Imbedded Commercials

My kids drew me in to the American Idol auditions this week, which was a ratings bonanza for Fox. Mostly the show revolved around very bad singers who cried or threw temper tantrums after being told they had no talent. It all seemed very genuine, unless you noticed the large red Coca Cola cups on the nearly-bare table in front of the judges. Coca Cola paid American Idol for that cup placement, carefully positioned to have the logo showing in the camera shot.

Advertisers spent $1.5 billion on product placement in 2006, according to PQ Media. Although product placement has a long and deep history in advertising, few consumers assume that products they see in the show are actually advertisements. Apple and Ford paid for product placement on the hit show “24″. Reeses Pieces were featured in the movie “ET”. According to BusinessWeek, demand for the beer “Red Stripe” skyrocketed in the US after product placement in the movie “The Firm”. Even famous songs help sell products, like the reference to Cracker Jacks in “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”.

Not everyone loves product placement. The Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild urged shows to make product placements clear in the beginning of the show. Writers and producers regularly grumble about the constraints product placement imposes on the creative process.

Advocacy organizations can use the product placement craze to their advantage. Planned Parenthood signs and condoms have been found on sets like the Gilmore Girls and the West Wing. Later this year you’ll see Carnegie Mellon University featured prominently in the movie “Smart People”, which is exposure the University traded for use of the campus for filming.

It’s easy to stumble, however. Chef Jamie Oliver took money from Heinz for product placement, a move that challenged his brand as an independent chef focused on healthy food. Oliver told the Independent, “I should have been brighter”.

Fair Pay Act

On Thursday pay discrimination for women takes center stage in the nation’s capitol. In an effort to recover from the substantial defeat in the Supreme Court last spring, feminist advocates are pushing the “Fair Pay Restoration Act” in a Senate hearing this week.

The protection for women in the workplace stems from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which granted women the right to sue for discrimination but imposed strict limits. Last spring the Supreme Court interpreted those limits to mean that women have 180 days to file a pay discrimination complaint from the time that the pay discrimination began. According to today’s Supreme Court, women would have to recognize discrimination and file a complaint within about 6 months of starting a new job.

Women in this country have always suffered from restrictive treatment from the law when it comes to workplace equity.

During the Reagan administration, civil rights advocates complained that many important enforcement mechanisms of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were gutted. When Reagan termed out of office in 1989, a major effort picked up steam to restore civil rights protections to their previous level of force.

Among the many struggles during this period was the demand by feminists to eliminate the restrictions put on enforcing equity in the workplace, such as the low limit on the damages that could be collected for employment discrimination based on gender bias. I was in Washington for some of these debates, when some insiders in the civil rights movement complained that the feminists were slowing down an important opportunity to make progress in civil rights.

In the end, the 1991 Civil Rights Restoration Act bypassed relief for women and instead set up the “Glass Ceiling Commission” with the charge to investigate whether or not workplace discrimination against women merited more robust protection. Elizabeth Dole headed up that commission (followed by a revolving door of commission leaders), which many years later reported on deep and systemic bias and discrimination against women in the workplace.

The Commission findings only confirmed what was already known: workplace gender bias was deep and widespread. Among other findings, the commission reported that 97% of senior managers at the nation’s largest corporations were white and male, and this was the result of a deeply held gender bias.

Despite the findings of the commission, the political moment for strengthening civil rights protections seemed to have passed. Last year the Supreme Court awakened the sleeping giant with its decision to deny reparations for a clear pay discrimination case. Let’s hope Senate leaders today move the Fair Pay Restoration Act one step closer to reality.

Roe v. Wade Anniversary

On Christmas Day 2007, two Albuquerque clinics that provide abortion were attacked - one was firebombed, the other was vandalized. This was the third attack in a single month in the state — a reproductive health care clinic in Albuquerque was firebombed just 20 days earlier.

Violence and access to reproductive health care have been so inextricably linked over the last 20 years that news accounts of firebombs at clinics barely make the headlines. Often violent opposition to abortion access is wrapped in religious belief, and its leaders claim priesthood. Extremist Joe Scheidler sometimes led prayer groups in front of clinics that his followers were violently invading and vandalizing. The late Congressmember Henry Hyde was a staunch supporter of Scheidler, even literally standing by Scheidler as he was convicted in federal court of over 100 acts of violence. President Reagan welcomed Scheidler for a private meeting at the White House, and a few months ago President Bush awarded Hyde with a Presidential medal of honor in part for his anti-abortion advocacy.

Today the Trinity Institute in New York begins an exploration of Religion and Violence. Some of the world’s leading thinkers on the subject are in attendance, including Islamic scholar and author Tariq Ramadan, who says this about the apparent religious inspiration for violence:

“It’s not religiously inspired. It’s that we are using religions when we are dealing with power - when we are dealing with denomination. This is really why we need, from the very beginning, to understand that there is no true religion without effort, discipline, and education. Because if you are confusing your religious commitment with emotions, your emotions can be blind. And it comes to violence.

The difference between spirituality and emotion is very deep. Spirituality is what you get after a very deep education, at the bottom of your heart. And emotion is at the surface of your being. And you have to be cautious not to confuse the two. And sometimes violence is exactly in between.”

Religion & Violence

I am at a conference on religion and violence at Trinity Institute. Trinity is prestigious in the Protestant world - in fact the “Rector Street” subway stop in Manhattan references the Rector at Trinity. The massive buildings that make up Trinity Church hover over Wall Street.

The room is filled with theologians and religious intellectuals. I am wishing that I paid more attention in my religion coursework at my Catholic schools. Words like “pantheistic” and “dominion” and “declivity” are sending me to dictionary.com.

Now here is featured speaker James Cone, pre-eminent liberation scholar and theologian. You imagine immediately that Cone never moderates the truth. He is speaking about Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. One of Cone’s books explores the two theologies, contrasting efforts to liberate whites from their feeling of superiority and to liberate African Americans from their feeling of inferiority.

Cone is telling us that injustice itself is violence, and that we can’t get rid of violence unless we transform the social structure that creates violence. He urges us to learn how to “unpack tricky language” and take on pulling the wool off so that the world can see violence as it is.

One way that Cone “unpacks tricky language” is to resist historical inaccuracies and amnesia. He reminds us that in the sixties King wasn’t revered by the mainstream media as he is today. He reminds us that segregation started in the church.

Cone took aim at religious leadership: “If you live in a racist society, and if you aren’t preaching against racism in that society, then you are not preaching the gospel. And I think that most white churches are not preaching the gospel.”

Cone delivered a message of hope. He quotes Frances Grimke, “Justice may sleep but it never dies”.

The Great Debaters

Words matter. That’s the lesson from a movie I saw this weekend, “The Great Debaters”. It’s worth seeing for historical purposes (though I’ve seen much better performances by Denzel Washington).

The movie describes the unlikely success of a small town Texas college debate team, which made history by bringing an anti-racism message all the way to Harvard University. It was a movie about the power of words to fight racism in the turbulent 1930’s. In the final scene, the character of James Farmer Jr contradicts debate opponents who claim that the rule of law is always right. Farmer begins his remarks, “You know, in Texas they hang Negroes..the government sits idly by and does nothing”.

I was thinking about the power of words and race when I checked my AOL account this morning and saw the headline, “Opposing Groups Hold Jena 6 March”. My first assumption was that two groups on the left were jostling for center stage in protesting racism on MLK day. On closer inspection (after clicking on the headline), AOL reported that white supremacists had marched through Jena, and that opponents of racism had vigorously opposed their presence.

How could AOL have given equal weight to supremacists and civil rights activists in its headline? As it turns out, AOL wasn’t alone in normalizing the role of the white supremacists. The group was described in the Louisiana State University newspaper as the “nationalist movement”, “protestors”, and “controversial”. The USA Today used similar language, using the terms “group” and “some nationalist movement protestors”. If a reader is aware of the group called “the Nationalist Movement”, the coverage may make sense. But many readers are likely to assume that protestors belonged to a movement about “nationalism”, which is defined as “devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation”.

In contrast, the Detroit Free Press described the group as “armed supremacists” and “reputed white supremacists”. The Associated Press headline used the term “White Separatist group”, and its lead began with the term “A white separatist group…”.

Finding ways to normalize racism - however small, as in a headline - always contradicts our efforts to improve our democracy. Recently feminists and women’s groups protested words uttered by Chris Matthews that they deemed sexist. Matthews ultimately apologized for creating the impression that Hillary Clinton’s remarkable political achievements were spawned by her stoic reaction to her husband’s infidelity.

The Great Debaters also illustrated an important moment for women; the first female debater was added to that team. Civil rights legend Dorothy Height has straddled the struggles for civil rights and for women’s equality for more then seven decades. As I watch the video of Martin Luther King delivering his “I Have a Dream” speech today, I can catch a glimpse of Dorothy Height. In the sea of dark men’s suits surrounding the podium she stands just to the right of King, wearing a stylish leopard print hat.

I had the opportunity to meet Ms. Height a few years ago at a Planned Parenthood event where she spoke about her long support for reproductive freedom. That same year she granted an interview to VOA, where she spoke about gender and the 1964 civil rights march:

“I was with a group of women who objected to the fact that they did not have a woman speaker. The only female voice heard that wonderful day was that of Mahalia Jackson, the great gospel singer. And that was a disappointment because we were not able to get the program turned around so we could have a woman speaker. But, in addition, there was considerable discussion about having seven minutes per speaker and there was a limit in what they would do. And I made the case for Dr. King to be the last speaker. And of course you know he went longer than seven minutes. But everybody agreed to that at the end.”

Communicative Virtuosity

A job description for “Vice President - Communications” at St. John’s the Divine in New York advertised for someone with the skill of “Communicative virtuosity to mentor those you manage and convince those you don’t”

It made me wonder if I had “communicative virtuosity”. What did that even mean? Does it describe a super-expert communicator, someone so ahead of her field that she has become a virtuoso? Or a communicator who could inspire virtuosity in her staff?

To my surprise, I learned that the term applies to an approach to communications strategy that is often employed at Camino PR. The basic idea is that communications are not simply a vessel through which information travels, bur rather is itself a mechanism by which a myriad of social changes occur. In short: communications strategies matter not just because they work to exchange information, but they matter because they will impact the way information is understood and used.

W. Barnett Pierce wrote about communicative virtuosity, “..If [we] can develop a greater ability to recognize and take responsibility for what we are making by communicating the way we do, then there is hope for a better world.”

I’m not certain how Pierce applies his theories to current events. But it occurred to me that recent stories about a new strain of staph infections is a good example of what might be avoided with better communications virtuosity. Researchers published a study on a new strain of staph infection in the annals of Internal Medicine that sparked vitriolic — and unplanned — media spin. Among other news coverage, a London tabloid concluded that the study pointed to “the new HIV”, and an anti-gay group called on educators to teach kids about the “sexual deviancy” and “special health risks” associated with homosexuality. The researchers issued an apology for the manner in which the research had been reported to the public, and scrambled to halt the damaging press.

What’s the opposite of communicative virtuosity? Probably the Presidential elections. I am glad that candidate Duncan Hunter bowed out today, because these national debates about leadership will only improve without candidates that are using “isms” as a stepping stone to power.

About a decade ago Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, led Congressional leaders in a retreat on civility and subsequently testified at a hearing on the subject. The in fighting in Congress had become a publicity problem, and Jamieson was brought in to pinpoint solutions. One factor she pointed to was fatigue - name calling increased on the floor of the House when people got tired. Jamieson also pointed out that the increased reliance on speechmakers had resulted in an increase in message bills - that is, legislation created to serve a communications purpose. The conventional wisdom among speechwriters was that a good speech needed policy proposals, and therefore legislation was created for the speech, not necessarily for the public good.

Mr. Bach from the Library of Congress also testified, claiming it a victory that the term “fatso” had not been used on the House floor in a decade. Bach further described his ongoing delight at the Congressional orientation program where Tony and Dolores Beilenson talk to “new Members and their wives” about “what kind of pressures congressional service puts on marriages and families”. No mention about what women Congressmembers with husbands in tow thought about that comment.

Stereoptype Messages

“Never insult anyone by accident”
- Robert Heinlein

Using stereotypes and insults in marketing strategies is risky. The editor of Golfweek learned that the hard way this week when he lost his job in the wake of publishing a racially-charged cover.

In a climate marked by racist noose-related incidents, and in the wake of a racist comment aimed at Tiger Woods by a sports journalist, Golfweek featured a noose on its cover. The magazine joins a long list of corporations that tripped up recently in their pursuit of “edgy”. Mozilla launched a viral ad campaign that claimed Firefox users were less likely to have cancer. Toyota took heat for an ad that showed car owners wrecking their current cars (thus committing insurance fraud) so they could buy a new Toyota. Last year Snickers figured out that a lot of people don’t find homophobia funny when they aired a Superbowl ad featuring two men turning violent after accidently kissing. Nationwide Insurance was criticized for an ad that featured Kevin Federline hitting rock bottom as a fast food cook in a way that insulted many in the fast food industry. A few years ago Reebok pulled an ad that featured 50 Cent laughing about the number of times he’s been shot.

Advocacy groups also seek to be “edgy” in ways that can backfire. Last year NYU pulled an ad that treated autism as a kidnapper, complete with disturbing “ransom notes” that were described as offensive by parents and advocates.

A Toyota spokeswoman said this about their insurance fraud ad message: “it’s just trying to be a little edgier than Toyota usually is”. That refrain is repeated by just about everyone at the helm of offensive ads that were pulled. By “edgy”, marketers often mean they incorporate stereotypes into their messaging. Stereotype messaging is big business — just ask the most successful comics, cartoonists, and sitcom writers.

How can advocacy groups get edgy and viral, without getting offensive? The Association of Swedish Advertisers committed this week to creating a special ombudsman to help root out sexist advertising. Just two days ago a government-commissioned report recommended a law “banning advertising containing sexist content”. Ironically, the term “ombudsman” is Swedish in origin and is a fusion of the words “representative” and “man” (the correct female form of the word would be “ombudskvinna”). Sweden isn’t alone in its attempts to regulate bad taste in ads; last month a bill was introduced in the Philippines which would ban ads that “degrade women, glorify sexual violence and promote women’s exploitation”.

Advocates seeking edginess don’t need a set of guidelines as much as they need insight about social justice issues. If you are using stereotypes, you’ll need to fully understand who is the object of your stereotype and what the likely reaction will be. If you’re using provocative imagery, you should explore who will find it provocative and what the impact of that will be. Organizations turn to experts for all kinds of analysis, from web trends to message strategies. It would be worth turning to messaging experts with an expertise in social issues when you wade into controversial marketing techniques. Ad agencies may be able to create a provocative campaign, but they may not be able to spot offensive messaging.

When edgy material works, it’s brilliant. The Apple computer campaigns featuring the PC versus the Mac are a classic. The caveman ads created by Geico were so well received they were made (unsuccessfully so far) into a TV show. Both campaigns use stereotypes as the driving message mechanism, with a substantially different result than Golfweek and Snickers.

Follow the Money

Yesterday I wrote about how hard it is for women business owners to get a piece of the massive multi-billion dollar federal contracting work. Today I look at how non-profits can get a piece of the $1.4 billion corporate “cause” marketing industry fueled by the “Experiential Marketing” craze.

In a nutshell — old-style advertising that simply encourages consumers to buy your product is on the decline. New marketing that promotes direct consumer engagement at events and online is on the rise. And tying in a cause to that new marketing significantly improves a campaign’s success.

“Experiential Marketing” has been building in popularity among corporate advertisers; everyone from Weight Watchers to Hilton Hotels to Tampax has embraced the strategy. Some experts estimate that this approach has grown into a $50 billion industry, and that about $1.4 billion of those dollars are directed to “cause” marketing. In fact, most people in the United States (84%) are willing to switch brands to support a cause and the public support for cause marketing has measurably increased since September 11, 2001.

Co-branding with corporations is a dicey prospect for some non profits. But if it’s a strategic direction that works for you, here are some tips from marketing experts in the non-profit field:
- Understand the value of your non profit brand before negotiating (Kurt Aschermann, Boys & Girls Clubs of America)
- “Date” your prospective partners before marrying them. Let them see you in action, and get to know their operations. It creates more successful, long-term marketing relationships. (Darell Hammond, KaBOOM)
- Talk through obstacles honestly, which can include differences in language, culture, status, world views, and bottom lines. (Shirley Sagawa, National Service)

Women’s Work

It’s been tough for women at work during the past year. First, the Supreme Court set the bar very high for proving wage discrimination. Then in late December, after a seven-year delay, the Small Business Administration (SBA) finally issued guidelines for enforcing rules that require 5% of government contracts to go to women-owned businesses. In a move that is being widely criticized, the SBA designated only four business categories out of a total of 140 categories that would be subject to the 5% regulation.

The dismissive nature of the regulations could have been predicted after watching testimony from SBA head Steve Preston last September. Women miss out on billions of contracting dollars annually because of the preference given to male-owned businesses, a disparity that the Congress tried to address seven years ago by requiring 5% of government contracts to be awarded to women-owned businesses. Congress members held a hearing to find out why, after seven years, the SBA had still not issued regulations that would allow the program to start.

Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY) asked Preston, “Do you believe the government is discriminating against women-owned businesses?”

After Preston said flatly, “no”, Clarke pressed on, reading the dictionary definition of discrimination into the record and asking, “How do you feel comfortable coming back to this committee time after time and excuse after excuse and not coming with anything tangible that says the commitment is there?…I want you to really think about the definition of discrimination, and think about whether in fact your intent does not match your action.”

Preston was visibly angry at the accusation, responding “I take great exception with any implication that I’m showing any discrimination in this process. So let me just tell you right now if that’s what you’re implying I’m offended by your comment.”

Clarke shot back, “I’m offended and the women of America are offended. If the shoe fits you need to wear it.”

Margot Dorman, the CEO of the US Women’s Chamber of Commerce, also testified at the September hearing and predicted exactly what the regulations would finally outline:

“Remarkably, even though women own nearly one third of all businesses in America, we received only 3.4% of the 2006 total federal contracting dollars. The loss in revenues to women-owned businesses averages between five to six billion dollars annually. This is a travesty that Congress sought to address back in the year 2000 - but the SBA sabotaged your efforts.

Even today, after two thousand four hundred and sixty three days have passed since the Equity in Contracting for Women Act was signed into law, the SBA still is not ready to implement this important program and has even signaled that they may only implement a very, very narrow version of the program. We have heard from many confidential sources that the SBA plans to ignore the recommendations provided by the National Academy of Sciences and select only a very narrow set of industries to participate in this program. Clearly, if the SBA takes this action, the intent of Congress will not be fulfilled and women business owners will not receive increased access to contracts.”

Advocates now hope that the Congress and the Courts will intervene. Meanwhile, an advocacy campaign is underway to submit comments about the regulations. So far reaction has been swift.

Erin, Fuller, Executive Director of the National Association of Women Business Owners said that the new rules “gut the program”. Barbara Kasoff, President of Women Impacting Public Policy, said, “Women business owners are not important to this administration”. Senator John Kerry urged the SBA to scuttle the December rules and create a new proposal that “respects women”.

One of the four industries included in the SBA requirements will be furniture and kitchen cabinet manufacturing. Business owner Annette Taddeo told the Miami Herald, “I don’t know how many kitchens the federal government buys, but come on, where are the big budget items?”

Happy (trendy) 2008

The World Association of Newspapers asked 8 leading newspaper executives to predict trends. Here are a few of particular note:

* The fields of public relations and marketing will continue to merge in recognition of the importance of editorial content.

* Content will both become deeper with increased “analytic journalist” and shallow with the proliferation of “news snacks”.

* Citizen participation will continue to explode in importance, ranging from citizen journalism to “prosumption”, the citizen creation and distribution of commercial messages. This supports the notion that the desire for authenticity will take center stage.

* The demand will increase for visual communication, 24/7 access, and minute-by-minute coverage of events. This complex and fast-paced environment will also spark an increased desire for measures that simplify life.

So how will we keep up? Wired predicted the top technology trends for 2008, which includes an explosion of business applications on social networking sites, Wi-Fi on airplanes, and advertising on mobile devices.

Here are the top five fashion trends as predicted by Fortune magazine. It really has no relationship to non-profit PR, but here’s the list anyway: fashion-forward sneakers, see through clothing, clothing boutiques that are also coffee shops, industrial fabrics, and the scarf. Whew, the scarf. Finally, a window of opportunity for me to be trendy in 2008.

Next Page »