I was off the grid for most of the day yesterday because I was in Ann Arbor for the Annual Meeting of the Cultural Alliance of Southeast Michigan, for which social networking was its theme. I was glad I finally got to meet Laurie Laurent Smith, a Twitter pal and fellow social media geek in my area* that I kept missing at Tweetups. My buds Shauna & Kevin from Biznet were also there, which means the kickass factor was significantly higher.
While I was away from the internet, however, it seems that the people behind the ThisAin’tFlint campaign fiasco (see the previous post) issued a public apology to the mayor and citizens of Flint. . . sorta. I’m not going to copy and paste it here on this blog, you can go read it for yourself at their gaudy site with the irrelevent creepy doll. What you will read is a very verbose, vague non-admission to any wrongdoings a la [insert least favorite politician], with backpedaling about how they meant to start a conversation all along.
The campaign is a local radio/outdoor initiative (and not a “viral” campaign as many “experts” have suggested) and was not targeted nor meant to include the citizens of Flint . . . We are sorry that some people have been offended by the campaign. That was never our intent. We chose controversial images and content because our experience indicates that this is what is required in order to get meaningful conversations started. Just because someone hears or sees something they don’t like, however, doesn’t justify putting an end to the conversation.
It is our hope that the positive conversations will continue now on both sides of the border.
Uh huh, sure. “We didn’t mean to offend or denigrate you in any way, we just wanted start a dialogue! Yeah, that’s it! But it wasn’t intended to be ‘viral,’ just an outdoor campaign . . .”
An outdoor campaign of posters sending people to a website that didn’t exist until 6 days after telling folks to go there. Sending people to a website, with a video, with links to a Facebook fan page, a Twitter account, et. al. thinking that word would not spread online, only face-to-face by the people waiting at the bus stop that see the poster . . . yet somehow have conversations going back and forth across the border sans internet.
What kind of fantasy world do these people live in?
I’ve been to Canada. I’ve also been to Disney World. In fact, I lived and worked at Disney World — I know the difference. Disney’s idea of Canada in the World Showcase at Epcot is very stereotypical and highly innacurate. Yet, it is miles more on target (or should I say kilometers?) than these few Canadians’ idea of Flint.
The Flint Journal issued an editorial reaction yesterday regarding the “apology” in which they call it “a kick in the gut” and call for the creators of the campaign fiasco, Newcap Radio and Alphabet Creative, to take the video off the internet, as if people like me haven’t already ripped it off their site for whatever-our-motives-may-be. Furthermore, The Journal is encouraging citizens to spam Newcap & Alphabet with more than just email until the video is removed — they also published the companies’ phone/fax numbers and street addresses.
“Let’s continue to show them our strength — our community mettle — by continuing to write, call or e-mail to share our complete story.”
While the letter-writing campaign tactic is considered an “old stand-by,” other than the satisfaction of thinking/believing that your voice is heard if you get what you’re calling for, what good is this going to do? They already know Flintstones are upset with them, and in their minds, issuing this insincere apology was enough for them to think everything is all puppies and rainbows.
Leave it up!
While that may or may not be true, I say leave it up. Leave the site up. Leave the video up. Leave it all online. Why? Because as I commented on Matt Bach’s Facebook profile, ”
The quality of that “apology” is equal to the quality of that “campaign.” Those people don’t know the difference between “obtuse” and “obscure,” nor the difference between “capital” and “capitol.” How can we expect them to know the difference between sincerity and patronization?
My point being — why call for the removal of a video/website/”campaign” that caused so much dissonance, when there is so much to be learned from its very existence on the web?
This is a perfect case study of how NOT to do a campaign, whether outdoor or online (as I hoped to have outlined a bit in the previous post), that students of many disciplines can learn from, by many facets.
English majors — take note of the horrible copy and poor grasp of the language. How can you improve it?
Marketing/Advertising majors — take note of the lack of strategy. . . what would you do? How would you approach the concept and make it fly?
PR majors – use this as an opportunity to expound on what was done and what could have been done, from both sides of the border. What would you have done?
All majors — take a look at the ethics in this case. How would you approach a Potter Box in this case?
The lessons to be learned from this are endless. To call for its existence to cease online only increases the chances of similar disgraces (or far worse) to happen by future professionals. I don’t want any other city to have to deal with this kind of thing, and I don’t want Newcap Radio & Alphabet Creative to NOT have this as a stain on their SEO.
Sure, the blogs and other conversations will be indexed, but calling for the video to be taken down is helping these two companies sweep the whole situation under their brands’ (and the internet’s) rugs, making it easier for them to all but expunge it from their professional records and pretend like nothing ever happened. . . until somebody else hires them for their “proven media formula.”
Is that what we really want? For these kind of practices to continue? Or do we want to help educate others and ensure that this doesn’t happen again?
I say leave it up. What do you think?
Epcot Canada picture by WDWinfo.com.
*By “area” I mean Ann Arbor/Metro Detroit. The vast majority of Greater Flint/Genesee County has yet to discover Twitter . . . but that will change if I have any say in it.
No related posts.
What they said: