To be fair:

1) Anonymous/Lulzsec aren't necessarily a best-of-the-best of the 'hacker world.' Do they want to raise the ire of even more skilled people?

2) Anonymous/Lulzsec are/were in it mostly for the publicity, and 'cheap thrills.' I'm sure that they could have done a lot more damage had they been focused on being as malicious as possible.

> mostly for the publicity, and 'cheap thrills.

You mean... for the lulz?

I purposely expanded 'for the lulz' into something a bit more succinct.

You actually expanded it into something that by definition is less succinct.

Lulz may be brief, but it is hardly clear.

Number 1 is a very good point and something those companies should keep in mind. Anonymous/Lulzsec are basically like children in terms of what they could do. Very skilled people could do substantially more disruption and damage.

Being actively targeted would certainly encourage membership.