Topic 7: Citigroup

Question 1

Why did RAN target Citigroup?

Answer 1

1. Targeting a bank provides further reach in industries affected, therefore a bigger scope of impact.
2. Citigroup had the biggest market share (~2%) of project finance
3. Of Citigroup’s $13.5B in annual profits, $5.3B came from consumer facing business, so boycotts affect almost 40% of Citigroup’s profit!
4. Recent campaign “LIVE RICHLY” already made them seem like pompous asses.
5. Recognized global brand.

Question 2

What is project finance?

Answer 2

Glad you asked. Project finance is when several banks chip in to back one project, primarily in developing countries. The ONLY collateral is the project itself, not the company initiating the project, so banks have a LOT to lose, but the risk is shared. And if the project succeeds, they all benefit.

Question 3

Discuss RAN’s tactics.

Answer 3

1. Targeting college students (about to become lifelong bank customers and/or future employees)
2. Showed up at annual shareholders’ meeting
3. Media: holiday carols (“Oil Wells”), Valentine’s day cards to Sandy Weill (CEO), schoolkids’ letters [um, child labor, anyone?], indigenous peoples’ stand-in in the rainforest.

Question 4

Pause. Hold the phone. What does RAN stand for again?

Answer 4

…Rainforest Action Network. We’ll pretend not to judge you.

Question 5

What demands did RAN make of Citigroup?

Answer 5

1. Recognize your role in the problem

2. Take actions to reduce harm

Question 6

Were RAN’s demands reasonable?

Answer 6

Actually, yes. They both provided action items for Citigroup to quantify success, and allowed for ambiguity in that success.

Question 7

Is RAN finding effective leverage points?

Answer 7

YES! New accounts (churn), stock price, college students’ customer loyalty, and employee retention are all on the line.