Archive for the ‘Policy Communications’ Category
Reform is a Fighting Word
Filed under: Education, Policy Communications, Politics | Tags: Chicago teachers strike, communications, Education Nation, education policy, education reform, school improvement, word choice
Leave a Comment re·form: noun 1. the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.
In the wake of the Chicago teachers strike, many of us who follow education policy are wondering what the implications are for efforts to improve America’s public schools. American Prospect ran a thoughtful analysis of one of the few published public opinion polls, noting the disconnect between the perceptions of white professional parents and minority working-class parents. In addition to the points they make around historical relationships with unions, I think there may be another factor working against those would like to build consensus around what needs to change in our schools: the word “reform.”
Reform has always had an aggressive, judgmental and negative connotation. Reform schools are where we send delinquent children. The Reformation was an attack on corruption within the Roman Catholic Church that led to splinter groups who formed the mainline Protestant churches.
Is it any wonder that many of the teachers working in our schools react negatively to the notion that they are in need of reform?
The strongest and weakest teachers receive most of the public attention, but most people agree that the average teacher is neither wrong, corrupt or even unsatisfactory. We know that most teachers spend their own money to make their classrooms welcoming for students and to provide them with supplies. I have known more than one teacher who kept healthy snacks on hand for the kids who didn’t get enough to eat at home.
No, the majority teachers aren’t in need of reform. Nor, typically, are the schools in which they work. But it is clear from the data on graduation and college admission and completion rates that they need to improve.
im·prove: verb 1. to bring into a more desirable or excellent condition.
State and local education agencies use the term “school improvement” quite a bit–they rarely apply the word “reform” to their efforts. These administrators and politicians understand that they are much more likely to get the necessary groups to buy-in to their efforts by focusing on the positive. Who couldn’t use a little improvement, after all? No one is perfect.
One of the lessons reinforced by the polling around the Chicago strike is that urban minority public school parents support teacher unions and are suspicious of the education reform movement. The education reform movement will never be truly successful if it fails to engage the very families it purports to help.
As Eduwonk notes, the “reform unionism” field is littered with the bodies of union leaders voted out of office after appearing too accommodating with management or school reformers. But reform unionism had a powerful pragmatic argument in its favor: Until the Chicago strike the political choice for unions looked like accommodation and collaboration or irrelevance. Last week Lewis added a third credible option to the mix – strident resistance.
Perhaps it is time for the leaders of the ed reform movement to regroup and consider a new name; one that doesn’t bring to mind the feeling of being rapped with a ruler.
Hal not HAL: Why Teachers Won’t Be Replaced By Technology
Filed under: Education, Technology | Tags: Andrew Coulson, classroom, ed tech, education technology, ISTE, K-12, Larry Strauss
Leave a Comment Today’s Huffington Post blog by Larry Strauss addresses head-on the concern some teachers have of being replaced by technology. Anyone who has observed the link between technology innovation and downsizing in other industries would have to acknowledge this is not an irrational fear. Andrew Coulson’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed lamenting the “teacher surplus” likely heightens this anxiety.
But, this notion of a virtual classroom without real human interaction is hard to embrace as a real possibility for the masses, because, for most students, the social part of school is what keeps them coming back. We’ve become so overwhelmed by the media’s hyped bullying coverage that we’ve forgotten that the majority of kids enjoy school, both because that’s where their friends are, and because they enjoy interacting with their teachers. Numerous studies have noted that students who have a strong relationship with at least one adult in their school are significantly less likely to drop out.
This makes complete sense. When kids are young, they are shameless about expressing their overwhelming preference to spend time with their parents above all other human beings. Once they enter school, those same kids start to shift their affection to their teachers. (Do you remember the first time you called your teacher “Mom?”) As they evolve into adolescence and beyond, some kids more readily express affinity for their favorite teacher than for either parent (though, we parents know they still really need us deep down inside.)
I am not alone in believing that technology can and should be doing more to improve K-12 education. But, the value of that technology will be realized in the hands of skilled teachers who develop emotional connections with their students. Teachers v. technology is a false choice. Teachers well-supported by technology is where we are headed.
Ed Tech’s Reputation Recovery: Reflections on ISTE 2012
Filed under: Education, Social Innovation, Technology | Tags: Bill Gates, broadband, communications strategy, digital divide, education technology, iPad, Matt Richtel, reputation management, Steve Jobs
Leave a Comment Last fall, education technology was under siege in The New York Times. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Matt Richtel was in the midst of his series criticizing ed tech for over-promising and under-delivering. Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs highlighted the following conversation between Jobs and Bill Gates:
Jobs asked some questions about education and Gates sketched out his vision of what schools in the future would be like, with students watching lectures and video lessons on their own while using the classroom time for discussions and problem solving. They agreed that computers had, so far, made surprisingly little impact on schools—far less than on other realms of society such as media and medicine and law.
Today, questions linger about the ROI associated with education technology, but the tone of the debate in the media seems to be softening. What’s changed and can we expect sentiments toward ed tech to continue to improve?
Now: Cool Gadgets
We love fun gadgets, and some iconic consumer tech products are making their way into the classroom. Too often we forget that teachers, administrators and policy makers (and reporters) are people. They are attracted to sleek, portable, multi-purpose devices the way we all are. And, when students can take their ed tech solution home with them, the whole family buys in.
Mobile was the hot topic at this week’s annual conference of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE.) How do you integrate mobile devices; should you allow/encourage students to BYOD (bring your own device); what about students who don’t have Internet access at home? I heard from one major publishing executive that when he meets with superintendents, they often pull out their iPad not to use, but to signal that they are tech savvy. School boards are embracing tablet initiatives to send the message to parents that they are innovative leaders. Tablets are replacing the SMART Board as the device that signals tech savvy. And, unlike SMART Boards, tablets are consumer technology that the general public is familiar with, and with Microsoft, Google and others entering the market, there will be no shortage of devices to choose from.
In the Works: Divorcing the What from the How
Tablets and e-readers are also changing the way the industry thinks about content. Publishers will either have to make their texts and lesson plans accessible across multiple platforms or devices, or they will need to demonstrate that their package deal enterprise solutions are truly superior. Rumor has it that some of the biggest players have quietly negotiated pay-for-performance contracts with districts based on student test scores. Meanwhile, content-agnostic startups were everywhere at ISTE. Any measure that helps identify high v. low quality content and gets it in front of students will be good for the ed tech industry’s reputation.
Coming Soon: Long Overdue Solutions to Underlying Problems
What educators value most is technology that solves their problems. Some of the underlying challenges plaguing ed tech like outdated networks, products that cannot communicate information with each other automatically (interoperability), or the inability for teachers to navigate the curriculum resources that exist to find what they are looking for are being tackled in a serious way.
Assessment 2014–a national move to computer-based testing–could lead to dramatic improvements in broadband support for schools. Several for-profit and non-profit (client) startups are building solutions to provide interoperability. The Learning Registry Management Initiative (LRMI) is working on a tagging system to help teachers find the ingredients they need to teach students as quickly and accurately as they would searching for a recipe they need to make dinner. (At ISTE, a representative from Intel as well as Karen Cator of the US Department of Education told me LRMI was key to revolutionizing technology in the classroom.)
Future Forecast
Tablets will continue to be a popular, disruptive force in the education technology marketplace. Proven results for students will ultimately win the day, and some of the most significant barriers to impact are in the process of being whittled down. Ed tech seems to be headed toward a more positive narrative, but it will require a combination of easy-to-use, enticing, effective products and compelling stories about the students they benefit.
Post originally appeared at http://waggeneredstrom.com/blog/2012/06/29/ed-techs-reputation-recovery-reflections-on-iste-2012/
Guns v. Knives: Lessons from the “#WarOnWomen”
Filed under: Health, Policy Communications, Politics | Tags: abortion, birth control, communications, George Will, Planned Parenthood, president, pro-life, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh
Leave a Comment The saying goes: don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. But, in communications, that is not always good advice. When it comes to the issue fueling talk shows across the country–women’s reproductive rights and services–the gunslingers are drawing damaging attention to themselves.
For decades, pro-life groups have worked steadily to erode access to abortions in a series of well-organized state-based legislative campaigns. Recognizing that the Supreme Court was unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade and that national public opinion supported access to abortions, they made state legislatures in more conservative states their battlegrounds. This “knife” strategy has been extremely effective, because it kept the battle localized and didn’t mobilize opponents at a national level.
Over the last year, some pro-life supporters brought their knives to the national forum. First, there was the heated congressional debate over federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Then, it appears one influential conservative group pressured Susan G. Komen for the Cure into cutting its funding for Planned Parenthood. In both cases, pro-choice organizations and women’s health advocates roared about the perceived attack not just on abortion funding, but to women’s health funding, particularly for low-income women. And, in both cases, they effectively rallied grassroots support to retain their funding.
The current debate about insurance coverage for birth control is one where both sides pulled out their big guns. The Obama administration decided to mandate zero co-pay coverage from all employers except for churches or official places of worship. This riled the Catholic Bishops, who’d been readying their weapons for months in anticipation. As a result of savvy strategic planning, they won an early concession from Obama who realized he did not want to be embroiled in a fight with men of the cloth in an election year.
At the same time, a law made its way through the legislature in D.C.’s neighboring Virginia that mandated vaginal probe ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. The degree to which this law insinuated the government between a woman and her doctor captured national attention, leading to a public retreat by the sitting Republican governor.
But, the real excitement came when Republican presidential not-quite-frontrunner Rick Santorum harnessed his bully pulpit to express his opposition not just to forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, but for birth control in general. This was capped off last week when Rush Limbaugh branded a Georgetown University Law student a “slut” and “prostitute” for advocating for insurance coverage of contraceptives by all US employers and universities.
In the span of one year, the debate shifted from abortion to birth control. In the span of a few weeks, it shifted from the boundaries of religious liberty to something reminiscent of the 1640s.
Pundits on both sides have speculated about whether it was Obama’s plan all along to lure the social conservatives into a birth control debate. The reason they think it might have been is because they sense, and a few recent polls bear out, that the Republicans may have just lost the women’s vote. Advertisers and Republican party officials pressured Limbaugh to apologize. George Will is now encouraging the party to shift its focus to congressional races.
I have spoken about this battle with women from all parts of the political spectrum, from the red state in which I grew up and from the blue state in which I currently reside. The one thing about which we all agree is that we can’t believe the presidential election has turned into a fight about birth control and a debate about whether the GOP is waging a war on women. But it has. Because when someone pulls out a gun, everyone pays attention.
For a play-by-play of the current debate, click here: http://dyn.politico.com/tag/BirthControl
What privacy violations and sweatshops have in common
Filed under: Policy Communications, Pop Culture, Technology | Tags: Apple, Facebook, Foxconn, Google, privacy
Leave a Comment They have us in common. Ambivalent American consumers. Facebook’s IPO announcement last week generated a flurry of news coverage and opinion pieces about the value of our personal information, and why we don’t seem bothered that it is up for sale. This comes on the heels of Google’s new privacy policy announcement that it is officially building and applying user profiles based off of anything we do on a Google site that it will use to serve up ads and search results. And, it is just a few weeks after a scathing series of articles by the New York Times opened our eyes to the suicide-inducing working conditions fueling the production of not just admired Apple’s products, but many of the electronic devices we carry with us or enjoy in our homes.
On the Chinese sweatshops, outrage is beginning to percolate. How dare they?! We didn’t know! Actually, we kinda knew, we just didn’t want to know, so we looked the other way. It has been public knowledge for some time that Apple’s ability to produce such beautiful devices in record time with astronomical profit margins was related to their China-based manufacturing. We may not have known exactly how bad the conditions were, but deep down inside, we knew they had to be pretty awful. Steve Jobs closed Apple’s corporate philanthropy shop when he rejoined as CEO. He was never shy about the primacy of well-designed products and profits above social issues.
Google has been in the crosshairs of government agencies and privacy organizations around the globe for years, and we’re now surprised that they are doing what we always suspected they were or would do? They are currently motivated by their need to compete with Facebook–the current uber-player in “helping” people disclose personal information to the masses (also known as advertisers and data aggregators). Is that really so bad?
At least with Google and Facebook, no one is getting hurt, and we get to use their services for free. Well, not exactly. According to law professor Lori Andrews, many people are being denied everything from employment to mortgages to health insurance based on what they search and share online. And, because of our lack of online privacy laws in the US, there is no requirement that those companies share their reasoning or prove its relevance. Those economists were on to something: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
How did we get here? Does the American consumer really value fast new versions of cool technology and free, efficient search and communications vehicles more than we value human dignity, privacy or even human life? Are we so busy between work and family that we’ll accept any fine print tradeoff a company puts past us? To some degree, yes.
But, the blame is not entirely ours. Facebook has been rightly criticized for being downright tricky in its attempts to create more sharing outside people’s network of “friends.” In addition to trying some of Facebook’s old tricks with Google+, Google’s promises to anonymize data after a set period of time have always been marred by questions about the quality of their eraser. Apple only released its full review of its China operations within the last few months.
In the environmental space, American consumers have demonstrated a willingness to choose, and in some cases, pay more for green products. So much so, that “greenwashing” emerged as a problem earlier this century. As the fog of ambivalence starts to burn off, technology companies may find there is more money to be made from selling us on their virtue than they can make in profits from vice.
Apple iBooks2: Innovation Trumps Communication
Filed under: Education, Technology | Tags: Apple, education, iBooks Author, iBooks2, innovation, iPad, technology
Leave a Comment Over the past year, a debate has been raging on Twitter, Facebook and the front page of the New York Times: is technology helping or hurting education? Are electronic whiteboards, learning games and video lectures providing teachers with tools to help them do their jobs better, or are they giant wastes of money that have diverted scarce resources from teacher salaries?
Today marks the beginning of the end of that debate. Apple’s announcement of the launch of iBooks2 and iBooks Author today in New York is a game changer. Some of us remember the debates about mp3s v. CDs (or even vinyl!) and what would happen to the music industry. Then came the iPod and iTunes, and suddenly the conversation changed.
Similar to how Apple partnered early with big players in the recording industry to ensure a marketplace of desirable content, they have textbook publishing heavyweights Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and McGraw-Hill on board. Kudos to them for seeing the wisdom in Apple’s observation: traditional textbooks “aren’t portable, searchable, current, or interactive.” But they are a core part of all students’ education and their districts’ budgets (According to the Association of American Publishers, the U.S textbook industry is worth $10 billion. That money comes from K-12 schools and districts and higher ed students.) Today’s e-book alternatives aren’t much better–often just digitized versions of their paper counterparts (remember websites from the ’90s?).
Some, like ZDNet’s Zack Whitaker, question whether the revolution will be accessible to lower income public schools. Given Apple’s history of deep discounts and donations of hardware to schools, I believe they will overcome this hurdle. History also teaches us that we should expect Amazon and Microsoft to produce their own e-textbook innovations in the near future.
Beyond the impact this will have on the textbook industry and on how students consume their contents, widespread adoption of iBooks2 and iBooks Author will open the door for technology to have the transformative, positive impact on education that it has had on other industries. According to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, both Jobs and Bill Gates expressed their frustration last year that transformation hadn’t yet happened. The reasons behind that are myriad: outdated hardware and networks, limited tech support for teachers, a historically older teaching corps less comfortable with technology, lack of interoperability, a marketplace that favored big, established players over innovative upstarts. iBooks2 and iBooks Author don’t solve all these problems, but they will likely improve teachers’ overall comfort level with technology in the classroom while also opening up opportunities for smaller education entrepreneurs to create dynamic content for students that is easy to use. This will give educators more and better choices and likely make them more amenable to other technology solutions.
Does today’s announcement answer all the questions raised by Matt Richtel and others in recent months about the ed tech industry? No, but it largely moots that point by closing the chapter we’ve been debating and starting a new one.
Enemy, Thy Name is Twinkie
Filed under: Health, Policy Communications | Tags: epidemic, health campaigns, healthy eating, junk food, obesity
Leave a Comment Finally! The communications solution to our national obesity problem. Knowing what we do about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of campaigns focused on smoking, seatbelts and sunscreens, what should we do to combat our country’s growing waistline and resulting health care costs?
First and foremost, we must name our enemy. No more talk about “there is no such thing as bad food.” There is. Twinkies. Ben and Jerry’s. Dr. Pepper. Popcorn chicken. Doritos. These are all foods with no redeeming health benefits or with drawbacks so huge that they outweigh those benefits. That’s not to say people can never eat these foods, but we all need to acknowledge that they are BAD for us, so we should treat them as the guilty pleasure that they are. Like reality TV.
Why must we do this? Why must we antagonize the nice people at Hostess and KFC? Because if we have learned anything from our political process, it is that being against something is a much more powerful motivator than being in favor of something. Most agree that it was the anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives that drove pro-Bush voters to the polls in key swing states and got him re-elected. There are many many other examples of this.
But, just as importantly, we need to simplify this process for people. In some instances, looking for healthy signs is enough (whole grain, fresh produce). But, the low-fat craze of the 90s taught us that we can be tricked into eating foods that are, on the whole, worse for us by appealing to our obsession with one factor. It is only a matter of time before Fritos starts marketing a whole grain variety.
How will we do this? With an expensive and creative communications campaign combined with some regulatory action.
The anti-smoking campaign worked because it was funded by massive amounts of tobacco settlement money and it was multi-pronged. It included on-the-box warnings, public health education, smoking-cessation programs, and regulations restricting people’s ability to smoke in public or places of employment.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s annual budget is three-quarters of a billion dollars, with the majority going to state and local law enforcement grants to support combined enforcement and advertising campaigns such as “Click-it or Ticket.”
The current efforts to promote sunscreen use are flailing, likely due to the fact that they rely on traditional marketing alone. In spite of the multi-million dollar industry promoting SPF, tanning beds remain minimally regulated, and Hollywood continues to glamourize the golden glow.
If we are to be successful in the fight against obesity, we need to consider the following:
-Tax junk food, sodas and sweets and use 100% of the proceeds to fund programs designed to make nutritious food more available, affordable and desirable; to fund physical education classes in schools; and to fund community-based solutions that show results.
-Eliminate sugar sodas and junk foods from schools.
-Put warning labels on junk food with clear indications of the recommended daily serving of that item.
-Develop a star-studded PSA campaign to promote healthier choices.
-Market home cooking to the masses.
If we are serious about fighting this epidemic–and our rising health care costs say we should be–it is time to take serious action. The kind of action that will mobilize thousands of food industry lobbyists in opposition. The kind of action that will cause Sarah Palin to rant about government intrusion into personal choices. The kind of action that will save lives.
Carrots v. Sticks (and Fries)
Filed under: Health, Policy Communications | Tags: anti-smoking, celebrity endorsement, health campaigns, Jennifer Anniston, McDonald's, melanoma, obesity, seatbelt, skin cancer, taxes
Comments (1) The big healthy eating news in July was McDonald’s announcement of the Happy Meal health makeover. Okay, perhaps makeover is too strong a word. More like putting on a nice new lipstick. Good ‘ole Ronald is cutting the size of the fries in half and adding in fresh fruit. There has been a lot of speculation about why they are doing this. In my experience, corporations are motivated by 3 factors:
1. Consumer demand (current or anticipated),
2. Profit margins, and
3. Regulatory/legal pressure.
How have these three played a role in the other issue campaigns I mentioned last time: smoking cessation, seatbelts and skin cancer prevention?
Let’s start with smoking. There is no such thing as a healthier cigarette (though the tobacco industry made a lot of dough via the insinuation with “light” cigarettes). So, the only healthy alternative to smoking cigarettes is not smoking cigarettes–clearly bad for the bottom line. And, given the addictive properties of nicotine, consumer demand was unlikely to be dramatically impacted by anti-smoking communications campaigns alone.
Enter government action. First, taxes. There is a clear link between smoking rates and the cost of cigarettes, particularly among underage smokers. When states started taxing the bojangles out of a pack of smokes, consumer demand declined. The feds also increased regulation on marketing: warning labels on packages, no broadcast ads, and less smoking in movies. When proof of the damage caused by second-hand smoke emerged, governments started limiting smoking in the workplace and public spaces. Finally, the states sued the pants off the tobacco companies for lying about the health-risks and addictive properties of cigarettes. Of note, the requirement in the settlement that the industry make payments to the states for state agencies to spend on smoking cessation and prevention programs proved genius for big tobacco. Though most states spent that money as intended in the early years on effective communication and education programs, budget demands soon sucked that money into other unrelated line items. Nonetheless, we have a lower smoking rate in the US today than we did before this combination of public policy and persuasion shamed Joe Camel.
Seatbelts is a more nuanced issue. Technically, it is possible to drive a car without your seatbelt on and cause no harm to anyone. Having lived in Massachusetts–even today, a surprisingly anti-seatbelt state–I know people who have done it. The challenge is that those low-likelihood, high-hazard car wrecks are a killer (often, literally) if you are harness free. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has done a lot of research on this topic, and they found that the secret sauce for increasing seatbelt use is primary seatbelt laws (you can get pulled over and ticketed for not wearing your seatbelt) + broadcast advertising reminding people that they will be pulled over for not wearing their seatbelt. In the states with primary seatbelt laws, usage rates average about 10% higher.
Finally, skin cancer prevention. Growing up in Florida in the 1980s has earned me many a biopsy in the interest of melanoma prevention. Those will scare anyone into buying stock in SPF 70. Plus, who doesn’t know about the risks of sun damage these days? So, it was surprising for me to learn that in the US, skin cancer rates are on the rise. Similar to the obesity epidemic, skin cancer prevention is complicated by the fact that people actually need some sun exposure to be healthy. Ironically, the Vitamin D produced by sun-to-skin contact can help prevent some cancers. Of course, the real challenge to lowering skin cancer rates is that most people believe they look better with a tan. Long-term, sunscreen fanatics age better, but see previous comments about instant v. delayed gratification.
What’s to be done about the sun? The good news is that there is an entire industry behind sun protection, and anyone who has been to a drug store knows it is a crowded field. Where there is an industry, there are big marketing dollars. Perhaps they could collude to copy some of the old tobacco tricks like using product placements in movies. Maybe Neutrogena could outbid Smartwater for a Jennifer Anniston endorsement of Helioplex SPF 100 to see if she can start a trend by abandoning her perma-tan. In the meantime, the FDA has stepped in to regulate the labeling and claims made by sunscreens, so those who do use them are clear about what they are or aren’t protected from.
Which lessons learned from these three problems can be applied to our obesity epidemic? The third and final installment is coming soon…
Can communications make us thinner?
Filed under: Health | Tags: blog, campaign, communications, Elmo, epidemic, Facebook, First Lady, health, Let's Move, Malia, Michelle Obama, obesity, Sasha, social media, tax, Walmart
Comments (1) Last week, some disturbing news came out about our national obesity epidemic. Twenty years ago, no state had an obesity rate above 15 percent. Today, just one state has a rate lower than 20 percent (Colorado), according to a report from the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Unless you’ve had your head stuck in the ground, you know that this means expensive things for our taxpayer-funded state and federal health care. And, obviously, it means the quality of life for our citizens and–most upsetting–our children is on the decline.
What role can strategic communications play in tackling this growing (puns abound in this post) epidemic? Because this is such a meaty (warned you) issue, I’m making this a three-part series. First, I’ll explore one of the highest profile campaigns to encourage healthier lifestyles for kids in the US–what’s working, what’s not. Then, I’ll examine lessons learned from issues that weight loss campaigns are often compared to: smoking cessation, seatbelts and skin cancer prevention (3 S’s!). Finally, I’ll share some ideas for ways communications could make a difference.
Why has obesity become such a problem in the US? Pick a reason:
-More fructose/salt/saturated fats in foods.
-Processed foods more affordable and available than fresh produce (note: wealthier people less likely to be obese).
-Packaged food less labor intensive to prepare at home or school.
-Fast food french fries are DELICIOUS and CHEAP!
-Restaurant portions are ridiculously large.
-Less time/safe environments for exercise for kids and adults.
-Vicious cycle: obese parents more likely to raise obese children.
-Metabolic disorders possibly triggered by poor eating habits hard to reverse.
-Against human nature to sacrifice short-term pleasure to optimize for long-term health.
This is just a sampling of the myriad causes, but what is clear is that this is a complex problem at risk of becoming intractable. Enter First Lady Michelle Obama and her Let’s Move! campaign for healthier kids. In addition to taking full advantage of the media spotlight that follows her organic-gardening toned-arm fashionable self, Michelle Obama has embraced social media to promote her agenda. On Facebook, Let’s Move! has reached almost 70,000 likes by employing a personal tone, creating content variety, and using contests to engage the public. While its unlikely that she’s directly reaching her younger target audience (Facebook isn’t big with the elementary school set), she is reaching their parents and role models. The first daughters are popular figures with younger kids, and there is certainly overlap between Michelle’s efforts and the “brand identities” of Malia and Sasha. Obama is also savvy about engaging other celebrities, including Elmo, to promote her cause. The Let’s Move! website also provides guidance and links for schools to implement with support from USDA. Finally, she keeps the message positive, neutralizing most critics by focusing on healthier choices rather than finger wagging.
So, are we likely to witness a reversal of current obesity trends as a result of this campaign? Too soon to tell, but the First Lady is making headway. Today, she announced partnerships with some of the nation’s largest grocers to tackle the country’s “food deserts.” Leslie Dach, EVP of corporate affairs at Walmart, gave her credit: “The first lady’s efforts in these areas have helped focus our real estate process, to take a particular look at these areas as we build out our real estate plans.” We’re also starting to see legislation pop up around the country requiring healthier school lunches. To be sure, the odds are stacked against her. The Seattle Times ran a series in June focused on the area’s ostensibly leading edge anti-obesity programs, and the results are disappointing. Ease, cost deliciousness and habit are powerful adversaries. Strategic communications campaigns can only do so much, but kudos to Michelle Obama for realizing this is a battle we can’t watch from the sidelines.
Does hope spring eternal from campaigns that have gone before, or is it time to drown our sorrows in a bag of BBQ Lays? Stay tuned….
Words that Work
Filed under: Policy Communications | Tags: blog, bus, car tab, communications, Dow Constantine, fees, Frank Luntz, King County, KUOW, Ross Reynolds
Leave a Comment Yes, this is the title of a book by political wordsmither Frank Luntz. While some on the left are aggravated by Luntz’s use of language for conservative gain (he coined the term “death tax” to replace “estate tax”), if you can put your politics aside, the man makes some good points.
Specifically: “it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” This breaks down further to “what’s in it for me?”
Two different talk shows on the Seattle-area NPR affiliate KUOW brought this point to life this week in their coverage of the proposed $20 car tab fee to help keep the current level of bus service. Yesterday, The Conversation was trying to generate listener interest with the following question: Should drivers have to subsidize bus riders? I was driving in my car (by myself) to work, and my immediate reaction was “Hell, no!” Our licensing and tag fees are outrageous to begin with, and I’m not signing up to pay more. Particularly since I have never ridden on a King County bus and possibly never will.
This morning, Weekday host Steve Scher asked the official behind the fee proposal this same question. King County Executive Dow Constantine responded that this isn’t about subsidizing bus riders, it is about supporting the road system–something drivers already do. He then explained how much more congested the roads would become if people who ride the bus today started driving. Suddenly, I found myself very much in favor of paying $20/yr to limit the traffic I encounter during MY commute and feeling grateful to the bus system for making MY life easier.
Kudos to Dow Constantine for his deft use of language to reframe a driver tax as a traffic-limiting investment. He clearly understands that if you want me to pay without a fuss, don’t appeal to my sense of civic duty. Show me what is in it for me.
