I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this UNICEF campaign by Prolam Y&R, Chile, on Ads of The World. I can see where they came from — children need a good education to get out of poverty and the cycle of crime, sex work and substance abuse — but is this really the best way to show that?
First of all, the ads show a "negative" rather than a "positive" outcome. I guess the message is, "if you don't help these kids, where will their education come from?"
But it does it in such a way as to assume that people in poverty end up in the underworld simply because of bad influences around them, rather than because their socioeconomic circumstances leave them few options. To blame the "slut" (I assume they mean "prostitute"), the dealer and the substance abuser in this way is not helping. It's shaming.
UNICEF does good work in education. But if they did actually approva this ad (one never knows, these days) they could do a much better job on educating the public about the political, social and economic causes and outcomes of poverty.
Jezebel shared this Oxfam video that parodies the way chocolate is marketed to women as sex. The reveal is kind of... shitty:
The message is there, that unethical chocolate is an urgent women's issue. But the video leaves something to be desired in concept and execution. Nonetheless, the cause is important and you can get all the sad details in their media release.
Every once in a while, I happen upon an ad in the real world that makes me stop and ask WTF?
This one I spotted at the Rideau Centre, Ottawa's nexus of teenage wildlife. It's a campaign for The African and Caribbean Council on HIV/AIDS in Ontario (ACCHO) to encourage African, Caribbean and Black youth to get tested for HIV/AIDS.
The campaign site, getsexty.com, uses youthful images and language to explain the risks of HIV to s specific segment of Canadian youth.
But why "get sexty"? And why so much focus on smartphones?
What does that have to do with HIV prevention? Unless you're encouraging people to sext instead of having actual sex, not much. If I were to take a professional guess, it seems that this campaign is just trying too hard to jam as many youthful cultural references into its approach.
From the campaign site:
HT! HIG? You've just hit a totally dope site that speaks to African, Caribbean and Black youth about getting tested for HIV/AIDS. Whether you are a boy, a girl, trans, straight, lesbian, gay, bi, or questioning; Canadian-born or a newcomer ... this is all about you! Chill out and get some of the deetz on what you need to know about HIV/AIDS testing in Ontario. Before you go make sure you check out the resources section for more info on HIV testing, healthy relationships and sexuality. Don't be shy - this is a safe place to find information or to share it. So open up and let it rip!
The "get sexty" contest references smartphones and sexting superficially, but the promotion itself has little to do with either. You don't even enter by texting — it's a simple online form.
I hate to criticize a cause with such an important mandate, but it's a shame its advertising ends up not only coming across as clueless, but as unintentionally endorsing risky teen behaviour. Better luch next time, I guess...
Today, October 15, is Blog Action Day. It's an opportunity for bloggers around the world to post simultaneously on a single topic that relates to social issues or social change. This year, the topic is "The Power of We":
We choose this theme for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the popularity of the your suggestions; Community, Equality, Transparency/Anti-Corruption and Freedom, in our theme poll.Secondly, The Power of We is a celebration of people working together to make a positive difference in the world, either for their own communities or for people they will never meet half way around [t]he world.
When I thought about how I'd represent this idea in a marketing context, I have to admit that the first thing that popped into my head was an ad almost as old as I am, from of all advertisers, Coca-Cola:
Times have sure changed. Now, "Big Soda" is the enemy of activist marketers like former CP+B creative demigod Alex Bogusky. But, consumerism aside, was this hippy-dippy "we're all in it together" dream ever even achievable? Part of me really wants it to be possible.
As the father of a third-grader, I try to encourage my son to view all fellow humans as brothers and sisters. Growing up in a multicultural community, he has not yet learned to categorize people by skin colour or cultural affiliation. When I ask him to describe a classmate or adult in his life, he describes them based on their personality and actions, rather than appearance. It's nice, but I also realize it will not last.
Perhaps he will not grow up with the same racialized context I still work hard to leave behind, but as he grows he will join tribes of interests, location or politics that will inevitably bring him into conflict with others.
"We" humans are tribal. There is no getting around it. Social experimenters continue to replicate the same results when they create artificial or arbitrary tribal differences between groups of strangers. For example, diversity trainer Jane Elliott is able to turn brown-eyed and blue eyed groups agains each other. Tribalism is so engrained in our very biology that it threatens our world and future as a species. While it can express itself in (usually) harmless ways, like fanatic team loyalty in organized sports, even that can turn into violence. "We" in this context is another way of saying "us over them".
This idea of "we" exists in nationalism, religion, politics, even what band you like. And it's killing us. In the Middle East, "we" are under threat from a corrupt western civilization that insults our religion and wants to turn our daughters into prostitutes. So "we" attack and kill foreigners in their embassies, and even in their own cities.
In North America, "we" don't believe in biological, statistical, economic or climate science, so we oppose measures that would reduce our impact on the climate, help the poor and sick, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. It goes on and on.
Membership in a group is usually defined by opposition to other groups. And to protect our tribal identity, we naturally dehumanize outsiders. The most extreme cases are in war. But it happens every day when we make generalizations about "those people" or fail to treat our own tribe's agreed-to "truths" with healthy skepticism.
Which brings us to the world of cause marketing. Tribalism can be an incredibly powerful source for change, especially as the internet allows formerly isolated individuals to gain strength from a positive group identity.
A good example is the It Gets Better project, in which Dan Savage's attempt to reach out to LGBT youth at risk turned into a massive outpouring of support from both LGBT and straight ally communities.
What was great about this effort was its inclusiveness. Anyone was welcomed to join the tribe, as long as they had a message of hope and positivity for the youth. But they were still defined by a common enemy: homophobia. The other good thing about that campaign was that it was based on hope, rather than fear. In fact, the enemy was fear.
Usually, when an enemy is defined, exaggerated fear of that enemy (rational or not) is used to rally the troops. And once rallied, those troops start to lose any sense of logic or common sense.
This can happen in any movement, whether its members consider themselves conservative or progressives.
This Blog Action Day, as a blogger, social marketer and human being, I would like to urge you all to embrace the positive side of "The Power of We". Welcome your friends. Understand and empathize with your enemies. And don't get sucked into the dark side of the We.
The artwork on these ads from Brazil's Paz Comunicação Estratégica is beautiful. But what is it saying?
This is supposed to be a campaign to convince people to donate old books to a charity, rather than throwing them out. But the homeless fairytale characters seem to be telling another story altogether.
Is the creative team equating the homeless with discarded objects? If so, wouldn't this idea better serve that cause instead?
I know I'm like a broken record on this issue, but as a social marketer I am constantly annoyed by agencies that use their client's cause brand as an excuse for showcasing irrelevant creative executions. It's a waste of any money the client may have ponied up for production, and is harmful to their brand and their cause because it makes them seem like they don't "get it".
Eye candy, like any candy, is lots of fun. But that doesn't mean it's good for you.
Update: Jezebel reports (Feb 3) that Komen has reinstated funding to Planned Parenthood.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the most powerful brand in the world involved in fundraising for breast cancer prevention and research, has had its share of problems.
Putting their brand, indiscriminately, on any retail item (regardless of whether it was healthy or not) gave rise to the pinkwashing backlash. Not only was the appropriateness of the various cobrandings questioned by many, but also the efficacy of the fundraising and their aggressive trademark practices.
The last straw, for me, was when they launched their own line of perfume which Breast Cancer Action claimed contains cancer-causing compounds.
Increasingly, this organization seems to operate like any big brand, with a ruthless desire to grow its influence, generate revenue, and eliminate competition. Is that really what cause marketing is supposed to be about?
Their response:
"Research doesn’t come cheap. We need to raise money, and we’re not apologetic about it,” [spokesperson Leslie] Aun said. Komen, founded in 1982, has contributed $685 million to breast cancer research and $1.3 billion to community programs that help with mammograms, transportation and other needs, Aun said. Komen would love not to have to do marketing, but that simply is not realistic, she said.
“We don’t think there’s enough pink. We’re able to make those investments in research because of programs like that.”
The politics are ugly. The anti-abortion lobby in the United States has been trying to shut down planned parenthood for the past couple of years, convincing governments to defund its health operations because they include the provision of abortions (in addition to birth control and many other community health services).
According to the Washington Post, two women can be credited with Komen going political and joining the ranks of the American pro-life movement. Komen's Vice President for Policy for the past year, Karen Handel, is a politician who made a run at the Governorship of Georgia on an anti-abortion ticket. And then there's Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest, who is responsible for Planned Parenthood being investigated by the Energy and Commerce Committee — giving Komen the excuse to defund.
"Immediately after hearing the news of the Komen Foundation’s decision to withdraw its funding from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer survivor Dr. Charmaine Yoest registered 'Team Life' and pledged to rejoin the Global Race for the Cure in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2012.
'The Komen Foundation’s decision to disassociate itself from the scandal-ridden abortion provider should be applauded and encouraged by pro-life women across the country,' said Dr. Yoest."
This decision by Komen to firmly entrench itself in the politics of reproductive choice will be a fateful one. It will certainly lead to more support by those who side with the decision. But what about the millions of "mainstream" supporters — including many women's health groups — who were happily buying pink and doing fundraising as an apolitical feel-good move? Do they really want to have to choose sides?
There is an interesting result of all the media frenzy, though. Gothamist reports that through online networking alone, Planned Parenthood was able to raise $650,000 (the number keeps going up) in private donations in just 24 hours. Last year, Komen's funding was $680,000.
With government funding for not-for-profits on the decline anyway, Planned Parenthood may want to look to social media fundraising as the way of the future.
UPDATE: Mashable reports that Komen has also pissed off the hacker community:
Ah, yes! The UNICEF box. An important part of the Halloween routine. After you got your candy, you'd get a handful of pennies in that flimsy cardboard box. Then you'd bring it back to school for rolling and counting.
I haven't spotted as many UNICEF boxes at my door in recent years, and I was wondering what had become of the "children helping children" charity. After all, it's not like a handful of pennies buys much these days, even in the developing world.
Turns out that UNICEF Canada discontinued the program five years ago because "Coin is very labour-intensive."
"...the United States Fund for UNICEF has embraced a slick new way for kids to Trick or Treat for UNICEF.
Today kids can Trick or Treat for UNICEF, raise good sum of money and never touch a single nickel of it.
This Halloween the kids can print out a canister wrapper like the one at the left which features a QR code. When people scan the code using their smartphone they can make a direct donation to UNICEF
What if the person who answers the door doesn’t have a smartphone or the necessary QR reader?
Well a persistent Trick or Treater also knows that people can text “TOT” to UNICEF (864233) to make a $10.00 donation to Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF. The $10 will be added to donor’s phone bill."
I'm a little skeptical about this approach. While QR codes have become a ubiquitous part of the print communication landscape, shortening the gap between it and the digital world, some feel they have already jumped the shark. Will the average suburban mom or dad really whip out a smart phone at the door?
The texting plan, however, is much more likely to work based on my experience with the medium.
And what about the whole healthy competitive aspect? We used to compare the weight of our UNICEF boxes when we brought them into school. It was part of the fun.
If someone is going to donate $10 per text, they are maybe going to do it once for the entire night. The donations would then no longer be a matter of how many kids came to the door with boxes. One exposure to the QR or TOT code might trigger an end to the night's donations. How will the other kids feel when they are told they're carrying the boxes for nothing? And how many dishonest but polite people will say they already gave?
I think it's great that UNICEF is embracing change. But I think they've lost their connection with the kids. The money was only part of it for us. What was really important was the reminder, during a night of gluttony and greed, of how lucky we really were. I hope that is not lost on today's Halloweenies.
These unsettling portraits are by by UK photog Rankin, known for his sexy and disturbing images. (As well as the most sexily disturbing PSA I have seen in quite some time—posted earlier on Osocio.)
For this job, conceived by Beta, London for the British Skin Foundation, the shock is toned down. The pictures are almost too beautiful for the message.
It is said that guilt is a useless emotion. I'm not sure I agree with that in general, but when it comes to social marketing I think the days of guilting people into action are over.
That's why, when we were approached by the University of Ottawa Heart Institute to refresh their creative for their 20th annual telethon, we wanted to turn things around.
For the past couple of years, the Heart Institute has focussed on loss, portraying heart disease as a cold killer of family and friends. But that didn't rub me the right way. The telethon, after all, has consistently brought in millions of dollars from people in the Ottawa Region who believe in its work. They are not motivated by sadness, they are expressing hope. And they should feel good about what they have helped achieve.
With that in mind, we made this year's ads all about saying thanks:
As Don Draper said, "we're selling happiness". I don't think fundraising should be any different.
Please tune in to the telethon this Sunday, or donate directly at their web site.
Usually, this is a criticism of someone's really obscure creative rationale for a pet idea that doesn't work. In this case, though, I meant it literally.
These "prop" versions are cool gimmicks, but you have to wonder how long the extensions will last on the streets of Toronto. (If the vandals don't get 'em, the snow probably will.)
What I like even better are the diptych and triptych versions. What can I say? I'm a sucker for any social campaign that takes the piss out of consumer advertising.
I love the new social media landscape. But every once in a while, as I walk through my city, I am reminded that I am also still in love with one of the oldest ad media in existence: hoarding posters:
This campaign, from Plan Canada, shows how good old fashioned physical presence can still dominate the attention of an audience.
The campaign,"Because I Am a Girl", is "a global campaign to claim a brighter, safer future for girls. Investing in girls is key to eliminating poverty and creating a better world."
The campaign is a combination of membership drive, fundraising, and awareness for the women in poverty.
• 70 per cent of the one billion people living in extreme poverty are women and girls.
• Girls are 3x more likely to be malnourished than boys.
• Over 60 million girls are denied access to primary school.
But the opportunities are inspiring:
• An extra year of school for girls will increase their lifetime income by 10-20%.
• Children of women who have completed primary school are less likely to die before age 5 than children of mothers with no schooling.
• Women who do work reinvest 90% of their income back into their household.
The Because I Am A Girl campaign funds projects to promote water and food security, health care and education and microfinancing livelihoods in Africa, South Asia and South America.
My immediate thought was, "important message, bad media placements".
Yessir, I'm jaded. But that's because, as an adman, I take the power of boobs very seriously. In the commercial world, as part of the lazy creative's holy trinity of "boobs babies and bowsers", they are used indiscriminately to sell clothing, food, cars, perfumes—you name it. Back in the '60s, one psychiatrist even saw "Mother McDonald's ample bosom" in the famous golden arches.
Reading my blog posts here and on Osocio, you may have the impression I have boobies on the brain. I do. But — man or woman, gay or straight — you do too. It's called being a mammal.
What I really want to talk about here, though, is the use of breasts in social and cause marketing. There are basically two ways to harness their power for good...
You can either cynically use them as borrowed interest, as PeTA does:
Or you can try to be relevant, by raising awareness of an issue that is actually involved with the body parts:
(That second one reminds women to get a breast exam)
Mammaries as media are too important and powerful to be overused or abused in marketing, even for a good cause. And that's my issue with the shirt/walking ad at the top of this post.
First of all, if you're going to come to a job interview wearing a novelty t-shirt, you had better be looking for a digital marketing position, and the only acceptable theme is old-school science fiction. Second, like a "my eyes are up here" shirt, it actually defeats its purpose by attracting attention to the areas that aren't supposed to matter. It's like sexual harassment entrapment.
I realize that the shirt proves an important point. I just don't think it's the right one.
Here's an age test for you. Watch this new cancer awareness PSA, and see how many young, up-and-coming TV and movie stars can you can recognize and name:
According to MTV, they are: Zachary Levi, Kristen Bell, Vanessa Hudgens, Logan Lerman, Andrew Garfield, Naya Rivera, Dakota Fanning, Zac Efron, Donald Faison, Jon Heder, Olivia Munn, Sofia Vassilieva, Clark Duke, William Moseley, Aubrey Plaza and Aaron Yoo. (Don't worry, I only got two by sight. Now get off my lawn!)
The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) campaign aims to educate youth about the high likelihood that they will be diagnosed with some type of cancer during their lives, and makes an appeal to raise funds to fight those odds.
This PSA will be broadcast on September 10 during a one-hour broadcast fundraising event that will be simulcast on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, HBO, Discovery Health, E!, MLB Network, The Style Network, VH1, HBO Latino, Showtime, TV One, and G4.
This week, I've introduced you to our iheartmom.ca viral campaign starring Joannie Rochette. I've talked about the evolution of women's heart health as a social marketing issue. I've shared the ups and downs of trying to take a campaign viral. And I talked a bit about the new technologies we're adopting to raise funds.
Today, I'd like to put the spotlight on our cause marketing client, The University of Ottawa Heart Institute. As Canada's top cardiovascular health centre, The Heart Institute is a prime destination for surgeons who teach and conduct research, cardiologists who undertake basic science, investigators who operate clinics, among over 1,000 other health professionals.
Their work is global in scale, including identifying the first major heart health risk factor since cholesterol — the 9p21 gene, unlocking the mechanism controlling a gene that regulates weight loss, and developing a biomaterial that grows new blood vessels.
This campaign is gaining great awareness worldwide, but after an initial big cheque, donations are slow coming in. Please join our Facebook cause page or click the "iheartmom" button at the bottom of this post to support research, education, and treatment of women's hearts.
And please send your mom (or grandma, sister, daughter, wife, cousin, friend, etc.) this series of potentially life-saving videos produced by The Heart Institute. Each one has an important health tip for women about protecting and maintaining heart health, and especially for recognizing women's unique cardiac danger signals:
(More to come next week!)
Ready to support this cause now? For Mom? join our Facebook page or hit the button.
This week, in support of our iheartmom.ca campaign for women's heart health, I'm going to look at the development of female-specific heart disease awareness as a social marketing initiative.
Heart disease is the #1 killer of women, but has far less mindshare than breast and cervical cancer in the public discussion of women's health.
Why is this? Part of the problem, according to the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, is that women's heart attack symptoms are different (and often less dramatic) than men's. They can be mistaken for an anxiety attack, flu, or general lightheadedness.
You can see the low awareness of women's heart health in this American PSA from two years ago:
And here is a good explanation of women-specific symptoms and issues:
The situation is changing, though, through the World Heart Federation's "Go Red for Women" campaign.
The campaign also gets corporate and celebrity support.
The international outreach is funded by the American Heart Association's "Go Red" movement, around Valentine's Day and Heart Month.
Here in Canada, the Red Dress campaign recently took the form of The Heart Truth Fashion Show, by the Heart & Stroke Foundation.
Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette won a bronze medal at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, but her time on the podium was shadowed by tragedy. Just two days before she competed, her mother Therese died of a heart attack.
Joannie not only went on, but achieved a career best. Now, she has committed herself to raising awareness and funds to fight heart disease in women:
We at Acart are also committed to this cause. Just two weeks ago, the University of Ottawa Heart Institute came to us with their idea for creating a Mother's Day campaign around Joannie's involvement in their cause. And so, in a flurry of strategy, creative development, and on-the-fly production, we managed to put together the "iheartmom" campaign — filming the PSA on-site at the Heart Institute while Joannie was in Ottawa for a brief visit.
The online PSA leads to the campaign site, iheartmom.ca, where people are encouraged to donate directly or raise funds via Facebook (there's also a contest element where you can win a Caribbean cruise!)
Some facts on heart disease in women
• Heart disease is the #1 killer of women aged 55 or older • Women of all ages represent 50% of heart disease deaths in Canada • In 2005, more than 25,000 Canadian women died from heart disease • More than one-third of women aged 45 and over have high blood pressure • Heart disease risk in women increases with age and the onset of menopause • Heart attack is not uncommon in women in their 30s • Women’s heart attack symptoms can include unusual fatigue, trouble sleeping, indigestion and anxiety up to one month before a heart attack
The French campaign, "mamandemoncoeur", is running in parallel.
There's also a video of the press conference here.
Please help us help Joannie help moms everywhere have healthier hearts. Share this blog.
The idea of trophy hunting grizzly bears kind of sickens me. I don't understand why anyone would want to kill an animal they don't intend to eat. But the issue remains a controversial one in Canada's West.
Now that you know my bias, I'd like to share some funny social marketing videos that came my way today from the site No More Grizzlies in Alberta:
You may or may not be aware of Greenpeace's "tck tck tck" international campaign aimed to shame world leaders at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, but if you work in downtown Ottawa you've seen the Harper version.
Here's a close-up:
(Strangely, unlike the other leaders, he doesn't seem to have aged a day.)
I loved this campaign's basic concept of looking back from the future with regret. I think that the anticipation of regret is a great emotional trigger.
If there's anything about this campaign that bugs me a little, it's the simplification of the issue. But that's a challenge with any cause marketing campaign. Scientific and social issues like climate change are complex ones that require a lot of mental work to even try to understand beyond the black-and-white thinking that activists and deniers alike exhibit when trying to rally supporters.
But imagine this ad with the headline:
"I'm sorry. We could have tried to agree to make painful efforts to reduce human-influenced greenhouse gas emissions that are affecting natural cycles of global climate change in measurable (yet ultimately unpredictable) ways, but I had to admit to myself that politics simply don't work like that — especially in this economy — and China won't have any of it anyway."
Of course it doesn't work. tl;dnr. Plus, the climate change deniers must love seeing these outdoor ads surrounded by the leavings of the season's first blizzard. (A completely irrelevant but unfortunate anecdotal position that enters every climate change argument.)
Trying to address complex issues in a way that people can understand is actually very hard. Especially in advertising, which is often described as "though-provoking" but which usually aims at the gut. I have heard and communicated many perspectives on climate change through my corporate responsibility and social marketing work with clients as diverse as Environment Canada, Canadian Urban Transit Association, AECL, CAA and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. As I recently said to an ad student, "Everyone wants a better world. The eternal problem is getting them to agree on what that is, and how to get there."
Will this campaign shame the leaders into action? Probably not. But it got Greenpeace some new exposure and got people talking, which is all that any client can really ask for.
