doesn’t make me jump up and down and cheer the 99% movement and the messaging. There is no clear messaging, the Alphasignal, Parasignal, Infrasignal are all a jumble.

Part of the messaging seems to strike out against success, and the by product of hard work, and it is that, which bothers me the most.
John Maden
October 20, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

@Andrew

While agree with you their messaging is not clear right now I disagree with your other points. First, while I understand it’s commonplace to make the tragedy of the day the worst ever, there are significant differences between now and the 80’s. Mainly, that the income gap has widened dramatically between the richest and the poorest. Further, median income, adjusted for inflation, has not been growing at the same rates as seen in the past. These indicators identify a more systemic problem which will need both economic and political change to correct.

Secondly, I strongly disagree that the message strikes out, at all, against success and hard work. Instead, what the message strikes out against is the influence with which some of society’s successful members have had on society as a whole. The backlash is against their influence in deregulating markets and lowering taxes to levels where the social safety net can no longer be maintained. This abuse of the system has lowered chances of social mobility by making it harder for those who are willing to work hard be given the chance to succeed. For evidence of this, look no farther than the education system, which, has been continually defunded for the past 30 years. Of course, this does not effect the top % earners as they send their children to private schools.

Also, for the argument to hold that this is an attack against success it would have to vilify all forms of success. Instead, the protest has mainly been focused on the financial services industry. Right now, there is no Occupy Silicon Valley or even Occupy Houston protesting the energy industry. Instead, the focus on Wall St. is not because of their success but by the way they achieved it. They are protesting because they took excessive risks and instead of being punished for their failure they were bailed out by society and continued on business as usual. To argue that they are against success is a misnomer and dangerous to the actual message.