by Nedra Weinreich | Mar 7, 2007 | Blog, Entertainment, Social Marketing
Yesterday while I was waiting for my daughter during her ballet class, a well-known celebrity who is currently on a popular TV show walked in to pick up his daughter. Not so unusual, living in LA, but I wouldn’t have even noticed if another mom had not said something. He looked kind of bloated, his skin was blotchy and he was wearing a shlumpy sweatsuit. He was perfectly pleasant to the others in the room, cooing at babies and making jokes, but I found myself looking forward to telling my friends about how awful this guy looked in real life.
As I was on my way home, I realized that what at first seemed like a perfectly normal reaction was really quite a nasty impulse. Why should I expect him to make himself look good (put on make-up?!?) when all he was doing was picking up his daughter. To be fair, he could have said the same negative things about my own clothes and appearance. I decided not to reveal his identity here, as tempting as it is, because I realized that he should be allowed to have a private life.
This got me to thinking about our society’s love/hate relationship with celebrities. While sports figures, musicians and Hollywood types are considered by their fans to be role models, heroes and generally amazing people, there are even more people who delight in seeing those same celebrities brought down a notch. Whether it’s our fascination with Britney Spears’ public meltdown, Mel Gibson’s drunken ranting or pictures of Jessica Simpson’s cellulite in the supermarket tabloids, we crane our necks for a glimpse of a chink in the perfectly polished armor worn by a celebrity.
Why is it so important for us to see an imperfection, to get proof that actors/models/singers are only human? Does it make us feel better about ourselves, how we look, how much money we make? The Dove Evolution video went a long way toward taking away some of the mystique behind beautiful models, and so perhaps we want to be reassured that the person behind the make-up and airbrushed photos is no better than ourselves.
What do you think? Why do paparazzi get thousands of dollars for pictures of celebrities going about their daily lives? Why was Britney’s rehab status updated on the news daily? Is it schadenfreude or are we just a bunch of insecure celebrity worshipers?
And if the celebrity associated with your cause goes from being loved to hated, you have a big problem.
Photo Credit: Heartdisk
by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 5, 2007 | Blog, Social Marketing
Once again, it’s time to roll out the big top for the Carnival of Nonprofit Consultants. As always, it features the seven best posts for nonprofits from across the blogosphere, this week focusing on social marketing.
Starting it off is Paul Jones of Cause Related Marketing, who gives us the good, the bad and the ugly of using celebrities in your social marketing.
Craig Lefebvre of On Social Marketing and Social Change reports back from the Mobile Persuasion conference about how mobile technologies are being used for behavior and social change. Don’t miss the free Captology Forums being offered to continue the discussions.
Carol Kirshner of Driving in Traffic describes how using the unexpected and piquing people’s curiosity can make your messages stick.
Matthew Monberg of Beyond Giving urges us to make our messages relevant by building them around the needs for connection and reward.
Kivi Leroux Miller of Nonprofit Communication provides a clever example of an advocacy campaign that uses a calendar of not-so-pretty pin-ups to make its point.
Nancy Schwartz of Getting Attention notes some other creative examples promoting condoms and other social issues that she found at Houtlust, also one of my favorite sources for news on innovative social marketing campaigns from around the world. [By the way, an interesting bit of trivia I learned from Marc (Mr. Houtlust himself) is that in Dutch, the word “Houtlust” is nothing kinky, but an old-fashioned word that people name their homes or boats; the word hout means wood, and the blog is so named because from the window of Marc’s studio in the Dutch Riverlands he can see his stove wood. Sorry to disappoint those of you with more active imaginations.]
Speaking of condoms, CK stirred things up this week at the Marketing Profs Daily Fix with a post on New York City’s efforts to market safe sex with its own branded condom. She solicited ideas from other marketers on how to create the brand/slogan, which she is going to be presenting to the people at NYC City Hall for their consideration.
And for the bonus host post from yours truly, I discuss how we as marketers need to make sure we think about what is rude, crude and socially unacceptable in light of the kerfuffle that Cartoon Network marketing caused in Boston last week and a billboard that was pulled because it had the word “sucks” on it.
Kivi, the founder of the Carnival, is hosting next week. If you would like to submit a post for consideration, send it to npc.carnival AT yahoo DOT com with your name, your blog’s name and the URL of the post (not your blog homepage). The deadline is Friday, 8:00 p.m. ET.
Thanks for coming by! Feel free to stay and poke around for a while if you’re new here.
[UPDATED 2/8/07: Fixed links to Beyond Giving, which just moved to a new URL.]
Technorati Tags: carnival of nonprofit consuhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifltants, social marketing
by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 4, 2007 | Blog, Social Marketing
Better World Advertising, which is known around these parts for its controversial in-your-face HIV prevention social marketing, is taking a different tack with a new campaign to address HIV risk behavior during meth use in San Francisco.
A billboard went up above Cafe Flore in the Castro today (Thursday, February 1) and newspaper advertisements will run all month. The ads are pretty much blank except for text in red ink that reads “(your ideas here)” over a white background. In yellow text the ads ask, “What should we do about METH [sic] in our community?”
The public is then asked to send its “advice, experiences and opinions” to the Web site http://www.sfmeth.org. [The new Web site went live February 1.]
The health department has budgeted $185,000 for the meth campaign, but will not know the total cost for it until the final concept is selected. The billboard alone is costing about $15,000 for the month.
Both Tracey Packer, the department’s interim HIV prevention director, and Les Pappas, owner of the ad agency, insisted the approach is not a response to the criticism in recent months of the previous campaigns.
“We definitely, if there are people out there that have ideas and opinions about this, we want to give them an opportunity or method to participate. I know there are some people who probably feel like there isn’t enough participation in the development of these kinds of things,” said Pappas. “We have a lot of people involved in these projects but nobody really knows about it. This will make it very clear we are interested in people’s opinions.”
Packer said she wanted to ask for the public’s ideas “because the issue of meth in a campaign is not simple and straightforward.”
“We would like to see what community members have to say. What should be said about meth use?” asked Packer. “We really hope community members respond to us and it will build a better campaign by getting community input.”
With four companies using consumer-generated ads in the SuperBowl on Sunday (NFL, Doritos, Alka Seltzer & Chevrolet), Better World seems to want to get into the act. Not to mention that this approach hinges upon community participation — something that the ad agency has been criticized for not taking into account in past campaigns.
Is this a good way to create social marketing campaigns? Can citizen marketers be effective in reducing HIV risk during meth use, or is it something that should be limited to less important products like marketing movies or cars?
I think the answer is not clearcut. The approach they are taking seems more like conducting a citywide focus group than like the commercial CGM campaigns linked above that solicited actual ads. They are not leaving the strategy or execution to the whims of the public, but perhaps will get some new ideas from people within the target audience. The risk they take with this approach is that it is not yet seen as a legitimate or accepted form of marketing by many (and especially by public agencies not used to being on the cutting edge).
Supervisor Bevan Dufty called it a waste of money and makes the city, which established a task force on crystal meth almost two years ago, seem stupid and lacking a plan.
“I am dumbfounded,” said Dufty after being shown the ads. “It begs the question if we have had a task force operating for two years why would we pay for a billboard that makes it seem we have no ideas or suggestions?”
The key to the campaign will be in how well Better World is able to combine the input they receive from the community with best practices in social marketing. Just because someone has what seems like an innovative or interesting idea does not mean that it will be effective in bringing about behavior change. People love to throw out cute slogans, but a catchphrase does not a strategy make. We’ll see what is rolled out in June, when the final campaign is supposed to be ready. I wish them luck in sorting through the submissions and turning them into an effective campaign.
Technorati Tags: cgm, social marketing, hiv, meth, san francisco
by Nedra Weinreich | Jan 23, 2007 | Blog, Communication, Research, Social Marketing
I may lose some friends out there, but I have to speak up about a phenomenon I’ve noticed over the past few years. It came to the fore for me with the recent story about the battle between the TV meteorologists over stripping the American Meteorological Society certification from any weatherman who expresses skepticism about the degree to which global warming can be blamed on human activity.
My intention here is not to do battle over the facts of global warming, so please don’t leave me comments listing all the reasons why it is or is not an environmental catastrophe. I am less a global warming skeptic than a global warming agnostic — I am not convinced yet either way, but I’m open to the data.
My concern is that global warming has become on par with religious dogma. When anyone, including legitimate scientists, dares to present contradictory data or a different interpretation of current data, they are attacked and harassed. It is assumed that they have evil intentions or are shills for the oil industry. Anyone who does not toe the global warming party line is considered akin to Holocaust deniers. Any data that deviates from the established doctrine is dismissed as biased or not worth looking at.
This is a problem. Science should not be politicized. A particular interpretation of the data should not be taken as the gospel from on high. Our knowledge of science evolves over time. Just a few decades ago, scientists were concerned about the catastrophic effects of global cooling and the coming Ice Age. Going even further back, to the 1630s, Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Church for supporting the radical Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. We should not be subjecting scientists to another Inquisition because they do not agree with commonly accepted ideas. Science does not advance without people who are willing to challenge the dominant paradigm.
While there is some consensus among scientists, there is a huge degree of uncertainty in the models that are being used to predict the future. Meteorologists can’t even predict the weather for next week accurately. To speak of global warming as something that is definitely happening is going way beyond the limits of the data. When everything that happens with the weather is attributed to man-made global warming, the credibility of the claims start coming into doubt. But “maybes” don’t make good news stories.
I have no doubt that most people who are concerned about global warming are well-meaning individuals who want to do the right thing for the planet. I don’t intend this as an attack on those who believe that global warming is a problem we need to address, but rather those who “believe in” global warming as if it were a religious doctrine that cannot be challenged.
I see a parallel with the dogma around evolution — on both sides. Some fundamentalists who reject the scientific version of how life evolved accept as creed that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans before the great flood. I’ll give them a pass on being dogmatic, though — this is their religion, after all. But many evolutionists cling just as tightly to Darwinism, despite the fact that there are holes in the fossil record and big gaps in our knowledge about exactly how life evolves. Until we understand better how evolution works and how to answer some of the remaining questions, we should not assume that Darwin is necessarily the final word on how life came to exist, though it might be the best model we have right now. And why can’t the Bible and science co-exist? MIT-trained nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder has written some amazing books that use quantum physics and the theory of relativity to reconcile the two precisely.
Similarly, there are things people on both sides of the global warming debate should be able to agree on, even if they do so for different reasons. Changing our energy consumption habits and taking care of the environment are goals that most people can get behind. In any case, I don’t think that the specter of global warming is immediate or concrete enough to get most people to take action to prevent something that may or may not happen in a hundred years or more. It’s just too big of a problem for an individual to feel that they can make an impact. But show people how they can save money by conserving energy, reduce their dependence on foreign oil by driving a hybrid, keep humans and wildlife healthy by reducing pollutants… this could get people motivated to act.
Scaring the public and silencing dissenters is not the way to bring about effective change. If only our leaders could put the same energy into solving the problems people face right here and now in terms of disease, poverty, and violence, we would all be better off in the future whether or not the climate eventually changes for the worse.
One thing is certain: what we know about the science of climate can and will change over time. The most shortsighted thing would be to close our minds to evidence that might bring us closer to the objective truth, whatever it happens to be.
Technorati Tags: global warming, science, meteorology, religion, evolution, environment, research
by Nedra Weinreich | Jan 18, 2007 | Blog, Policy, Social Marketing
Ten points if you can name the current Surgeon General of the United States. Ten more points if you do not work in the Department of Health and Human Services and still know the answer. Did you say Kenneth P. Moritsugu? Didn’t think so. To be fair, he is the ACTING Surgeon General, and only since August. Okay then, so who was the Surgeon General before him? I couldn’t have told you, even though I would like to think I’m fairly aware of these types of things. Give up? It was Richard H. Carmona. Oh, of course.
Contrast this with the name C. Everett Koop. If you were around in the 80s, you knew who he was, and probably even remember receiving his brochure about AIDS that was sent to every household in the US in 1988. Other Surgeon Generals like Joycelyn Elders, Antonia Novello and even to a lesser extent, David Satcher were somewhat familiar names to regular Americans during their terms. Also, we may not remember the name of the Surgeon General who was in office in 1964 (Luther Terry), but most of us are familiar with the “Surgeon General’s Warning” that appeared on all cigarette advertising and packaging as a result of the report on smoking that came out that year. What happened to the stature and visibility of this office?
The Surgeon General is the head of the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of public health professionals who protect and promote the health of the nation. But more importantly, in my opinion, the Surgeon General is the face of public health and a symbol of the nation’s commitment to protecting and improving the health of all Americans. A key part of the job is to educate the public about disease prevention and health promotion.
While I’m sure the Surgeon General keeps busy with various health promotion initiatives, we have not heard much as a public from our Surgeon Generals since George W. Bush took office. The Surgeon General should be visible and loud, not just issuing reports and press releases, but getting in our faces and showing us how to become healthier. The Surgeon General should use his bully pulpit to exhort people to prepare for local disasters, to get their flu shots, to exercise and eat right. The potential impact of the office is being squandered.
President Bush needs to make it a priority to appoint a Surgeon General for the new term who will get in front of the public and be the spokesperson for public health that we need. Is C. Everett Koop still available?
Technorati Tags: surgeon general, public health, koop
by Nedra Weinreich | Jan 11, 2007 | Blog, Social Marketing
Social marketers use the tools of commercial marketing, but we face additional challenges that a business marketing its products or services probably does not need to address. I write about these challenges in my column today at Marketing Profs Daily Fix:
Back in the 50s, Gerhart Wiebe asked the question “Why can’t you sell brotherhood like you sell soap?” and thus the field of social marketing was born.
This question has formed the basis of wide-ranging efforts addressing issues like preventing youth smoking, promoting mammography, staving off bacterial infections from chitterlings, stopping domestic violence, encouraging physical activity and healthy eating habits, touting recycling and many more successful campaigns….
(I’m not including cause marketing here, which usually involves the purchase of commercial products, and benefits a partnering nonprofit.)
So, is the answer that brotherhood and soap are, indeed, pretty much equivalent products to be marketed? Well, yes and no.
Yes, in that we can think about healthy or pro-social behaviors as products we want people to adopt and use. Purchasing a commercial product is a behavior too. We can use the same marketing tools to promote colonoscopies as Coke uses to sell its colas.
But there are some key differences that social marketers run into that complicate the transfer of the business marketing model to selling health and social behaviors.
Read the rest of the article at the Daily Fix to find out what some of those differences are, and some ideas for how to address those challenges.
While you are over at the Marketing Profs site, come join in on the Book Club discussion (free registration req.) about Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba‘s new book Citizen Marketers: When People are the Message
. It’s about the brave new world of social media that’s empowering ordinary people to influence and promote their favorite brands (or out problems with their not so favorite brands) by creating their own content. I will be soon be reviewing the book here from the point of view of how to apply its concepts to social marketing. I’ve posted a discussion question at the Book Club to try to collect some examples of how citizen marketing has been used to promote health and social issues. Come on over and put in your two cents and learn more about this great book.
Technorati Tags: marketing, social marketing, health, marketing profs daily fix
Nedra helps nonprofits and public agencies create positive change on health and social issues through social marketing and transmedia storytelling strategies at Weinreich Communications since founding the company in 1995. She helps organizations make a difference for the populations they serve by strategically designing programs that draw on state-of-the-art behavior change techniques, digital media approaches and the power of stories. 
