WWSTBD? Can PR and Marketing Help Save Us?

"Get your shots or I'll whack you with my shovel." Probably not the winning message.

Misinformation and mistrust have poisoned our response to COVID-19, and the dark days are not yet behind us.

Which surge are we in? The third? Fifth? I’ve lost count, but as a deadly, infectious virus again fills our hospitals—largely with unvaccinated people—I wonder how we can be more effective in getting Americans to take this scourge seriously—to do what we need to do to knock this pandemic down.

The science isn’t too mysterious. Social distance. Mask. Frequently test. Be vaxed and boosted. Don’t seek medical advice from political sites or random social media memes. Do your own research—if you have a pHd in science. Otherwise, pay attention to those who do valid research, not the proverbial 400-pound man in his basement. (For the record, I do look like Santa, but I am not 400 pounds—yes, I am writing this in my basement.)

But science is not enough. When it’s not believed, it’s not working. Omicron is highly transmissible and American are highly resistant to giving two hoots. Mandates for large employers, the military, healthcare workers and first responders may help with the vaccination rates, but pushing people who don’t believe also makes them push back harder.

The herd can’t become humanely immune if the herd won’t hear what must be heard.

Granted, we’ve seen massive failures of political leadership. This pandemic has been politicized, which is a costly tragedy. We once had a president who told us to consider injecting bleach, and we have many so-called pundits promoting quack cures and spreading mistrust of those who should be trusted. In Iowa, our governor assures us we will “do the right thing,” when it’s patently obvious too many Iowans would rather just do the right-wing thing, even when it’s wrong.

I find myself wondering, WWSTBD? What would Smokey the Bear do?

Most of use remember Smokey. He reminded us that only we can prevent forest fires. It didn’t end fires—climate change had led to some massive wildfires in recent times—but that old bear did raise awareness and changed behavior in his day.

And Smokey isn’t the only example of a PSA avatar that has done us some good. Remember the “crying Indian” from 1971? That PSA actually helped reduce littering, and fueled an environmental movement that, even if it can be controversial, has led to a cleaner country.

Neither Smokey nor the Native American who was actually an actor of Italian ancestry were 100 percent successful, and neither symbolizes a problem that was completely licked. But problems don’t work that way. Big problems aren’t so much solved as abated, and I would like more pandemic abating.

One thing that I think has been lacking in our anti-COVID efforts is an effective symbol and slogan. We can shout at each other about facts and disinformation, but we need some messaging that hits us on a more elemental level. We need a COVID equivalent of insurance Flo or the Geico gecko. We need a slogan like “only you can prevent forest fires.” (“Only you can knock down a deadly virus?”) We need messaging that is factually accurate but that is also not a dry recitation of facts—something that will play on patriotism, loyalty, doing what’s right, working together. We don’t just need to hear, we need to feel.

Rosie the Riveter needs to roll up her sleeve for a needle.

I’ve been looking at a few COVID PSAs, and they have information and aren’t always terrible, although sometimes they are also plodding and dull. The CDC has a gabagillion videos on its YouTube channel, but none has yet gone viral. Here is a CDC PSA and another attempt from a medical school, followed by an NHS Facebook ad from the UK, which I think does a better job:

 

 

We don’t have a snappy slogan. A compelling character full of pathos. A key, concise, positive message. Something that we should push with a billion marketing dollars to spread a positive, life-saving message.

Get your shot. Wear your mask. Be boosted. Get tested. Fine, but which of those would mean something on a bumper sticker? Those are the messages, but not the means to our hearts nor the memes we would share.

CDC PSA. Fine, but where's Smokey?

Again, OK. But "Proven Safe and Effective" could be a shampoo ad.

I’m not an ad writer, I don’t know what would work. But I see lots of ads for cells phones, promos for shows, snazzy productions for deodorants—my Christmas media wish would be for us to be awash in ads that have more meaning and that could have more impact.

So come on, science. Hear me, Joe Biden. Bring it on. Find the right Mad Men.  If not Smokey, Nellie the Nurse. Ashley the Elf who survived Covid? The vax fox? I know I want something even if I’m sure exactly what it is. But when I’m humming the tune of that catchy vax jingle, that may be important progress.

The Strange Case of Vietnam PR

Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. I took this photo in March.

We’re close to naming a title for the 2015 Fall Faculty Series (unofficial name) at Mount Mercy University this year, but even if the name is up in the air, the topic is not.

The series will be on the War in Vietnam. It’s timely due to two anniversaries:

1) The first really big surge of troops came in 1965, 50 years ago. Advisors had been in Vietnam for years, but when the Marines went in big time in 1965, it meant thousands of American combat boots on the ground. A total of 3 million Americans would see service in Vietnam.

2) The war ended in 1975, 40 years ago. American combat troops left in 1973, and in 1975, the American Congress would not vote funding for more advisors and aid. When American support moved out of South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese Army moved in.

This week in my media class, we’re talking about public relations and advertising—in effect, the role of advocacy in PR.

I told the students that judging advocacy—to determine if you agree with it or think it’s positive or ethical, for instance—means basically looking at two sides: the message and the means used to deliver that message.

The War in Vietnam, whatever else it was—and it was a lot, hence the series—was a PR disaster. I think partly that came from the top. President Johnson ran a sometimes-delusional administration, and some of his advisors confidently predicted a quick end to the war if American boots hit the ground.

Well, the boots hit and then sank into a quagmire. The military was hampered by lots of things, among them the creativity of the NVA and the Viet Cong, who understood they were fighting a war of attrition and simply needed to outlast the Americans (this same crew had managed to outlast the French 10 years before). The war did not have clear aims or even a clear enemy; it was never fought “all out” as World War II, for example, was.

And it was a horrible war. There were napalm attacks on villages and “free fire zones” were anybody who wasn’t in an American uniform could end up dead. The policies the U.S. followed and the way they were implemented—defoliate jungle, bomb an agrarian county, prop up a corrupt regime in order to stave off the spread of Communism—added up to a long-term disaster.

It was a disaster partly built on deceit. Congress approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964 using hazy evidence of alleged attacks on the U.S. Navy that, it appears, never really happened. And both the Johnson and Nixon administrations did their best to “craft” their message to gain maximum support—which often left both lacking in the honesty department.

In some ways, I supposed, Vietnam was a dress rehearsal for some of the dreary mistakes we’ve made since 9/11.

The media are often, and correctly, criticized for not doing enough to inform Americans about reality behind facades. But, in defense of our dysfunctional news media, it’s also fair to ask how informed people want to be. If Americans cared about facts, there would be no Fox News.

Anyway, students, we talked about the “means” and the “message” to judge PR advocacy. The U.S. Government used dubious means to push an iffy message in the 1960s to promote the Vietnam War. What do you know about that failed PR effort? And what would you like to learn? What topics of conversation could engage you in our fall series?