Apple next in line for US Uncut protests
Grassroots anti-austerity campaigners US Uncut have announced that their next tax-dodging target will be Apple computers. The hipsters’ favourite is a leading voice in the “Win America Campaign” (WAC) for further corporate tax breaks.
Local Uncut activists will be organising “dance-ins” in Apple Stores across the United States on Saturday, June 4th. If you’re reading in the States, you can find a local action, or organise your own, through the US Uncut website (I apologise for using the correct spelling of “organise”. And “apologise”.).
Win America argues for a tiny tax rate of 5% on corporate profits made overseas and brought to the USA. This, they argue, will ‘incentivise’ the tax-dodging organisations they represent to bring more money back to the States. Or in other words, America should stop worrying about clamping down on tax havens, and just become one.
WAC is a classic example of what PR practitioners call ‘astroturfing’: the creation of a fake grassroots campaign claiming to be representing citizens’ concerns, but actually entirely owned and run by corporate interests.
US Uncut spokesperson Ryan Clayton said: “We already got duped once by this hoax of repatriating profits with the ‘American Jobs Creation Act of 2004’ under Bush. It did not create jobs and only opened the door for tax haven abusers to continue to cheat the system. As the saying goes: ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’”
Bright Green contributor and US Uncut founder Carl Gibson added: “I love my iPhone, but I hate tax cheats. The only winners in the WAC effort are the same corporate executives who continue to steal $1 trillion out of our nation’s coffers every decade. We all pay our fair share of taxes, and Apple should too.”
I also think that the video Pontus linked to is spot on message, and balances the arguments about empathising with Apple fan’s loyalty whilst still highlighting the issue perfectly
However, (and on a similar line to my previous comment on the blog post about the demonstration that led to Alasdair’s dodgy arrest) I think that in-store demonstrations of this kind need some very careful thought about how to maintain the balance the video so nicely provides, and/or avoid end up coming across as nuisance behaviour to shoppers trying to go about their day’s shopping.
As Adam says, it’s not what your saying, it’s how it’s seen/heard/perceived at that moment that matters.
Hope you find the right balance.
Thanks for that vid, Pontus – have added it to the OP.
Seems like my misgivings were unfounded. I’ve just seen the US Uncut Apple tax dodging video and it’s spot on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbJLq5skvNg
@Alisdair
You raise some important points. However, I think it’s important to do the ‘right thing’, but it’s also important to have a proper campaigns strategy.
In this case (as far as I see it) the main objective is not to stop individual companies from tax dodging (although that would be nice), it’s to pressure the Government into implementing policies that prevent all companies from doing it.
Bearing that in mind I think targeting Apple would be counterproductive with regards to the wider campaign objective for the reasons I’ve already outlined. I’m not saying that we should let Apple ‘get away with it’.
Targeting the Guardian, as Doug is suggesting, however, would be ideal as it would make the campaign further cross over the political spectrum thus making success more likely.
By the way, I don’t think that people who like Apple are ‘more middle class’ than people who don’t. I just think that they’re more likely to be ‘prospectors’ in Chris Rose’s terminology. http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/int_values_campaign.pdf
I totally agree with targetting apple over tax avoidance (as a long term apple user and certified apple trainer) and I think the issue rasied over playing to a right wing Xuncut are all middle class narrative is a dangerous area to get into – it’s one of the reasons why the Guardian *should* be targeted – it’s apparently* on our side, except it’s not, because they avoid loads of tax…
*according to anyone vaguely right wing.
Pontus – yeah, it’s really tricky, coz it’s not just about what you say, it’s about what people hear. So you can repeatedly say “I love my mac, but I hate that apple dodge tax”, but what people hear may well be “I hate apple”… That’s even harder with direct acion/media stunts than the online campaigning Greenpeace did, where they controlled the message. I’m sure it’s possible to get right, but agree it’s bloody hard.
I get what you’re all saying, and I agree entirely that it’s important to try to control the message and not to alienate people. However, I do think it’s problematic that Apple, for example, can get away with this sort of thing just because they make nice products that are kind of trendy. Let’s be honest, lots of people like Topshop, but no one had this discussion before we targetted them. Just because Apple appeal to a more metropolitan, middle class demographic doesn’t mean we should treat them differently. That seems to me to play into exactly the type of narrative that the right want to portray of us, that we’re all middle (or upper) class and don’t really understand that normal people just have to get about their lives and do their shopping. I think it’s actually important that we target “our” brands too and not just people everyone hates (banks) or shops we’re too “superior” to use anyway (Topshop).
@Kevin I agree to an extent. I think that they’d have to be really really careful not to alienate the people they want to support the campaign. (Hence the Greenpeace example which I think strikes a really good balance).
Not sure that they will though.
Hey Pontus, I think it depends how those occupying explain why. I’m a Macintosh software engineer, it is how I make my living and yet I would have no problem with ukuncut type actions in Apple Stores. I can easily distinguish between these two things, but perhaps my brand loyalty isn’t the same as that of the “Hipsters”
But I think even for the “Hipsters” who have a “strong relationship” with the Apple brand they might not be put off. If they don’t want to sublimate their concerns as to whether Apple behaves as a good corporate citizen then surely highlighting Apple’s poor behaviour with the aim of changing that behaviour is a good thing.
I think this is a bad idea. Apple may be tax dodging, but targeting a brand that people have such a strong relationship will alienate them.
When Greenpeace ran its ‘Green my Apple’ campaign a few years ago (http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/) they were really careful to ensure that they presented the campaign in such a way that it would appeal to Apple fans.
If we want to win campaigns we need to aim to win over the type of person that Chris Rose calls ‘Prospector’ – driven by things like hedonism, fun, achievement, healthy lifestyles, visible success, busy etc. Exactly the kind of person who might have a Macbook, iPad and iPhone and who might have a Twitter profile like this:
“European, social democrat, federalist, feminist, atheist, anti-monarchist. Inline skater. Train traveller. Blogger, website designer, Mac user, trainer. ENTJ.”
I think quite a few of these kind of people will be involved in anti-cuts campaigning already.
A sure way of pissing them off would be to occupy Apple stores.