Does this ad endear you to union DC37 and make you want to act on their behalf? The ad is a lost opportunity to build support for the union. Instead it isolates the public and is not likely to generate the intended result. Here’s why and what they could have done instead:
1. It’s defensive. Instead of leading with the value that DC37 brings, it attacks another party, making it both adversarial and defensive.
2. It’s misdirected. They want to change a fundamental way the city conducts business, but instead attack private contractors.
3. The tone is mean spirited. You certainly don’t feel good about the union after they disparage 18,000 businesses who have done nothing wrong.
4. It’s not believable. It is easy to understand that the city hires specialists to do what employees are not trained to do. And why would you need to do a background check on a graphic designer to create an ad campaign promoting public health services? And there are no tests or licenses for designers or many other professions. The also makes unsubstantiated claims about businesses not paying employees or taxes. If this is a real issue, the union should direct attention around these abuses.
5. It ignores the audience. The ad is written from the point of view of the union, not the audience. It doesn’t address any need or concern that a New Yorker might have. If the ad was directed around reducing fraud in taxpayers’s money, people could identify with that, arouse an emotional concern about the issue, and inspire people to take action.
6. It doesn’t address a realistic solution. It’s not realistic to believe that the current workforce, even 125,000 people, can produce $6 billion worth of work. Are they offering to take on that additional work at their salaries?
7. It lacks a specific call to action. It’s not clear exactly what they want – how much cuts are they asking for? Over what period of time? Is there specific legislation pending? What time period do they want us to act? None of these questions are addressed.
A Better Approach
If you want to galvanize the public to act on your behalf, you have to get them on your side. Position the issue in a way they could not only relate to, but become emotionally charged about. Given the general diminishing support for unions and the unlikeliness that the city will stop using outside contractors. A better approach would be to focus on waste or fraud. If they could document that, it would make for a much stronger appeal. Who would not be riled by a headline reading: City Pays $700 Million to Businesses Who Don’t Pay Taxes: Urge City Hall to End Abuses.
WAKE UP CALL: Don’t wait until it is too late. Building your image is a constant, ongoing activity. Build a positive reputation and goodwill so that when you need it most, it will work in your favor, whether in currying support with funders, legislators or the public.
Your posts are often very opinionated and lack sufficient research to back your ideas. I would like to see a more balanced investigation of this campaign.
Julie,
I appreciate your reading my blog and taking the time to respond. The point of our blog is to present our point of view. In this post, I present why I think this ad is unsuccessful and give many reasons why and I do this analytically, addressing the very specific reasons based on our understanding of advertising and psychology. Furthermore, I give suggestions for creating a more effective ad for the union and explain why that approach would work better. Of course you are welcome to disagree and I am welcome to hearing your ideas about this ad campaign. If there are any specific facts in this post or any other of my posts that are inaccurate, I would love to hear about it and would correct it immediately.
Generally speaking, unions have made great strides in workers rights in the later 19th and early 20th centuries. By all accounts they have been less successful in the latter half of the 20th century as the workplace dynamic has changed and as a result, union membership has been dropping steadily. Unfortunately, in a time when collaboration is needed more than ever to solve the gloabl issues that face the American economy, unions like DC37 still maintain a “Us versus Them” mentality which breeds anger on both sides. In the big picture, unions will not be successful by seeing the world through a lens of “fighting” rather than cooperation. In order to be successful, they need the support of others, as this ad tries to do. Unfortunately, it tries to do so through this lens of antagonism.
Many nonprofits which have focused on passing regulations in the 1970s and 80s (a “fighting” lens), have found success in the 90s and 2000s by collaborating with the industries they are trying to reform, rather than chastising them. Unions would do well to adopt these strategies.
Thanks again for reading, and I look forward to a lively exchange.
Howard