How advertising innovations gave the world President Trump

It's been less than a year since we all woke up, rubbed our eyes, and realized that the United States of America had elected a blowhard reality show host as President.

It seemed impossible. But that was just the beginning of one unbelievable thing after another.

The suspicions and accusations of Russian interference in American political discourse felt like sour grapes to some, but now we're seeing proof. Last week, the US House Intelligence Committee published a selection of Facebook and Instagram posts and ads that came from accounts now known to be Russian-controlled.

Most of them speak the language of memes, at least what a "meme" is considered to be in the twentyteens: a captioned image that provokes a strong positive or negative reaction. Many, like the infamous Jesus-boxing-Hillary image above, also had a call-to-action that would help them spread virally.

The memes and other posts are highly-targeted, and many are aimed squarely at the fault lines of American society, both pro- and anti-Trump:

What's the point? Analysts call it Putin's attempt to destabilize the west, so that allied countries are less able to act against Russian interests. In the case of the USA, the goal was obviously to promote the election of a singularly unqualified presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who may or may not already by compromised by Russian intelligence.

At the same time, look at what's happening to the two major parties in the US: The Democrats lost the election partially due to infighting, which was additionally fuelled by pro-Sanders Russian ads, and Republican infighting allowed Trump to emerge triumphant.

As a social (and social media) marketer, I can't help but look at the strategy behind this with a mix of wonder and disgust. Segmentation, and telling people what they want to hear, are old advertising strategy. However, social media has provided a more targeted and intimate advertiser-consumer experience than ever before. Advertisers, or rather advertising platforms (Facebook, Google, etc.) also know more about consumers on an individual level than any direct marketer in the past could imagine. Apply some behavioural psychology to this, and maybe you can disrupt democracy itself.

How did we, the world, allow ourselves to become so easy to manipulate? Blame advertising. The desire of marketers to get inside consumers' heads is relentless, and it's really working. Just a couple of days ago, my partner was looking at soufflé dishes online. While she was still doing that (as we have a shared family account for Gmail) ads for soufflé dishes started appearing on my Facebook feed. This is simple behavioural retargeting, but it works.

In the mysterious inner workings of Facebook, all of my online relationships and posts are analyzed to better serve me content and ads that will be of interest to me. That was the plan, anyway. In reality, our social media networks become expanding bubbles of confirmation bias that can actually transform and/or stratify our worldview.

For a consumer advertiser, the goal is to build brand loyalty. Today, a brand can take advantage of the information Facebook and Google collect to attach their brand to "the big issues" and develop loyalty that is based on lifestyle, community, and even politics.

For the propagandists behind the 2016 US election disruptions, however, the goal was to inflame fierce loyalty within one's political sphere, while sowing FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about their opponents. The result is an influence on voting behaviour and the breakdown of the American political system.

When all is revealed by the House Intelligence Committee, 2016-17 will become a case study in mass persuasion, creating a belief system that turned voters away from mainstream politicians and into the arms of a complete disaster of a President. People didn't need to be convinced Trump was great, only that existing system was broken and Trump could disrupt it for the benefit of his base.

This operation, by the way, is ongoing, as any review of the replies to a Trump tweet will show. The United States is fractured, and the jagged pieces are drifting further away from each other every day.

Provocative Nunavut FASD posters have a Russian connection

Via Storify

Last week on Osocio, I reviewed an anti-FASD campaign that ran at LCBO stores, and took some heat for my claim that its potentially shaming approach to any drinking in pregnancy wasn't helpful. But that campaign was pretty mild when compared to the new ads by the government of Nunavut:

Via CBC

According to the CBC, these posters are "provoking a strong reaction from residents" — both positive and negative.  They were designed by Atiigo Media Inc., a communications company in Iqaluit that specializes in northern issues.

The ads certainly are intended to provide shock value, showing the fetus literally drowning in alcohol. That's not exactly biologically accurate, but some locals apparently feel the strong messaging is justified by the high rates of alcohol abuse in the north, which has prompted some communities to ban alcohol entirely.

I still object to the unnecessary shaming or scaring pregnant women, even as I have to admit that I am culturally isolated from the communities for which this campaign was created.

Notably, while trying to find a better image of the campaign, I stumbled upon this Russian campaign from 2012:

While it is not uncommon for PSA campaigns to share creative ideas for public good, I wonder if this was a partnership or plain old plunder...

Canada's coolest police force is at it again...

Courtesy of @YRP here is your complimentary frosh week expense list. #makewisedecisions and #partywithcaution pic.twitter.com/vPbfATOPtK
— York Regional Police (@YRP) September 3, 2014

Remember when York Region Police "won the internet" by replying to a guy's Twitter request for dope? 

This year, they're using that same type of humour to warn local university and college students about the consequences of drunken hijinks. And somehow, they manage to make it feel less like a lecture:

Is this eating disorder ad too sexy?

Via Ads of The World

It's a serious question. This woman has the typical idealized body of a model, and despite the scary body painting, the portrayal is undeniably drawing attention to her curves and bare skin.

When I think about eating disorders, I try to imagine looking in the mirror and seeing a funhouse reflection of myself that is always bulgier and heavier than reality.  That's the really scary thing about dysmorphia, as opposed to just wanting to lose weight: it's a chronic mental illness that can kill, because people who have it can't see what they're doing to their bodies:

That's a corporate social responsibility billboard that No-li-ta posted in Milan during the city's 2010 Fashion Week. Shorty after the campaign was shot, the woman, French model, actress and blogger Isabelle Caro, died at age 28.

So there are a number of things to consider here:

1. Is the sexualized presentation of an idealized female body just adding to the problem of media-influenced body image problems?

2. Is the statistic misleading or confusing? While the US National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Eating Disorders says that "91% of women surveyed on a college campus had attempted to control their weight through dieting. 22% dieted 'often' or 'always'," they give the statistic for the actual mental disorder of anorexia at "an estimated 0.5 to 3.7 percent of women." So how are we defining "eating disorder"?

3. What does the Enosh ad want the viewer to do, be aware that eating disorders are bad? There is little here to help those suffering from EDs, or to help their loved ones understand or intervene.

It may seem mean to criticize a well-meaning ad like this, but as a career social marketer I struggle with these same questions in every new campaign I approach.

Cross-posted at Osocio

2013: The Year of The Bystander

Via North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services

We're hearing the term more and more, and especially in context of rape and sexual harassment.

Via Osocio

"Bystander" is the target audience for an increasing number of social marketing campaigns that attempt to change people's sense of responsibility for friends, neighbours, and even strangers.

I've been working on bystander-focussed campaigns for years, on topics such as elder abuse,  drunk driving and rider harassment on public transit. But I think this year is going to be all about what bystanders can do to stop sexual assault.

It shouldn't be any surprise. In several recent (and very disturbing) high-profile sexual abuse cases, bystanders acceptance and participation made otherwise ordinary people complicit in horrible crimes.

In Steubenville, Ohio, a young woman was sexually abused by members of a celebrated local high school football team. Classmates documented, shared, and joked about the incident. They even threatened the victim for daring to seek justice.

In Coal Harbour, Nova Scotia, another young woman was photographed having public sex while too drunk to consent (otherwise known as rape). The picture and the story were spread around the small town, and she was targeted on social media. Rehtaeh Parsons killed herself.

In Port Coquitlam, B.C., yet another young woman moved to a new school to try to escape the infamy of a topless picture she had shared with a stranger when she was in Grade 7. Schoolmates harassed her constantly about that, her depression, and a failed suicide attempt. After making a video cry for help that went viral, Amanda Todd also killed herself.

In Pitt Meadows, B.C., a young woman was gang-raped in the middle of a rave. Partygoers not only failed to intervene, they took photos and videos with their smartphones to share online.

Heard enough? One more.

In Saratoga, California, a young woman passed out at a party. She woke up to find she had been raped by up to three classmates, who had bragged of their assault by writing on her body with a Sharpie and taking and sharing pictures of the rape. Audrie Pott killed herself.

There are more. What they have in common is that these are not the actions of some individual predator acting in secret. They are a product of a culture in which rape is acceptable, under certain circumstances, and one person's humiliation is everyone else's entertainment.

It occurs to me that what's missing is empathy. Bystander empathy. But how do we increase that?

There is a role for social marketing here. And it's not just telling people not to "cyberbully" peers at risk. Instead, the greater social network needs to be connected more meaningfully to the lives and feelings of others. While the Internet is really great at turning people into harassers and trolls, it can also broaden their circle of empathy if they let it.

Via Osocio

A good example of this is the Draw The Line campaign, which I recently profiled on Osocio. It treats rape culture as a spectrum, starting with the apathetic acceptance of "distant" cases of assault and sexism in the media, and working closer to the audience's innermost circle:

The message is simple: It is all part of the same problem, and you are responsible for stopping it.

This year, will you be a bystander who makes a difference? Or will you be an accomplice?

You can start by evaluating your online behaviour.

Author Geoff Livingston, in his marketing blog, puts it like this:

So what can bystanders do? Well, they have several different options to choose from: 

1. Observe but refrain from getting involved
2. Publicly support the attacker
3. Privately support the attacker
4. Publicly support the target or victim
5. Privately support the target or victim
6. Become participants that attempt to deescalate the situation 

The vast majority of bystanders decide not to participate, and the reasons for doing so can range from feeling they don’t care enough about the problem to speak up, thinking their individual voice won’t steer the situation in a different direction, or wanting to avoid the risk of becoming a target themselves if they lend their support to either side. 

Bystanders who decide to publicly support one side or the other carry the risk, as noted, that they’ll become possible targets of furious opponents. However, by taking a stand they also have the opportunity to publicly speak out against unfair or untruthful statements and behavior. The challenge is to do so in a fact-based, rational and persuasive way, without getting sucked into the blind emotional intensity frequently seen in online exchanges and without taking cheap shots at the other side or trying to incite others into an online frenzy.

Be nice out there.

NYC shames teen parents to battle unplanned pregnancy

It seems that scaring and shaming people just won't go out of style in social marketing, no matter how much research proves it's ineffective.

These ads are from NYC's Human Resources Administration, and they feature "with hard-hitting facts about the money and time costs of parenting, and the negative consequences of having a child before you are ready".

Think Progress points out that New York's mandatory comprehensive sex ed curriculum, as well as better teen access to contraception, have seen the teen pregnancy rate drop by 27 percent over the past decade. But they compare this campaign to abstinence-only education, "a misguided approach to sexual education that teaches adolescents to be ashamed of their bodies, rather than equipping young people with the tools they need to safeguard their health" and expect that the campaign by itself will be no more effective.

But worse, the negativity heaped on kids born to teen moms is unconscionable. Just because the statistics are there, doesn't mean you have to be so insensitive to real children and their parents.

This one, however, has the right positive message (in the headline, at least):

Why couldn't the whole campaign have taken this route?

Can you shame a pregnant woman into quitting smoking?

It's a beautifully-executed ad, by Kelliher Samets Volk for the Vermont Department of Public Health (via Adrants).

It's also an approach that has been done before, by Different for the NHS:

Original or not, however, I don't think it will make a damn bit of difference.

All too often, public social marketing campaigns are based on the assumption that "if only those people knew that what they were doing is harmful, they'd stop."

I'll put it out there that most people who have a drug problem know it is harmful to them, and possibly to others. I doubt many smokers, problem drinkers, or street and prescription drug abusers are so deluded as to think they are doing no harm. But they are addicted, and addiction overrules self preservation. If it didn't we wouldn't have the problems we do.

This ad, as beautiful as it is, only serves to add to the public shaming of pregnant women who smoke by the general public. But shame is not a great motivator to change, especially when you have already made the shamed one an outcast.

The ads above are subtle, but it is part of a train of thought that includes these:

Via Wordpress

Via Wordpress

Via Google

Via DeviantArt

Via HazellCottrell

Via Coloribus

And then there's this:

I want to make it clear that I don't want women to smoke while pregnant. My problem with the prevailing attitude among social marketers is the insistence that you can shame and blame people with drug problems into behavioural change.

The other issue I have is how much these campaigns can take on the visual vocabulary of the anti-abortion movement:

Via World Health Organisation

With that approach comes the implicit message that a pregnant women's body does not belong to her, it belongs to society at large. And that is not okay.

Pregnant women who smoke need encouragement and help to quit, without being judged or frightened.   They need our support and understanding, not our looks of disdain. When is someone going to stop treating addicts like "rational consumers" of social policy, and actually take this issue on from a harm reduction point of view?

I'm ready whenever you are.

The LCBO tries to guilt me out of parental drinking

Saw this while picking up wine over the weekend. I have to say, my son has never looked at me like that when I'm imbibing.

LCBO has a bad history with social marketing, being (literally) the poster child for unintended consequences in using guilt and shame as tools of corporate social responsibility.

If they really want results, they might want to try a more positive and constructive approach. What do you think?

What really creates social change?

Cross-posted with Change Marketing

In an interesting post on Toronto blog The Grid, Edward Keenan disparages TO Mayor Rob Ford for wanting to scrap the city's 2009 requirement that all shops charge 5¢ per plastic bag.



Edward writes:

"I think the reason people resent the bag fee so much is that it forces them to think about something they do not want to think about. “Do I need a bag?” They know, as we all do by now, that these little things are bad for the environment in many ways—they’re made of oil, they clog up landfills if they’re thrown out, they use up a whackload of energy if they’re recycled, they kill wildlife and produce unsightly litter if they get loose, as they historically and iconically do—and so the fee asks them to think for a split second whether they want those bags and if so, how many they want. The tiny, inconsequential fee forces both the retailer and the customer to spend a few seconds discussing the issue of bags.

[snip]

As it turns out, of course, that this has been effective, reducing the number of plastic bags used in Toronto by 53 per cent since it was introduced. Because when people have to think about it at all, when it costs them even a few seconds’s worth of income, they realize they can do without so many. When asked, they’d prefer to do right by the planet. But if you don’t ask, they don’t think about it."

(He's a very funny writer, BTW — I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing.)

As social issues marketers, reading about this kind of radical behaviour change should make us stand up and take note. Not that everyone will be supportive of government-imposed financial disincentives to negative behaviour (which goes against the beliefs of anyone with a strong libertarian bent), but simply because it puts the results of individual, unsupported social marketing efforts to shame.

This is where self-interest trumps community-mindedness. I stopped speeding so much, on the highway, after Ontario significantly raised fines. A similar effect has been noted as a result of the cell-phone handset ban — Health and Safety Ontario reports a self-reported 40% drop of in drivers reported talking on handheld and hands-free phones since the ban was enacted.

It's the same thinking behind Federal and Provincial "sin tax" on alcohol and cigarettes, aimed at reducing consumption. Or Provincial and Municipal smoking bans, which really do work.

Social changes are not always the result of intentional effects. While there are heavy sin taxes on gasoline in Canada, market forces also push the price of gas up, leading to less single-passenger driving and more use of sustainable transportation like buses, bikes and carpools.

Great news for environmentalists and public health promoters. But if the answer is so simple, why even bother with social issues marketing?

I would like to argue my professional case on two strong facts:

1) Regulation follows public will

Think about the fight against tobacco. Two or three decades of massive social marketing campaigns gradually moved the needle on public opinion about smoking. When the bans came up, they had enough support to give legislators a strong mandate.

Social issues marketers are the advance guard on change. We work with governments, consumer groups, industry, and not-for-profits to introduce the issue and provide rational and compelling reasons for support. You can see it happening right now with the issue of indoor tanning.



That PSA was from 2008. Since then, tanning has become a subject of disdain and ridicule, and more and more jurisdictions are placing increased regulations on the industry (especially with teens). Cause promotion, pop culture and regulation are inextricably tied into this change.


2) Industry follows consumer opinion

McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King have all stopped sourcing pork from producers that use gestation cages on their pigs, after successful campaigns by PETA and the Humane Society of the United States. This is a big deal. A similar effect was seen when food safety advocates branded "boneless lean beef trim" as "pink slime". This resulted in a massive drop in demand by fast food retailers, and caused a major producer (Beef Products Inc.) to shut down three of its plants.

In short, no big change — legislative or commercial — happens without a sea-change in public opinion. And public opinion change is the whole point of social issues marketing.

Scary, eh? It's actually a big responsibility for those of us in "the business". And it's why there's so much outcry when corporate social responsibility campaigns or products try to "greenwash" or "astroturf" — people want information they can trust. It's also why smart consumer marketers team up with credible not-for-profits who can provide objective and trustworthy information to support the campaigns.

What social issues would you like to see begin the long trek from cause to normalization? Maybe we can help...

Thanks to Josh Rachlis for the inspirational tip.

Bring the boobs back to Sesame Street

No, I'm not talking about that Katy Perry fiasco a couple of years back. This is something altogether more innocent: breastfeeding.

Back in the '70s and '80s, Sesame Street included breast feeding promotion as part of its educational mandate to American kids.

Here's Canada's own Buffy Sainte-Marie doing it with her son Dakota "Cody" Starblanket Wolfchild in 1977:



And here's the character Maria (played by Sonia Manzano) nursing her real-life daughter, Gabriela, in 1988:



It's practically the same scene. But something happened on Sesame Street, as it grew out of its baby boomer roots and started becoming a corporate merchandising goliath. Breastfeeding somehow became something inappropriate for a kids' show.

The most damning piece of censorship is a touching musical segment called "You're My Baby".

In the original '70s version, the camera lingers on a nurseling:

Twenty-plus years later, when it was remade for a new generation of kids, the breast was replaced:

While certainly reflecting the reality, for many America parents (especially moms with very limited maternity leave!) the very deliberate substitution irked breastfeeding advocates such as Lani of the Boobie Time blog, who has started a petition to try to convince Sesame Street to promote breastfeeding again.

Why is this a big deal? Back in the earlier days, the show was actively promoting a behaviour that was in the interest of American babies. Breastfeeding rates were going up overall, but the increases were mostly accounted for by affluent "white" women. Rates among Hispanic and African Americans remained low. Sesame Street, the great social leveller, was doing its part to normalize the practice among all its viewing families — it was one of the show's many embedded bits of social marketing.

Zoom forward to the present, and American women continue to experience anti-breastfeeding sentiment, in public places, despite many legal protections. To put it bluntly, there are many who consider breasts to be sex-only organs, and who consider their public exposure in breastfeeding to be obscene.

In the latter "you're my baby" video, Sesame Street may have been reacting to the way many of its viewers really feed their babies — being descriptive rather than prescriptive. After all, the revolutionary show has focus groups and organized "decency" mobs to worry about now.

But can't they take a leadership position again? To model a better world than the one some viewers find themselves in?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks to my sister, Mary Jo, for sharing this story with me.

Georgia's "fat kids" campaign: wake-up call or useless guilt trip?

Annie at Fuse Communications sent me a link to this Georgia childhood obesity campaign from Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, asking for my opinion. It's a tough one.



The brutally frank ads target the parents of overweight children, who are thought to be either unaware or in denial about how their children's diet and activity choices affect their health and self-esteem.




According to ABC news:

"Children's Healthcare of Atlanta chose the straightforward approach after its survey of two towns in Georgia found that 50 percent of parents did not know childhood obesity was a problem and 75 percent of parents with obese children did not think their child was overweight."

But here's that defensive processing dilemma, that keeps showing up in social marketing campaigns. Negative portrayals of viewer behaviour tend to make  the target market turn away, rather than mend their ways, and can even backfire.



The issue of parenting is an especially volatile one. Try having a civil conversation about breastfeeding versus bottle feeding, infant male circumcision, or co-sleeping with a random group of parents online. You'll end up with a flamewar.

Diet and fat-shaming is another one of these issues. While parents need to be aware that their obese and/or inactive kids need healthier habits for their own sake, when you criticize someone's parenting you really hit them where it hurts most. I expect this campaign did exactly that.



From the original article:

"Blaming the victim rarely helps," said Dr. Miriam Labbok, director of the Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "These children know they are fat and that they are ostracized already."
...
"While guilt and fear are motivators, they have to be meted out with the answer to the situation," Labbok said. "The ads with the children do not offer help to them."
According to health communication experts, successful public health campaigns offer a clear call to action. Labbok says the Georgia ads address the problem, but don't give viewers a clear solution.

So what's the answer? Social marketing theory says positive modelling is the key. But positive modelling takes a long time to be effective. All social change does. It's understandable that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta chose a more confrontational approach, because they can see that it is an urgent public health crisis. But then again, so is smoking (especially around kids), alcohol dependence, and a general lack of concern about buying, cooking and eating healthy food.

None of these problems is going to be solved quickly using the blunt instrument of guilt advertising. All that does is preach to the choir, making impatient activists feel better that something major is being done.

No matter what people tell you, ads can only do so much. This is a job for doctors, nurses, educators and community leaders to take on, full-time, for the next 10 or 20 years. It's complicated, slow, and will not win anyone any awards. But it's what has to happen for real change to occur.

How not to do an anti-pregnant-smoking PSA

Save Your Child from ParkhausPictures on Vimeo.

#1  Do not be too obvious (the "mysterious" coughing was not exactly a teaser)

#2  Do not try to guilt people into action (the melodrama, the "consequences")

#3  Do not overstate your case (it's like you're smoking your baby!)

These are really standard social marketing mistakes, and yet people keep making them. The last thing a pregnant woman addicted to cigarettes needs is shame and blame. She needs hope and help.

And this is not helping.

The problem with this kind of advertising is that it takes the perspective of people who do not do this kind of thing, and can't understand why anyone would. So they express their concern in a dramatic and damning fashion.

Meanwhile, the person who is smoking while pregnant feels assaulted and isolated, and rebels by hardening her resolve against those who clearly do not understand what she is going through. (Instead, she'll rely on anecdotes from likeminded friends whose babies were "just fine.")

And if she does the research for herself, she will find out that smoking is bad for the baby, but not to the extent that it is portrayed in the ad. At which point, she will have totally dismissed the message, and will blissfully continue smoking in denial of the real risks.

Advertiser: Save Your Child (Denmark)
Via Illegal Advertising

F'd Ad Fridays: Unfortunate anus crab lips visual is unfortunate

When they speak, we run in terror.
See the rest of the campaign here.

The war on loose women

Social marketing has been with us a long time. It just went by other names, like "propaganda".

Buzz Feed just posted a collection of Second World War posters warning soldiers about the dangers of venereal disease from prostitutes and "procurable women".

Note how the first batch basically vilify the women as a secret enemy, while the last two put more onus of responsibility on male self-control and honour:

Ninety-eight percent?

If you sleep with a hussy, you're boning HITLER.

The pulp fiction cover style is actually kind of awesome.

This one has a Disney feel. She looks like the mirror in Snow White.

French girls: bags of trouble.

Wow. She really gets around.

Must... not... give in,,,

Friends don't let friends swive drunk.

There are more examples, including homefront messages, here.

Made in Japan

Pink Tentacle recently posted a really nice collection of vintage Japanese cause posters.

I'd like to share my favourites here:

Against the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan (Kinkichi Takahashi, 1960s)

Hiroshima Appeals (Yusaku Kamekura, 1983) 

Goodbye whale (Mamoru Suzuki, 1994)

Anti-pollution poster (Kenji Ito, 1973)

Environmental pollution (Shigeo Fukuda, 1973)

Thought-provoking, simple, and beautiful. A great reminder that sometimes words fail us.

Stop F---ing The Sharks!

And by that, I mean "Finning"...

I Believe in Advertising posted this ad from Grey Hong Kong that speaks out agaisnt the Chinese tradition of killing sharks just to add their (tasteless) dried fins to prestigious wedding soups. It's really kind of freaking me out, but I thought I'd share based solely on the urgency of the issue:

IBiA also posted this translation:

“Jaws never return
Shark killing tragedies. Showing every day.
73 million sharks are brutally killed every year. In Hong Kong last year, 4460 tons of shark’s fin were consumed. Experts estimate that in the next decade, most species of sharks will be exterminated. Your choice will determine the ending of this tragedy…
Rescue sharks. Preserve the ocean. Please stop consuming shark’s fin.”

I should add that, if you don't stop eating that stuff, my 6-year-old radical naturalist son will also kick your ass.