SHOULD WE KEEP OFFERING NEWS YOU CAN USE? We need to know how many people use and value these news items for classroom discussions. Please take one minute to THANKS!

May 14, 2008: By year-end, The Walt Disney Company will build a laboratory to test people's biometric reactions to new forms of high-tech advertising. A pool of up to 4,000 subjects will be studied. In a controlled living room setting, laboratory scientists will measure heart rate, skin conductivity and track the gaze of participants who are exposed to new ad models over the Internet, mobile devices and TV screens. The new types of ads include three-second video ads on mobile phones, high-definition commercials on big screens, sports ticker crawls, etc. The lab's director said biometric testing helps cut to the heart of audience reactions to visual ads, which can sometimes be missed by focus group surveys. "TV is not a rational medium, it's an emotional medium," he said. "We can get to a deeper layer of what's motivating people by seeing how they behave, observing them in experimental settings and seeing how their body reacts."
Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN, is seeking to learn whether consumers are more engaged by new and interactive ads and ultimately if the company can charge more for them. Source: May 12, 2008 article on SFGate, the website of the San Francisco Chronicle.
    Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why do advertisers spend millions of dollars to research how their ads affect people? Did you know this type of psychological and scientific research has been performed for years, starting with measuring how a person's eye pupils would dilate (or not) when viewing a certain image? (Your pupils dilate very slightly when you have a positive emotional reaction to whatever you are looking at.) How do you feel about it, knowing that companies do psychological and scientific testing to learn how better to persuade you to buy their products and services? Why do most people, especially young people, think that advertising does not affect their attitudes and choices? Why would corporations spend billions on advertising if they didn't know whether it works or not?

April 23, 2008: Is Earth Day the new Christmas? Americans are literally being asked to consume more to save the planet, as marketers pile on to cash in on what many companies see as just another marketing opportunity, according to a recent AdAge article. "Marketers of all stripes are bombarding consumers with green promotions and products designed to get them to buy more products -- some eco-friendly, some not so much....Many have begun to worry that as nearly every company out there paints themselves green, they are losing touch with Earth Day's reason for being. 'My concern is that some companies just view [Earth Day] as a marketing event, like Thanksgiving or Christmas,' said Larry Light, chairman-CEO of Arcature, a management consulting firm. 'Then they've fulfilled their obligation for the rest of the year. The whole issue of sustainability means that a commitment also has to be sustainable. If it's only for one day, then it's a marketing event.'
    Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Did you buy anything in the past few weeks because of an Earth day tie-in? If so, was it something you would have purchased anyway, or something you would not normally have bought? How much credit or goodwill should companies get for making a donation to a charity when you purchase their product, when the charity would get so much MORE money if you just gave your money directly to the charity instead of buying the product? (In other words, a $15 t-shirt purchase could mean that an environmental organization gets 10 cents. But that organization could do a whole lot more if it had your entire $15, not just the 10 cents.) What could you do to find out whether a company actually has taken measures to reduce greenhouse gasses and otherwise support sustainable practices, or if they are just on the "Green bandwagon" to get your money into their pockets?

March 12, 2008: As more major U.S. cities are endorsing an effort to reduce use of bottled drinking water because of energy consumption and pollution concerns, PepsiCo announced it is teaming up with Starbucks and harnessing the movie star power of Matt Damon to help distribute a brand of "charitable" bottled water called Ethos. The marketing campaign for Ethos calls attention to the plight of impoverished Africans who lack access to safe, clean drinking water. For every bottle of Ethos water purchased, five cents goes to programs that provide African children with clean water. Ethos sells for $1.80 a bottle. Critics of Ethos water say it is a profit-making enterprise disguised as humanitarian relief, that Ethos is exploiting the plight of Africans to sell more bottled water in the United States, and donating directly to a reputable charity dedicated to water projects in Africa is a better way to address the issue.This citation is from PR Watch.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How often do you drink water from a bottle instead of a glass? Are you aware of the problems generated by the sale and use of water bottled for individual consumption? Check out the website ThinkOutsideTheBottle.org. Discuss the ideas of "consumer freedom of choice" compared to "doing what's right for the environment and the common good." Where did the concept of "consumer freedom of choice" come from (i.e., who benefits from that idea?) How often do you see advertising suggesting that you do things that promote the common good? How often do you see advertising that urges you to do things that will (supposedly) make you, as an individual, happier, more free, more successful, etc.? What did you used to drink before bottled water became so popular? What are the risks of public water becoming a commodity that only corporations can sell to us?

October 31, 2007: It's no secret that polls are used to shape public opinion at least as much as they're used to measure it. The website of one major U.S. polling firm, the Mellman Group, boasts, "Some pollsters simply report on opinions.  We use the most sophisticated analytical tools available to understand the motivations of consumers and voters so we can intervene in their decision-making processes to produce the outcomes our clients want" (emphasis added).
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Have you participated in an online poll, phone poll or other poll? Have you ever wished that the question were worded differently, or that your choice of answers included, "It depends" or "Maybe"? What is the most important factor in getting polling answers that are unbiased? How can someone writing polling questions ensure that their questions will not "lead" the subject to answer in a certain way? Conversely, how can someone answering a poll tell when a poll is unbiased OR when the questions were written deliberately to lead them to certain answers? Other than refusing to participate, is there any way a poll subject can prevent the polling company from "interven[ing] in their decision-making process to produce the outcomes [the] client wants?"

October 3, 2007: Congress has prevented the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from expanding the agency's powers over drug industry direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns promoting prescription drugs, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal. "One major reason: the drug industry found powerful allies among media and advertising firms who were determined to protect one of their biggest and fastest-growing advertising categories." While drug industry advertising represents only 3.5% of the U.S. advertising market, it "registered the highest growth rate among the top 10 U.S. advertisers," growing 13.8% in one year, from $4.6 billion in 2006 to $5.3 billion. Instead of the FDA having the power to reject advertisements on drugs with serious safety concerns, the agency will only be able to review and comment on proposed advertisements. Dan Jaffe, the executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, described the final bill as "a success for the entire advertising community." Source: Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2007. This citation is from PR Watch.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Should the FDA have the power to prevent advertisements for drugs with serious safety concerns? Why or why not? What, if any, effect will the FDA's "review and comment" on advertising probably have on the drug companies or their ad agencies? The TV broadcast airwaves are supposed to be used for the public benefit (because they are public property). Who is watching out for the public benefit here? Who should be? How do you feel about the influence of advertising and media firms on Congress? Is this what democracy should be about, and if not, what would be different in a real democracy?

May 30, 2007: The Hill reports, "Automakers plan to attack congressional efforts to raise fuel mileage standards in a series of radio and newspaper advertisements this weekend, the unofficial start of summer driving season. The ad campaign, sponsored by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, focuses on states with a high proportion of truck and SUV drivers to stoke grassroots opposition to a Senate bill that would raise fuel standards for cars and trucks by 10 miles per gallon over the next 10 years. The Senate plans to take up the bill after the Memorial Day recess as part of a larger effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and wean the country off of foreign oil. The auto group plans to spend at least $1 million on the ad buy, a spokesman said. ... Fuel mileage standards for automobiles are currently set at 27.5 miles per gallon, and have not been raised since 1990." The auto lobby has a website at www.drivecongress.com with a toll-free number to get US drivers lobbying Congress against fuel efficiency standards. Original source: The Hill, May 25, 2007.This citation is from PR Watch.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What do you think the general public reaction to this ad campaign will be? Why? Since conserving gasoline to reduce carbon emissions (and global warming) is a major concern now, gas prices are very high, and attacking global warming issues is important to most Americans, why would American automakers oppose increased fuel efficiency, when American cars already have lower mileage standards than foreign-built cars? Would American automakers improve their credibility and reputation with the American public if they wanted to help address high oil prices and global warming? If not, why not, and if so, then why aren't they doing that?

April 4, 2007: "Israel's official MySpace page was launched in January under the direction of officials from the Foreign Ministry," reports Gregory Levey of Salon.com. "The MySpace page automatically greets visitors with a sleekly produced hip-hop song called 'Peace in the Middle,'" and "shows pictures of Israel's beaches, glitzy hotels and the Tel Aviv skyline." It's part of the Israeli government's efforts "to reach out to young Americans" and "disarm the conflict-centric image so prevalent in the Western media." The Israeli government also has its own blog, which (like its MySpace page) links to YouTube videos on "Israel's achievements in technology, medicine, business and entertainment," as well as Gay Pride Parades and "a lot of people wearing bikinis. There is nobody wearing a military uniform in the videos, even though military service is compulsory for all Israelis after they turn 18." Future online plans include a second blog run by Israel's Foreign Ministry, "devoted exclusively to politics," and "an Internet television station aimed at American evangelicals and other Christians."Original source: Salon.com, March 23, 2007. This citation is from PR Watch.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: See also the news item below for last week. What might be the reason for Israel's sudden burst of public relations effort to improve its image with Americans? What is Israel's challenge in influencing public opinion about what's happening in the Middle East? The history of Middle East conflict(s) is very long and very complex -- how much do you know about it? What is the best way to learn? How would YOU rather learn -- books? movies? articles on Internet websites? MySpace? YouTube? How does one decide what communications medium is best for any given message?

March 28 - April 4 2007: "All the surveys we have done show that the biggest hasbara," or public diplomacy, "problem that Israel has is with males from the age of 18 - 35," said David Saranga, Israel's media and public affairs point person at its New York consulate. "In order to change their perception of Israel as only a land of conflict, we want to present to them an Israel that interests them," he added. So the "beer 'n' babes magazine Maxim" is sending photographers to Israel, for a photo shoot of attractive Israeli women. Saranga called the Israeli women models a "Trojan horse," to show Israel as "a modern country with nice beaches." The magazine will also include information on each of the seven models, "to show the diversity of Israeli society." Israel's consul-general in New York said his country "is a vibrant and vivid place, and capturing this on the pages of America's biggest male magazine helps us reaffirm our brand in an important way." Original source: The Jerusalem Post (Israel), March 22, 2007. This citation is from PR Watch.
     Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Did you know that Israel has a "brand"? What does David Saranga, the Israeli consulate media affairs person, mean when he says this project "helps us reaffirm our brand in an important way"? What do you think the Israel "brand" is, or should be? What do you think of Saranga's statement that the purpose of photos of attractive Israeli women on the beach is to show Israel as "a modern country with nice beaches"? If you saw these photos in Maxim without having read about the project background, would it ever occur to you that the state of Israel had created the project as a public relations tool? Do you think the project premise is valid, i.e. that showing attractive Israeli women in swimsuits will help men 18-35 think more positively about Israel? Why or why not?

Feb. 28 - March 7, 2007:  Companies are exploring new ways to target women. "As word-of-mouth marketing has increased in use by marketers, 5.4% of moms have emerged as 'netfluencer' moms," writes PR Week, using data from the PR firm Porter Novelli. When Procter & Gamble decided to promote Febreeze and Swiffer as "allergen-reducing" products, it surveyed women and found they turned to pharmacists, physicians,medical websites, friends, family and local TV news for health-related information. The resulting marketing campaign included a partnership with the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA), "influencer" kits for physicians, and an AAFA member and physician serving as "third-party spokespeople" in TV satellite media tours and audio news releases for radio. When Georgia-Pacific wanted to boost Dixie cup sales, it used a "consumer segmentation study" and focus groups. The resulting "Make it a Dixie Day" campaign included sponsoring "Mommycast, a podcasting show hosted by and targeted to moms." The sponsorship, suggested by Porter Novelli, "has allowed Dixie to become a 'mom's advocate,'" said PN's Karen Weidenaar. Original source: PR Week (sub req'd), February 12, 2007. This citation is from PR Watch.

       Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why are major consumer product makers starting to use methods other than advertising (ads on TV and radio, in magazines, newspapers, etc.) to promote their products? What do you think the PR firms means by "netfluencer moms"? Have you ever tried a product because a friend told you about how much they liked it? Are you more likely to try something because your friend told you, compared to trying it because you saw an advertisement? Did you know that a few companies specialize in finding influential teens, and then giving them free products, recognition and others way of making them feel special in the hopes that these teens will recommend their products to their friends? How would you feel if one of your friends was part of a company's effort to influence you to buy something?

Feb. 7, 2007:   "Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each" by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) think tank, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to an article in British newspaper The Guardian. AEI wants "articles that emphasize the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil," reports Ian Sample, "and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green sent the offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent." On February 5, the Fraser Institute, "another Exxon-funded organization based in Canada," launched "a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report." Original source: The Guardian (UK), February 2, 2007. This citation is from PR Watch.

       Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Is there any way for the average American citizen to know if a so-called "think tank" is actually a front group for a corporate-funded public relations effort? What websites and organizations are available for doing the research? Has the invention of new media formats such as the World Wide Web enabled better research and dissemination of information about this type of corporate PR, and if so, how? Should scientists and economists who accept money to promote a specific point of view be required to disclose in their reports where they get their money, so that others can decide if the money may have influenced their opinions and recommendations?  Should corporations who spend money to influence these points of view be required to disclose where they are spending it?

Jan. 17, 2007:  "Consumers' viewing and reading habits are so scattershot now that many advertisers say the best way to reach time-pressed consumers is to try to catch their eye at literally every turn," the New York Times writes. Subsequently, ads are turning up in the strangest places: airport security lines, subway turnstiles -- even chicken eggs. "Ubiquity is the new exclusivity," said ad executive Linda Kaplan Thaler. "Alternative media" ad spending totaled $387 million in 2006, up from $24 million in 2000. One market research firm "estimates that a person living in a city 30 years ago saw up to 2,000 ad messages a day, compared with up to 5,000 today." And "more is on the horizon," including video screens in doctors' offices, taxicabs and elevators. Ad executive Connie Garrido said non-traditional advertising is "very good for awareness because it's out there, it's in your face, and you can blanket a marketplace. ... It's one of the last mass mediums." Source: New York Times, January 15, 2007.This citation is from PR Watch.
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Have you noticed more advertising in more places in the past few years? Do your parents ever comment on the placement of advertising in unusual places? Should every place be "fair game" for advertising, or do citizens deserve some non-commercial landscapes as they go about their daily lives? In some cities, the doors inside toilet stalls have advertising -- would this be OK with you or do you think people deserve "privacy" while taking care of their bodily functions? Have you ever spoken up or written an objection to advertising that you felt was inappropriately placed? If so, what was the reasoning behind your objection? Imagine a world where even the sidewalks have advertising on them (this actually exists in some places) -- how do we know when it's "too much" and can we do anything about it?

Jan. 11, 2007:  Wal-Mart is launching a massive PR blitz to try to staunch the criticism it receives from concerned consumers and activists working on issues like labor, the environment, healthcare and human rights. TV ads on network and cable channels will focus on "Sam's Dream," referring to founder Sam Walton. "It all began with a big dream in a small town, Sam Walton's dream," a narrator says as one ad starts with a black-and-white photo of Sam Walton and a grainy shot of Walton's first five-and-dime store in what is now the chain's headquarters town of Bentonville, Ark. "Sam's dream. Your neighborhood Wal-Mart," the ad ends.

While Wal-Mart spokesperson David Tovar asserts that "This campaign is part of a long-term effort to inform the public about the company's positive impact on communities, including some of our core values like affordable health care, customer savings and charitable contributions," WakeUpWalMart.com spokesman Chris Kofinis assesses the spots as "Wal-Mart ... living in a bizarre state of denial, where no matter how bad their public reputation is, they still believe that a tired ad campaign can fool the American public into believing it is OK to exploit millions of working families."SOURCE: Houston Chronicle, January 7, 2007. This citation is from PR Watch.

According to the progressive newsletter The Hightower Lowdown, Sam Walton's vision actually was that "You can't create a team spirit when the situation is so one-sided, when management gets so much and workers get so little of the pie." But today, the average worker gets $8.23 per hour and is usually given schedules of under 24 hours per week. Fewer than half of Wal-Mart employees get any healthcare benefits, and those who do must pay 41% of the cost for a substandard plan. In all 23 states that have released data on their state-funded health-care programs, Wal-Mart is the corporation with the most employees and dependents enrolled in them. Compare this to Walmart CEO H. Lee Scott, who had a base salary of $1.3 million in 2005 plus $4 million in "incentive" payments plus stock and other compensation that raised his total to $17.5 milion.
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: When large corporations have millions of dollars to spend on image advertising for TV, and most Americans get their information from TV rather than from print sources, how can the average citizen know what the truth is? How would they even know if a company was trying to fool them and that maybe there was a reality that was different from the TV message? What resources are available for someone to get the facts of the situation? How good are your research skills using the library and the Internet? Do you consider yourself a critical thinker? What's the difference between a skeptic and a cynic?

Nov. 15, 2006:  Drug company reps walked out of a medical conference in New Mexico when a Georgetown University School of Medicine professor spoke on the topic of drug industry influence in medical education, according to Adriane Fugh-Berman, the professor who wrote about the experience in the British Medical Journal. "Immediately after my talk, one pharmaceutical company representative announced to a conference organiser that her company would no longer support the annual conference. Another packed up his exhibit and walked out," she writes in the British Medical Journal. "Corporate support of continuing medical education courses, meals, and treats are not merely our just rewards for being hardworking, dedicated doctors. The illusion that the relationship between medicine and the drug industry is collegial, professional, and personal is carefully maintained by the drug industry, which actually views all transactions with physicians in finely calculated financial terms. Drug representatives are paid to be nice to us, as long as we cooperate, sustaining our market share of targeted drugs and limiting our continuing medical education lectures to messages that increase drug sales. This is an unspoken agreement, but no less clear for being covert."

              The conference organizers had arranged for Fugh-Berman to debate a sales representative on whether pharmaceutical companies should fund continuing medical education for physicians, but the drug representative who agreed to the debate later backed out on the advice of "legal." Despite having been offered equal time, that same sales rep later announced that her company would not support future conferences. Says Fugh-Berman in her article, "The audience of physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals seemed immensely interested—and acutely aware of the rarity of an occasion in which the relationship between medicine and the drug industry was questioned. Several physicians noted on their comment forms that the organisers were brave to address the subject. Some delegates even offered to pay higher registration fees in the future to offset the drug firms' defection." Fugh-Berman went on to recount how conference officials tried to placate the drug companies rather than support the legitimacy of the questions she raised.

         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What is the potential significance for American consumers when "education" for physicians is commercially sponsored by drug companies? Can we reasonably expect that all physicians can resist thinking more favorably about the use of specific, heavily promoted drugs when they get free continuing education (required for them to stay licensed as a doctor), free office supplies branded with the drug name, free food, free travel and lodging at resorts where the conferences are held, etc.? Could the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to promote drugs influence the way doctors think overall about the use of prescription drugs for patient treatment, as opposed to considering more natural, alternative non-drug treatments?How might this influence the cost of health care in this country? Why does the United States allow drug companies to market specific drugs direct to the consumer (such as in TV ads where they say, "Ask your doctor if [name of drug] is right for you") when such advertising is outlawed in most, if not all, other industrialized countries? What does the research show about whether these ads influence the number of times such drugs are prescribed? Have you, your parents or family member ever asked a doctor about a specific drug that you saw on TV?

Oct. 11, 2006: "The Army spends more than $200 million annually on marketing -- the biggest ad contract in the federal government," notes Advertising Age. The theme of its new campaign from a new ad agency is "strength." "There's strong, and then there's Army strong," explained a video from the agency. "There is nothing on this green earth that is stronger than the U.S. Army." [Victims of Hurricane Katrina or a tsunami might disagree.] Like other recruiting efforts, the Army's "strong" campaign "was developed to specifically address not just those considering an Army career, but family members and friends of potential recruits. Since the start of the Iraq war, the U.S. military's advertising increasingly has focused on convincing parents and peers that the choice of the military career is a good one." This citation is from PR Watch.

         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What's your opinion of the theme "STRONG" for recruiting men and women to the army? Would it appeal to you? If not, what type of advertising promotion, if any, would cause you to think more favorably about joining the army? Is it legitimate for the government to spend taxpayer money to develop language and themes to help recruitment? Why would the advertising agency use a theme that would also appeal to parents and peers of potential recruits? What other types of advertising can you find that use peer pressure, or family-member-pressure, to get the intended ad target to take the action desired by the advertiser?

Oct. 4 , 2006: Bottled water is a $10 billion industry, but companies are "determined to push ... into new demographics," by "distilling products aimed at children," reports Bo Emerson of Cox News Service. "The multimillion-dollar marketing campaign includes animated ads on Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and broadcast TV that features kids triumphing over boring parents with the help of the bulbous (Nestle-brand) bottle." The goal is boosting sales to help an ailing industry, in which sales of soft drinks — still the No. 1 beverage choice in the country — are flat. "Bottled water has become a starting point for a variety of products, from fruit-flavored, caffeinated and oxygenated drinks to vitamin-enriched waters for pregnant women." Says Gary Hemphill, managing director of the consulting firm Beverage Marketing Corp, “They are using water as an innovation platform.” Consumers drank 7.5 billion gallons of bottled water in 2005. This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: CantonRep.com (The Repository newspaper,Canton, Ohio) Oct. 3, 2006.

         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How did you used to drink water before you drank bottled water? Why did you start paying for bottled water when you could just get it out of the tap? What are you actually paying for -- the water, the convenience, the prestige you believe goes with the brand you drink, the perceived safety factor, or... ? What do you know about the safety of tap water compared to bottled water? [Emerson reports that he Natural Resources Defense Council recently completed a four-year study, and resolved that bottled water was no purer than tap.] E/The Environmental Magazine says 1 billion plastic water bottles end up as litter or in landfills each year and there recyclling supply exceeds demand for the PET plastic -- does that make you more inclined to drink less bottled water, to help save the planet? How do you decide your priorities relative to environmentalism, convenience and lifestyle? Does advertising for bottled water affect your priorities and if so, how?

March 26, 2006: The new industry-funded front group from lobbyist Rick Berman, the "Center for Union Facts," has launched its first TV ad campaign. The 30-second spot, running on Fox News and local markets, has "actors posing as workers" saying "sarcastically what they 'love' about unions," like paying dues, union leaders' "fat-cat lifestyles," and discrimination against minorities. The ad campaign cost $3 million, which was raised "from companies, foundations and individuals that Mr. Berman won't identify." Another TV ad will be filmed in June. Labor and economics professor Harley Shaiken said the effort "to create an antiunion atmosphere" more generally, as opposed to business-funded ads against a particular union organizing drive or strike, "is a new wrinkle." Needless to say, an AFL-CIO spokesperson called the ad's accusations "unfounded and outrageous." This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), May 19, 2006.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What are the ethical issues involved in running ads about union workers that feature actors rather than actual union workers? How would a viewer know that it's actor speaking from a script? Does it matter, and if not, why not? Do viewers deserve to know who is funding the ads? If not, why not? What are the ethical issues involved in naming an organization "Center for Union Facts" when it is actually an anti-union group?

March 22, 2006: The Wall Street Journal reports that Public Interest Watch (PIW), a non-profit 'watchdog' group which sucessfully lobbied for an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax audit of Greenpeace, has been heavily funded by ExxonMobil. Two years after PIW urged an IRS investigation, Greenpeace was subjected to a three-month long audit. WSJ's Steve Stecklow reports that PIW's "most recent federal tax filing, covering August 2003 to July 2004, states that $120,000 of the $124,094" came from the oil company.  xxonMobil confirmed that they had funded the group at that time but no longer do. According to Greenpeace USA executive director John Passacantando, the IRS auditor, Charles Walker, told him the investigation was in response to PIW's complaint. In March this year Greenpeace was informed that it retained its tax exempt status. PIW's  executive Director Lewis Fein has refused to disclose any of the group's current funders. This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), March 21, 2006.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What is an "astroturf" organization? (Check www.prwatch.org for definition.) How do you feel about IRS time, effort and money (such as IRS employee salaries) being spent just because a corporate-funded group, disguised as a watchdog organization, wants to cause problems for another group like Greenpeace? Is there anyone to complain to about this waste of our tax dollars? Is there anything the government can do to avoid this type of corporate influence? If so, what?

March 8, 2006: Wal-Mart is looking beyond mainstream media and working directly with bloggers to shore up its image, offering them exclusive news items and other perks, according to a March 7 article in the New York Times (registration required). The company's public relations firm, Edelman, also suggests topics for postings and invites bloggers to visit its corporate headquarters. The strategy has raised questions about what bloggers, who pride themselves on independence, should disclose to readers. According to the article, "Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has been forthright with bloggers about the origins of its communications, and the company and... Edelman say they do not compensate the bloggers. But some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from. Glenn Reynolds, the founder of Instapundit.com, one of the oldest blogs on the Web, said that even in the blogosphere, which is renowned for its lack of rules, a basic tenet applies: 'If I reprint something, I say where it came from. A blog is about your voice, it seems to me, not somebody else's.' Companies of all stripes are using blogs to help shape public opinion. " The article goes on to cite how General Electric met with major environmental bloggers before announcing a major investment in in energy-efficient technology last year.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How do we know that when we read something on the Internet or in a newspaper or magazine, it's the opinion of the writer and not some manufactured message from a public relations firm? If the writer does not disclose a separate source, is there any actual way you would know? What do you think about corporations using bloggers to shape public opinion? Should bloggers disclose to their readers when they are picking up ideas or messages from corporations or PR firms? Why or why not? What, if any, are the ways in which a blogger can receive corporate PR messages and still remain independent of influence in writing about the company in a blog? Is it important for readers to know the original source(s) of what they are reading? Why or why not?

Dec. 7: 2005: The U.S. National Park Service is proposing to offer itself up for sale -- as an agent of corporate public relations. The proposal (lengthy government document) would give corporations opportunities to put their logos in the parks, on park brochures, kiosks and benches, among other places. The Park Service also proposes to allow the sale of naming rights to “rooms in a park facility.” The 60-day public comment period got little attention in mainstream media and closed Dec. 5th. Organizations Commercial Alert and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility mounted public campaigns to encourage citizens to speak out against the corporatization of public space in national parks.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Should some places be off-limits for advertising? Why or why not? Is the human experience changed (diminished or enhanced) when every possible place you look, someone is trying to sell you something? If the government doesn't get its money from corporations to run the parks, where should it get it? How much of the federal budget is now spend on national parks, and how much per citizen per year does that represent? How much is the parks budget compared to military spending or agricultural subsidies to corporations? If corporations that keep a postal box on an offshore island to avoid U.S. taxes were required to pay U.S. taxes (since their physical buildings are located in the U.S.), would they be enough to pay for keeping our national parks ad-free?

Nov. 16, 2005: On Nov. 10, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) released the results of its poll (11-page PDF document) of U.S. Congressional staffers, corporate executives and members of the general public. All three groups overwhelmingly supported mandating disclosure when broadcasters air video news releases (VNRs) — segments produced by public relations firms for their clients and frequently aired, without disclosure, by television news shows. The PRSA poll included the following question: "Television news programs sometimes show stories that are not produced by a news organization, but come from companies, government or other types of organizations. These stories are created to communicate a particular position or message to the public. Do you think government should require TV news shows to state the sources for these stories, or not?" Seventy-one percent of 1,015 adults from across the United States said yes, government regulation is necessary to ensure disclosure. Of the 150 "leading executives in Fortune 1000 companies" surveyed, 89 percent backed mandated VNR disclosure. Lastly, 87 percent of the 150 Congressional staffers surveyed, who were "stratified according to party, chamber, years in office and title," according to Harris Interactive, also backed mandated disclosure. Read the complete story on PR Watch.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions:  Do you and your friends think that corporations, the government or advocacy groups should be required to disclose that they paid for video or audio (radio/iPod) "newscasts" to be produced on their behalf? Why or why not? Can citizens make informed decisions about issues without knowing who is paying to have their side of the message showcased to the public? How does it help to know who is paying for the message or that the news organization itself initiated the story?

Oct. 10, 2005: The Food and Drug Administration will hold a public hearing on direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising, "more than two years after the last public hearing ... failed to produce any guidelines to regulate the $4 billion ad category," reported AdAge on October 3. Of particular interest are celebrity endorsements, since "such approaches plainly do not reflect a data-oriented approach to promotion." The agency will also ask "whether and how techniques mislead consumers about the risk-benefit tradeoffs" of advertised drugs. In August, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America established their own voluntary DTC guidelines. This citation is from PR Watch.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What types of drugs are most commonly advertised direct-to-consumer  on TV? Why would those drugs be promoted over other types of prescription medication? How many (if any) other industrialized countries allow DTC advertising? What does the research show about how DTC advertising affects how often a doctor will actually prescribe the drug that the patient asks about? Is it ethical to use celebrities to "sell" drugs that are available only prescription?

Oct. 3, 2005: "Earlier this year, McDonald's Corp. unveiled plans to enlist rap artists to produce several songs that would integrate the Golden Arches' iconic Big Mac sandwich into lyrics," as "part of the company's ongoing strategy to court the youth market, especially young men, through hip-hop," reports AdAge [article QwikFIND ID: AAQ95N] . Although McDonald's promised to pay artists $1 to $5 each time promotional songs air on the radio, no Big Mac tracks have yet been recorded. "We have not identified the right opportunity," said a McDonald's spokesperson. "We have not yet identified the match that we've been looking for." McDonald's has also not launched its new "hip street wear" uniforms, designed with input from Russell Simmons' Phat farm, Sean "Diddy" Combs' Sean John, Tommy Hilfiger, Fubu and American Apparel, according to AdAge. This citation is from PR Watch.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: When corporate advertisers want to pursue the youth market, why might they choose music as a way to get their message out? If hip-hop lyrics include the words, "Big Mac" and the artist gets paid for that, is that advertising or is it music? Do you care, and if so why, or why not? How important is it to know whether artists are singing the words for artistic intent or for advertising purposes?

Sept. 26. 2005: Philip Morris, the manufacturer of Marlboro ... created a crack team to transform the insides of Britain's upmarket bars and music events, in an attempt to boost its profits," reports The Observer (UK). Marketing documents from 2004 that the newspaper obtained detail how Philip Morris offers gift certificates to bar owners for displaying furniture, ashtrays or vending machines with Marlboro's logo. In a "subliminal" approach, bar lounge areas the company calls "installations" or "Marlboro Motels" include no logos, just "comfortable red sofas in front of video screens showing scenes redolent of Wild West 'Marlboro country' to convey the essence of the cigarette brand while circumnavigating sponsorship bans." Philip Morris also specifically targets young, affluent smokers at "high-profile music events where attractive female 'Marlboro models' would sell cigarettes." But Philip Morris isn't alone; now that Britain bans tobacco ads, "all that former advertising money had to go somewhere," an industry insider told The Observer. This citation is from PR Watch.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: The Marlboro examples are some of the many ways that companies still are able to market their products when advertising (signs, posters, etc.) are specifically banned. What does "subliminal" mean? Should customers know when they are being marketed to in these subliminal ways? Does ethics play a role in the relationship between the company and the potential customer, i.e. does the company "owe it to us" to let us know when they are marketing to us, or is it our job to figure it out? If it's our job to figure it out, does it matter whether we do that before or after we purchase the product?

August 25, 2005: New consumer research suggests that branded entertainment still has a long way to go to compete with the 30-second spot--especially when it comes to influencing people to buy products, according to an article on the MediaDailyNews website. The data indicated consumers would be twice as likely to buy a product as a result of seeing a TV commercial than they would after seeing a product in a branded entertainment scenario. "No one has really delved into how consumers feel about branded entertainment," says researcher Frank Dudley. "From our perspective, the 30-second commercial is not going away. It's going to find a place in an integrated approach." In the last few years, there has been a simultaneous rise of reality shows and branded entertainment deals.

Reality shows have been one of the primary launching pads for branded entertainment. But consumers don't perceive that connection to be that valuable. The survey showed that consumers were much more likely to accept product placement in scripted shows--and in particular sitcoms--than reality shows. Those numbers showed a 47% preference for sitcoms, 36% for dramas, and 25% for reality shows.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How do you feel about brand placement in TV shows and movies (such as when FedEx pays to have its truck used in a scene instead of a generic "ABC Worldwide Shipping" truck, or when you see the label of a beer bottle or soft drink facing directly at the screen)? Why might people be less likely to accept product placement in a reality show than in a scripted show? Is it easier to "pretend" it's not advertising when it's in a scripted show, but a more blatant advertising pitch when specific brands are placed in a reality show? What about product placement in websites and TV shows for children under 12? Should there be restrictions on advertising to children who are too young to know the difference between a product placement "ad" and the program itself?

June 8, 2005: The Army is looking for full-service marketing and PR agencies to submit proposals for an $800 million, five-year recruitment push. PR Week reports the contract would include "everything from advertising to promotional and publicity programs, internet campaigns, event marketing, and media relations." In May, the Army's recruiting commander Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle said the the advertising campaign would be geared to potential recruits, as well as to influencers. Meanwhile, the Army faces a recruiting crisis, falling short of its goals. Conservative columnist Robert Novak noted, "[T]he focus at the Defense Department has been on the excesses of desperate recruiters, 37 of whom reflected their frustration in trying to meet quotas by going AWOL over the last 2-1/2 years." This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: PR Week (subcription req'd), June 6, 2005.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Is it a legitimate expense of taxpayer's money (your money and mine) to hire corporate marketers for government agencies? If the military cannot find enough recruits on based on its own merits, is it moral and/or ethical to use corporate-style advertising and public relations to "sell" young people on military service? Who are the "influencers" that the ad campaign would also be geared toward? Is it ethical to use media campaigns to "sell" family members on the military so they'll use their influence to get young men and women to enlist? If recruiting is so difficult that recruiters are going AWOL (i.e., deserting), does it makes sense to simply throw more money at it in advertising and promotion? How are images, sounds and music used as persuasion techniques in recruitment advertising, and do they reflect the reality of everyday military life?

June 1, 2005: On May 25, Federal Communications Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein gave a rousing speech about the "most pernicious symptoms" of "increasing commercialization of American media." In particular, he singled out product placement and corporate shills in "news" programming. "The use of covert commercial pitches is penetrating deeper and deeper into our media," Adelstein said. "Another source of great annoyance to many listeners, potentially in violation of the law, is when radio disc jockeys casually mention their enthusiasm for some product or another in the course of their banter. Listeners are left wondering if the on-air personalities really liked the product, or whether the station was paid to promote it. If there was payment of any kind, they better disclose it or they should face the scrutiny of the FCC."
          Classroom focus/media literacy discussion:  What is payola? How do laws forbidding payola apply to other kinds of money-for-favors deals that occur in our media system (such as product placement, video news releases, etc.)? Should listeners and viewers always be left wondering if something is a paid advertisement or not, or does it really not matter? Why or why not?

April 5, 2005: "The problem of fake video news releases (VNRs) isn't limited to the Bush administration or to government VNRs alone. In fact, corporate public relations is the biggest single source of video news releases, just as corporate PR is the biggest single source of other types of PR that pollute the media ecosystem. The use of radio and video news releases is a little-known practice which took hold during the 1980s, when PR firms discovered that they could film, edit and produce their own news segments - even entire programs - and that broadcasters would play the segments as "news," often with no editing.
              Recently, however, the balance of power has begun to shift back toward the public. As internet bandwidth becomes cheaply available, more and more VNRs are being sent via the internet rather than via satellite feed or video cassette. This in turn makes it easier for the public to detect, download and expose them.
          Classroom focus/media literacy discussion:   What is the value of being able to know the difference between news coverage by a journalist and fake news in the form of a video news release from a government agency or corporation? Can citizens make informed decisions about how their government is working, or how corporate actions and products affect their lives, if all they see and hear are paid promotions from those organizations ?
          This is also from the same article as above: "On SourceWatch, we've compiled an article about VNRs that explains what they are and provides links to the websites of some of the main companies involved in their production and distribution. Some of those sites provide descriptions only; others make it possible to download the VNRs in their entirety, where you can view them (or edit them) for your own purposes. If you want to figure out whether VNRs are being used as filler on your local news channel, the SourceWatch article provides some leads that may be helpful to your research." These citations are from PR Watch, where you can get the whole story.

March 2, 2005: “This is an opportunity to reach young consumers in the early stages of brand loyalty with a healthy, helpful educational message,” says TissueBox Advertising co-founder Jim Cronin, discussing his company's new venture in offering advertising on tissue boxes distributed free to schools for display in classrooms. Advertisers know that consumers under 18, still forming their brand preferences and with dollars in their pockets, are a highly desired demographic. Advertisers targeting kids during the hours they spend in school is also very common. Probably to deflect potential criticism, advertisers are encouraged to dedicate one side panel to a public service announcement from an Ad Council campaign. “Teacher’s Features” printed on the box bottoms and tops include facts that are deemed of interest to students, such as what took place in history during the same month the boxes are distributed. Source: MediaLife magazine for media planners and buyers.
         Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Should schools allow students to be a captive audience for advertisers? When schools are struggling with tight budgets and teachers often buy tissues with their own funds, is it fair to criticize companies that want to give free tissues to teachers? Why do they want to give the tissues -- because they want to help teachers and cash-strapped schools, or.....? Why can't you get these free tissues for your house?

February 15, 2005:  On Feb. 10, the Federal Trade Commission rejected the consumer watchdog organization Commercial Alert’s request for disclosure of product placement on television. According to Commerical Alert spokesman Gary Ruskin, the FTC agreed with them that “there may be instances in which the line between advertising and programming may be blurred,” but dismissed the idea that product placement causes "consumer injury."  Says Ruskin, "Essentially, the FTC has taken the position that companies may broadcast undisclosed commercial propaganda on airwaves that we the people own, and that are supposed to be operated for our benefit."
     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Do corporations have the same free speech rights as real persons? If so, how did it get that way, and are such "rights" good for the general citizenry? Should TV viewers be told explicitly that product placements in shows have been paid for by the manufacturers? If not, why not? What are some methods of disclosure that would not interrupt the viewing experience but still provide the information?

November 16, 2004: Citing the film’s promotions with Burger King, Kellogg’s, and Keebler, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) is warning parents to beware of the excessive and harmful levels of commercialism in the new SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. “This movie is essentially a ninety minute commercial for junk food,” said CCFC’s Dr. Susan Linn, author of Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood. “Parents who take their children to see the film should expect to be besieged with requests for products from the movie’s promotional partners.” It has become commonplace for media characters popular with children to adorn the packages of food products of dubious nutritional value. Marketing to children is a factor in childhood obesity. Psychiatrist Alvin Poussaint of the Judge Baker Children’s Center hopes that parents will factor in the film’s commercial ties when deciding whether or not to let their children see SpongeBob on the big screen. “The cost of this movie is more than the price of a ticket. The nagging that marketers deliberately and effectively cultivate can be extremely stressful for families. And for those parents who give in, there are the potential costs of childhood obesity and its attendant health problems.”
     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: How do we determine the difference between "Hey, it's just a movie," and "Why am I paying money for my kids to watch a 90-minute commercial?" Are there moral and ethical issues about marketing unhealthy food to children, and if so, who should be speaking up for children? Should this type of marketing be stopped, and if so, how can that be justified in a free market economy that grants corporations the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, no matter what the message? Should parents be educated about the importance of these issues, and if so, how can that best be undertaken?

November 10, 2004: To reflect its growing membership and commitment to positive action, the coalition formerly known as Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children (SCEC) has renamed itself the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (see www.commercialfreechildhood.org). “Marketing directly to children undermines all aspects of children’s healthy development, yet corporations spend about $15 billion annually directly targeting children—and our government does less to regulate advertising to children than nearly every other democracy,” said the Campaign’s Dr. Susan Linn, of Harvard’s Judge Baker Children’s Center and author of Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood. Children see 40,000 ads per year on television alone. Marketing to children contributes to public health problems like childhood obesity, eating disorders, precocious and irresponsible sexuality, underage drinking and smoking, youth violence, excessive materialism and family stress.
      Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: In what ways do children perceive the world different from adults? Do they have the analytical skills to distinguish between facts and persuasion techniques? What, if any, moral or ethical responsibility do advertisers, government, parents and other institutions have to children relative to their advertising exposure? Why?

November 6, 2004 Most people claim they're not influenced by advertising. But if that's the case, why do corporations spend bilions of dollars on it every year to persuade people to buy their products and services? The Persuaders, a PBS Frontline program on Tuesday, Nov. 9, "presents an in-depth look at the multibillion-dollar 'persuasion industries' of advertising and public relations. To cut through mass-media clutter and to overcome consumers' growing resistance to their pitches, marketers have developed new ways of integrating their messages deeper into the fabric of our lives." More information is available here on the PBS site.
     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: What is public relations, and how is it different from advertising? If the best and most effective public relations campaigns work without us knowing that they even exist, how can the public (and voters) protect themselves from manipulation?

August 16, 2004: "An event once notable for celebrating the spirit of amateurism has achieved an almost unimaginable level of crass commercialism," writes PR commentator Paul Holmes. The Olympics' organizers "are clamping down on anything that might allow TV audiences a glimpse of a non-sponsor's logo. People carrying bottles of Pepsi (or any bottled water not made by Coca-Cola) will have them confiscated ... people with a Nike logo on their T-shirts will be asked to turn the shirts inside out. Stewards ... have been warned about wearing footwear that isn't made by official sponsor Adidas." Holmes concludes, "I'd rather see the Olympic organizers worry about concerns that official merchandise is being made in sweatshops." This citation is from PR Watch. Original Source: PR Week (subscription required), August 16, 2004
      Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Is it ever OK to restrict an individual's personal freedom for the sake of corporate advertising objectives, and if so, when is that OK and why? Is the personal freedom of event employees different from that of customers/visitors, and if so, why? Here's a field activity that really engages students and challenges them to look at those subtle images and texts which bathe them, often unconsciously, in commercial messages. Canadian cultural references are easily adapted to U.S. examples.