Dirty Hippies » Marketing

Corporations Supporting ALEC Are Risking Damage To Their Brands

Dave Johnson — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:32:01 +0000

Some companies are learning that supporting hyper-partisan groups can backfire when their customers find out about it. In recent weeks a number of companies are trying to distance themselves from the partisan, right-wing group ALEC before their brands become as damaged as Susan G. Komen for the Cure®.

ALEC, The American Legislative Exchange Council, is a shady, hyper-partisan, state-based lobbying group that was able to wield power by staying under the radar. Recently the Trayvon Martin shooting case exposed how ALEC helped push through a dangerous “shoot first” law in Florida. Now people are learning that ALEC is also getting state laws passed that limit the voting rights of minorities, limit the power of working people to negotiate for better wages and limit the power of citizens to fight for cleaner environment. So now the big corporations supporting ALEC risk being seen as fighting people’s efforts to have a better life, and their brands are at risk.

(Please visit Alex Exposed for more information. See alsoAtlantic: Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected)

Komen Foundation’s Serious Brand Damage

A few months ago, in a move to please the conservative right, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure® foundation pulled funding from Planned Parenthood. How’d that work out for them? Komen’s “brand equity” dropped 21 percent, one of the most dramatic plummets in brand-equity ever.

How far a drop was this? Komen was ranked among the top two. This year it ranked No. 56. That’s a drop of 54 spots. The value of the Komen brand is ruined. The Komen executives behind the Planned Parenthood decision were forced out.

Harris Interactive: Scandal Rocks America’s Support for Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, According to 23rd Annual Harris Poll EquiTrend® Study,

Based on findings reported in the 2012 Harris Poll® EquiTrend® study, Susan G. Komen’s current brand equity score of 55.1 represents a 21% drop in brand equity over the prior year ─ a historic drop in the study’s 23-year history, surpassed only by Fannie Mae in 2009.

From “Gold Standard” to “Trailing the Pack”

Since its inclusion in the EquiTrend survey in 2008, Susan G. Komen has consistently rated as either the first or second most equitable non-profit organization in its category. This year, SGK fell 54 spots to 56th place out of 79 non-profit brands surveyed.

If you are a corporate executive, numbers like that are terrifying. This is a completely ruined brand, and it only took a few weeks to get there after people heard about their association with the partisan right. This is what happens to a brand when it is caught associating with the likes of ALEC.

Corporations Leaving ALEC

Now that people are finding out what ALEC is doing, some of the big corporations that fund them are dropping out to protect their brands. In recent weeks Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Intuit, Mars, Kraft Foods, and PepsiCo made their escape. Their business depends on people having positive feelings about their brands, so they dare not risk a Komen-style brand crash.

The NY Times, in an editorial, Embarrassed by Bad Laws,

The council, known as ALEC, has since become better known, with news organizations alerting the public to the damage it has caused: voter ID laws that marginalize minorities and the elderly, antiunion bills that hurt the middle class and the dismantling of protective environmental regulations.

… In recent weeks, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Intuit, Mars, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have stopped supporting the group, responding to pressure from activists and consumers who have formed a grass-roots counterweight to corporate treasuries. That pressure is likely to continue as long as state lawmakers are more responsive to the needs of big donors than the public interest.

But there is a long list of companies that are still supporting this partisan, anti-citizen organization.

When Coca-Cola left ALEC, Richard (RJ) Eskow explained, in Good Guys Win One: With ALEC, Things Go Better Without Coke,

Score one for the good guys: After being pressured by Color of Change and other progressive groups, Coca-Cola has left ALEC – the cynical corporate coalition that has pushed a bevy of anti-democratic, anti-middle class, and anti-consumer initiatives.

Now that Coke’s come around, next up is Walmart. Their response on the ALEC issue was equivocal and unacceptable. And the issue needs to be raised directly and firmly with the other companies that back the organization – a list that includes AT&T, Bayer, ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft Foods, Pfizer, and UPS.

[. . .]

No Defense

It’s true that ALEC is like the United States Chamber of Commerce, in that many of its member companies don’t realize what it really stands for. But the ones who have consciences (or understand the power of consumer anger) will eventually respond, just as they have for the Chamber. (Many leading corporations have left that organization as it moves to the extreme right.)

Richard concluded with the point I wanted to make here, so I’ll let him say it:

Heads up, Walmart. Know who does a lot of shopping in your stores? People who have been victimized by ALEC policies: Poor people, minorities, and people who are working more and earning less. They’re getting wise, they’re getting angry – and they’re getting involved.

Companies: you are risking ruining your brands by associating with partisan, right-wing groups like ALEC. Executives: needless ot say, you are risking your careers if you are funding ALEC or any other partisan, right-wing lobbying groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, even Heritage Foundation.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Ya Got Trouble — A fresh look at an old con

Tom Sullivan — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:58:25 +0000

The Music Man "Ya Got Trouble"

Trouble with a capital “T”
And that rhymes with “P” and that stands for pool!

Friday, a friend put me on to a musical bit that I know by heart, but he gave me a fresh perspective on it. I had never seen it in a modern political context, in a cable news/talk radio context.

In one, short speech — building intensity as he goes — Professor Harold Hill gathers a crowd of onlookers and rattles off a litany of big city sins “the right kinda parents” worry about corrupting their children and their small town: sloth, drinking, gambling, being “stuck-up,” smoking, loose morals, and indecent pop culture. In a fevered crescendo, Hill warns parents of “shameless music • That’ll grab your son, your daughter • With the arms of a jungle animal instink!”

Mass-staria!

Harold is selling something. And in four minutes he creates a market for it out of thin air — among people he calls “as green as the money.” Moments earlier…

HAROLD HILL: Now, Marce, I need some ideas if I’m gonna get your town out of the serious trouble it’s in.

MARCELLUS: River City ain’t in any trouble.

HILL: We’re going to have to create some.

Hill presses every button the people of River City, Iowa have to press, plus appeals to patriotism and God to create a city-wide moral crisis that four minutes earlier the townspeople didn’t know they had. Sound familiar?

Now strike pool . Insert contraception , voter fraud , death panels , or a half dozen other right-wing bogey men and the grifter’s pitch works the same. Today, Harold Hill would be working for Fox News or Americans for Prosperity. He’d be running American Crossroads, and making a lot more money.

Eat your heart out, Karl Rove. Watch the video here. Lyrics here.

(Cross-posted from Scrutiny Hooligans.)

Racism charges denied by Life Always targeting black communities

Aaron Krager — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:21:35 +0000

After the unveiling of Life Always’ ad at 58th and State St. on Chicago’s south side Rev. Stephen Broden, a board member of the organization, and other speakers responded to questions.

The total cost of the thirty ads was not revealed but the spokesperson of the organization is supposed to be gathering that data. A Sun-Times reporter asked Rev. Broden about funding neighborhood groups or clinics themselves instead of spending the money on the billboards.

The video can be difficult to hear due to a lot of community opposition of the ads. They remained vocal throughout the press conference as well as the media’s question and answer session. While the organization does not need local neighborhood input prior to placing an advertisement, Washington Park community members felt they should have reached out to local women’s organizations.

When past billboards went up in Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New York the organization, Life Always, faced criticism of racism and sexism by targeting minority neighborhoods and women. Atlanta Journal Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker wrote, “It’s both sexist and racist to suggest that black women don’t have the intellectual and emotional firepower to make their own decisions.” The New York ad (covered here) brought charges of racial profiling by the anti-choice organization prior to it being pulled.

In a prepared statement Planned Parenthood of Illinois stated:

Planned Parenthood of Illinois provides care to more than 60,000 men, women, and teens each year. More than ninety percent of our services are preventive, and include: lifesaving cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, contraceptive consultations, and GYN exams. In 2010, we provided 34,770 STI tests, 161,678 family planning visits, 15,440 contraception consultations, 19,572 cervical cancer screenings, and 21,393 clinical breast exams. Sixty percent of our patients live at or below the federal poverty level.

We know that African-American women are disproportionately affected by the current health care system which involves multiple barriers to accessing quality, affordable care. This results in higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Life Always is waging much of its campaign against Planned Parenthood by calling it racist under the guise of founder Margaret Sanger’s eugenic beliefs more than 80 years ago (she died in 1966 respected by black civil rights leaders). Planned Parenthood has countlessly denounced her past comments and upholds her as a pioneer in the reproductive rights movement.

Rev. Broden claimed Life Always’ advertising methods were not racist because the speakers were black. If his reasoning was true then Planned Parenthood would not be racist because they have representatives and leaders who are people of color as well. Furthermore, he claimed it was not a race issue while a few seconds later he claimed it was one.

The topic of reproductive choice is always one fraught with emotions. Both sides of the debate argue passionately, as you can tell with the press conference (both sides). Regardless of one’s opinion there is no denying the money spent on those 30 ads would have been better spent on the neighborhoods they reside in.

Analysis: Dillard’s and an unsatisfying response on the Heroic Media controversy

Sam Smith — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:34:33 +0000

Earlier today I offered some comments on the trending controversy surrounding Dillard’s and its involvement in an upcoming Houston event staged by anti-abortion advocate Heroic Media. That article noted some parallels with last year’s dust-up involving Target and Tom Emmer, a social reactionary running for Minnesota governor. My friend and colleague, Sara Robinson, turns out to be a devoted Dillard’s customer (as I myself have been in the past). There are lots of reasons to appreciate their style and value and my only complaint up until now was that they closed the store closest to where I live. Sara responded to the Heroic Media story by firing off a letter expressing her concerns to a Dillard’s executive. Here is the response she received:

Hello Sara, Thank you for your thoughts: Dillard’s is not a sponsor of this event. The publicity incorrectly implied that Dillard’s is a sponsor. We are a fashion retailer providing merchandise for a fashion show which we frequently do for a variety of organizations in the communities that we serve. Dillard’s does not take any position with respect to social or political issues. We deeply respect the diverse points of view held by our customers and associates. We sincerely regret that a store manager, without prior authorization, allowed a contrary impression to be created. To the extent that this has offended anyone, we apologize.

There are some problems with the company’s response. But first, let’s understand that this is a meticulously crafted official statement, blessed at the highest levels, and it is likely being used by everyone at Dillard’s who’s authorized to talk about the issue. How do I know? Well, for one thing, I have seen the e-mail that Sara sent and this is most assuredly not a personal reply. Second, I’ve been a marketing and communications pro for a lot of years. I have been in the trenches when PR fires broke out. I have seen vehement arguments waged over comma placement (literally). I know that when something blows up, a statement or talking points document is developed by subject matter experts and corporate communication leadership, and further that said communications go nowhere without formal sign-off by at least one or two people with words like “vice president” or “chief something officer” in their titles. In the case of something as potentially serious as this, it may even have crossed the CEO’s desk. Hard to say. Also, the lawyers look at it. They don’t give a damn about how well it represents the company’s image – all they care about it how effectively it protects the company from litigation. The text of this e-mail smells exactly like that sort of official language in every respect possible. If I seem like I’m nitpicking, I promise you, this is probably nothing compared to what went on in the Dillard’s corporate offices over the past couple of days. And anybody who has done corp comm for a living can tell you that nothing I have said here is remotely controversial or insightful. This is just how the job works. As for the substance of the e-mail, I can’t help noticing how assertively our eyes are called to the word they most object to – “sponsor.” My guess is that Dillard’s has some very explicitly articulated guidelines around that word. If they sponsor an event, that likely means a set of specific items as to what is involved. There would be branding and financial concerns, all tightly defined, all agreed to and signed by all parties to the engagement. I’m just speculating at this point, but I’m betting that “sponsor” is, within Dillard’s official marketing and legal context, a word with a specific meaning – a meaning that does not technically apply to the Heroic Media event.This seems like it would be standard practice in a major organization like Dillard’s. If so, then the spokesperson is telling the truth. It may, however, be one of those truths that leaves room for the reader to arrive, through no fault of the company’s, at an inadvertent conclusion that is at best incomplete. (Read that sentence and tell me I haven’t had experience with Legal.) For instance, companies engage with all kinds of events – large, small, local, national, trade, community, etc. And a large, sophisticated company like Dillard’s isn’t well-advised to reinvent the wheel each and every time. That’s why there are established guidelines that help managers do the best job with the least expenditure of energy. So if “sponsor” has a specific definition, there are perhaps other words that define different levels of engagement. Think about sporting events. You may have noticed that some events are “sponsored by” Company X, while other events are “presented by” Company Y. In some cases you might get a construction like the “Jim’s Bait Shop’s Fishsticks Bowl,” and in others it might go more like “The Fishsticks Bowl, brought to you by Jim’s Bait Shop.” And sometimes it’s just the “Jim’s Bait Shop Bowl.” You may have thought this was several ways of doing the same thing, but in point of fact there are dollar figures attached to each option, and some are more valuable than others. The Jim’s Bait Shop Fishsticks Bowl costs Jim’s a lot more money than The Fishsticks Bowl, presented by Jim’s Bait Shop. I don’t know what terminology, if any, might apply to differing levels of promotional support in the case of Dillard’s and Heroic Media, but it’s a question I’d love to ask. Next sentence: “We are a fashion retailer providing merchandise for a fashion show which we frequently do for a variety of organizations in the communities that we serve.” Irrelevant. Providing merch is functionally the same as providing cash. That they do it for other organizations is only meaningful in the context of the policies governing those donations and the specific details surrounding who they choose to work with and why. Then this: “Dillard’s does not take any position with respect to social or political issues.” Depends on how we define the terms, doesn’t it? They can argue that they have a stated policy to the effect that they take no partisan positions, which is nice. But remember, this is America, where the Supreme Court has decreed that corporations are persons and money is speech. I’m not being even remotely disingenuous when I say that if you support something financially, then you are, by definition, taking a position. Let me exaggerate to illustrate the point. Let’s say I’m wealthy, and on my Web site I have a clear statement that I take no position with respect to political issues. Further, let’s say that I never, ever, offer a political opinion in public. But, I donate the maximum amount allowable by law to every candidate running on the Republicrat ticket in my state. I donate zero money to members of the Democrican Party. And I dump massive amounts into non-profits that assiduously toe the line on every major policy position supported by the Republicrats. On what planet can it realistically be said that I take no position? So if Dillard’s donates merchandise to a Heroic Media event, then they are in fact supporting the organization. To pretend otherwise is to engage in semantic tap-dancing that insults the intelligence and integrity of your audience. If you also provide similar support for pro-choice groups, then you should say that and you should do so unambiguously. Next: “We sincerely regret that a store manager, without prior authorization, allowed a contrary impression to be created.” Hmmm. Well, this is unconvincing. The American Independent story linked above reports that Dillard’s was involved in this same event last year. And “allowed a contrary impression to be created” is about as weasel-infested a passive voice swamp as it is possible for seven words of corporate language to conjure. But, giving the spokesperson the benefit of the doubt, it’s clear that one of the following is true:

Dillard’s failed at the policy level.
Dillard’s failed in its management training.
The store manager badly misinterpreted corporate policy. Two years in a row. And there was no corporate corrective after the initial screw-up.
The store manager has gone rogue.

In 1, no excuse. If 2, no excuse. Management training programs for a company like Dillard’s are incredibly rigorous. If 3, I guess we could perhaps credit that mistakes happen. But two years in a row? No excuse. (Unless this is a different store manager from last year, at which point we have even more evidence suggesting that the fault lies at the corporate level.) If 4, why haven’t I read about his/her firing? No business can tolerate an employee playing fast and loose with its brand reputation. Period. But I can’t take my eyes off that last sentence: “To the extent that this has offended anyone, we apologize.” Not we’re sorry we screwed up. Not we won’t do it again. Not we don’t support anti-abortion groups that have been accused of racist activity. None of that. Instead: we’re sorry you were offended, which is the iconic expression of faux-apology in this, the most spin-centric age of public communication in history. There is no acknowledgment of wrong-doing in this e-mail, and if thoughtful readers were to interpret this as meaning that Dillard’s doesn’t think it has done anything wrong, then it would hard to fault them. In light of all this, we’re probably justified noting that they did it before, they’re doing it again, they have offered nothing remotely like an honest mea culpa. As a result, there’s no reason to sympathize with the conclusion that the company’s statement hopes you’ll draw.

An Official Professional View

In a world where audiences don’t think too deeply about what corporations are actually saying underneath the artfully-spun language, this is masterful work. Except that the company has, in fact, offended a lot of people who do pay closer attention, who recognize misdirection and care more about the act than the silver tongue selling it. This, dear Dillard’s executive, is going to cost you money. Perhaps not a huge amount, but you have a fiduciary responsibility to care about activity that drives customers away. If you conclude that it’s worth it, that the anti-abortion market will cover your losses, or that the furor will die down with no lingering effect, and your board will condone the move, more power to you. You may be right. Regardless, customers can vote with their wallets and shareholders can sell if they don’t like the results they’re seeing. Or they can replace you and the board. Whatever. The market will decide, right? But this doesn’t have to be an either/or world. Companies that pay lip service to “taking no position” can behave in ways that actually bring their communities together, that are pro-people and pro-business, and they can do so without alienating huge segments of the market. I was dead serious when I composed those seven principles for corporate giving and I’d love to see Dillard’s living by them. And as crazy as it might sound, I’d love it if you hired me tomorrow to help you work on improving your corporate social responsibility efforts. Dillard’s has always been a brand that, for me, signified quality and value, and I’d love it if I could go back in a store and feel good about your commitment to the community, as well. I’m not holding my breath, of course. Meanwhile, the spokesperson’s e-mail is brief and tonally it wants to read like a statement of objective fact that will quickly make the “misunderstanding” go away. Maybe it will, or maybe this is just going to snowball. Or maybe it will hit a plateau and then kind of linger, waiting to erupt again. If I’m your PR counsel, though, my advice is to take it seriously. Very seriously. Act quickly and decisively to get your marketing activities in line with a productive community engagement policy. No subterfuge, no misdirection, and if you have screwed up, you need to admit and fix it. Right now. Best of luck.