URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/06/12/rtmark.DTL
A recent Page 1 Chronicle story reports that a majority of Californians believe the energy crisis is a corporate ploy to raise prices. It's just another example of people mistrusting the monolithic, corporate powers that be. But what can we do when the fight always seems like a David vs. Goliath mismatch?
In the case of the 21st century media activist group RTMark (officially spelled with a registered symbol, trademark symbol, ark, and pronounced "ARTMark") , the only thing to do is fight fire with fire. Or more appropriately, fight corporate strategy with corporate strategy. To that end, RTMark itself, is a registered corporation, an umbrella organization for a fluid coalition of Web users who are devoted to fostering sharp, even witty acts of intervention -- directed primarily at corporations.
RTMark is a clearinghouse for political prankster ideas and adopts a stock market model in which supporters can buy into "funds" -- complete with "fund managers" -- to bankroll specific projects, which are often done on the Web or reliant on Internet communications -- such as the 1999 GWBush.com, a site that looked an awful lot like Bush's official presidential campaign site and contained cleverly crafted press releases full of misinformation. Each of the funds is detailed on the extensive and slick Web site.
As a registered corporation, RTMark protects its members from legal recourse for their mischievous actions through the Teflon-coated limited-liability feature of incorporation. Like any conglomerate, the company is responsible for actions, not the individuals behind them.
Still, members of RTMark, many with high-tech jobs, work under pseudonyms. And it's not always easy to contact them. I managed to track down Ray Thomas, RTMark's spokesman and workshop coordinator, who's currently in Europe.
He answered a few questions, fittingly via e-mail.
Glen Helfand: How was RTMark formed? How is it structured?
Ray Thomas: RTMark was formed in 1993. It is a brokerage that benefits from "limited liability" just like any other corporation; using this principle, RTMark supports the sabotage (informative alteration) of corporate products, from dolls and children's learning tools to electronic action games, by channeling funds from investors to workers for specific projects grouped into "mutual funds."
How far can you stretch a fund in terms of action?
We don't do budget summaries more than once a year, so I can't tell you precisely, but the Frontier Fund had the most throughput in 2000, with around $8,500 going from investors to workers. That's an unusual amount for one of our funds, and of course it's not very much at all. The money is really entirely incidental to the kind of work we assist: these actions generally require next to no money, and are done out of devotion, not for gain.
The money has two primary functions. First, to interest the media, in the U.S. at least, an aspect which helps things get taken seriously. Second, to help [disseminate] the story we tell about corporate behavior -- demonstrating how corporations behave, and what laws they benefit from.
What do you view as the most successful of your projects?
Whichever one got the most press, best focused on the important issues that we always try to highlight, mainly the corporate abuse of democracy. So perhaps the etoy Fund, which supported a group of projects, achieved the most.
Tell me more about the press and effectiveness of the etoy fund in 1999 [which supported activities intended to make eToys stock go down in protest over the court battle between Swiss faux-corporation/art group etoy and e-commerce site, eToys over the domain name etoy.com.] It was very well publicized, but how would you characterize the attention? What were the ultimate effects?
Well, the attention was basically good. Like a corporation, we don't go nuts if things miss a little bit -- if news stories focus a bit on the wrong thing, or whatever: As long as they contribute to our bottom line [to improve culture] we're OK. If a corporation's decisions result in 5,000 deaths in Bhopal, it's not a huge deal, just a momentary public relations setback. A goofy CNN spot or two, in this scale of things, is quite fine for us. Some of the press did miss the mark on the etoy story, but unlike some activists, we just take it in stride, and consider ways we can use it.
Our intent all along -- as with everything we do -- is to point out corporate behavior, and drive home just how necessary it is to be vigilant against these machines whose only ability is to make money.
How does the brokerage metaphor function in this post-bubble period of Wall Street malaise?
The momentary situation of the market is of less interest than the big picture over the past 150 years, in which public relations has helped undermine democracy to a remarkable extent.
Does RTMark sense a stronger sense of activism out there due to the new presidential regime?
There does seem to be a heating-up of activism, we're happy to report. We are seeing quite a bit of action coming our way these days. In San Francisco, for example, there's been a tremendous and visible upsurge in outrage at the new-economy corporate takeover. Everyone in the world -- in Europe as elsewhere -- knows of the [cultural] devastation that dot-coms wreaked on San Francisco, and so, if it's any consolation, this has served as a warning to others.
Or does the project's corporate nature get a boost of conceptual energy from business-friendly Dubya?
We're not corporate in our hearts, we just use the corporate structure in order to illustrate its nature: *We* can do this sometimes illegal sabotage stuff because we have corporate protections; imagine what really nasty-minded corporations are doing. No need to imagine: It's quite visible.
So we are just as depressed by Dubya as everyone else.
Could RTMark exist without the Internet?
It would be more expensive, but it could exist. Our primary activity is working as public relations people. So we could do our work (mailing out press releases, etc.) using any of the media PR people do: envelopes, packages, footwork, press conferences, video news releases, etc. E-mailing press releases is much easier and cheaper for us, because we don't have the typical public relations budget, since our focus isn't on making money.
Does recognition of such projects make it more difficult for them to be effective?
No! On the contrary.
I ask that question as I wonder whether people becoming aware of the projects ups the ante in terms of needing to be even more clever to surprise the public or the media. I mean, will the press continue to cover something like hackers inserting homoerotic content into a simcopter game? after you've seen it once, well...
Well, we don't need to be surprising. Who are we trying to surprise? As long as we can keep providing entertaining news stories that accomplish our bottom-line goals, we're happy. Quality is less important than quantity, I guess you could say, we spend a lot less time fretting about the gemlike qualities of projects than about their effectiveness. Just let them keep coming, and faster and faster!
There will always be journalists eager to write about the issues we try to raise. We just provide them with the tools that they need -- the raw material for stories.
Has there been legal recourse to any RTMark project?
You mean attack against us? No; we are protected not through law -- even if we did obey the law perfectly, that wouldn''t save us from court -- see SLAPP suits [Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation defined as "lawsuits systematically used by corporations to silence community activists across America"], for example. -- but rather by corporations' reluctance to get into public relations disasters as eToys did.
The projects have been embraced by art-and-technology circles, and received some high-profile attention for being included in the Web portion of the last Whitney Biennial exhibition. How does RTMark position itself in terms of the arts?
We don't think about that stuff. Being admired by the art world can be useful, financially, sometimes, so we aren't opposed to being included in some exhibitions. But some are really terrible: see RTMark.com/rockwell.html. But it's a disaster in terms of media: Being misunderstood to be artists makes the media dismiss you quite easily in this country.
Is RTMark working on a more global project? Is that why you're in Europe?
We're over here for the moment. We're still limitedly American, but seeing that Europe is facing a situation that America faced in the '30s -- corporations smothering the "excesses of democracy" to ensure the supremacy of trade freedoms over any other type of freedom -- we found it interesting to put more effort into outreach and study. America is such a sad case, having lost so much over the years that makes life livable for those whose main interest isn't money. It's just much easier to live in Europe: All cities have excellent, cheap public transportation; health care is automatic; public spaces are often pleasant; etc. It's inspiring to see what life is like when corporations *don't* have total ascendancy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Helfand is a freelance writer, critic, and curator. His writing on art, culture and technology has appeared in The Bay Guardian, Wired, Limn, Salon, Travel and Leisure and nest. glen_h at sirius.com