If this blog were a personal one, this post’s subtitle it would be, “Or why I’m not going to join Beth Kanter in taking the pledge against hunger.” (Full disclosure: Beth’s Blog, which explores how nonprofits can use social media, is one of my favorite blogs. Beth is the inspiration behind this post.)
***
The marketing of causes (not to be confused with cause marketing) has a long tradition of combat. Think of any problem that ails humanity and there’s a movement or fight or war against it. In fact, nonprofits sometimes invent new causes, as when the Oregon Human Society campaigned to end petlessness. Every time I see a fight against an evil, I think of the anecdote that has Mother Theresa allegedly stating something along the lines of, ‘I will never go to an anti-war protest, but any time to a peace march’.
Observe your reaction as you read these:
- against hunger / for food security
- against poverty / for prosperity
- against global climate change / for environmental sustainability
The marketing of product and services follows the same logic. Identify a problem customers have and devise a solution to banish it from the face of the Earth. Would it be more productive in the long run to market products and services that deliver a benefit instead of fighting a problem?
Consider these:
- against dirty / for clean
- against disease / for health
- against depression / for satisfaction
In the battle of “For” and “Against”, the latter tends to win. Are we wired to think in black-and-white, either-or dichotomies? We all love a good fight, and we all love being on the good side of the good fight.
It’s easy to identify or conjure an enemy and rally the troops to fight it. It’s easy to fight symptoms (the what, intervention) because they’re so visible. Finding something to be for is more complex; you have to dig deeper into why what you want to eliminate exists (the why). Being for something means promoting what will prevent the problem from arising in the first place (prevention). It’s a mindset.
The “Against” mode has us ponder an evil and how we can fight it: two negatives. If obstacles are all you see, obstacles will be all you get. The “For” mode has us consider a good and how we can promote it: two positives. If opportunities are all you see, opportunities will be all you get. Which has a more positive, more constructive mindset? Which is more sustainable?
I’m not declaring a war on “Against”. I’m rallying around the flag of “For”.
What are you for?
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post! Good points!
I’ll take the pledge to make sure that children have food and don’t starve – so they can survive, do well in school, and be healthy.
Thanks for your post. I didn’t design the campaign theme – I just wanted to help support the idea. I’ll pass it along to Share Our Strength
Hey Peter. Good post and good distinction between terms.
I’m for compassion that sees a need and meets in right in the midst. We’re gonna need a balance. This current situation finds as many as can support being for helping our children stay fed.
And biggies have rallied because it is that important. But what’s a biggie cept lotsa little me’s and little’s you’s coming together to promote what is right for our fellowman/woman/child.
I deeply value the probing FOR long term solutions.
How bout we choose to be FOR both the immediate and the long term.
We just well may be building the team in it FOR the long haul.
I know this comment’s a bit surface, but I’m for supporting anyone who takes a step forward to support his/her/our neighbor. Here’s to the day when we can shout out “No more food is needed. They’re full.’
Amazing how your post shows how much you and the cause you battle are stuck in dualistic thinking and attachment slogans and ideological pairings.
Especially that addiction to “positive” thinking and “win-win”-situations is especially charming and naive. Reality doesn’t use such terms and it’s a bit more complex then such constructs and slogans. But cutting down on complexity has always been the goal of propagandists of all colours and shades, doesn’t matter if it’s for selling a car, religion, scented candles or wars.
In creating awareness and so called change so many “activists” are still adepts of Freuds appeal of lower instincts and fears that his nephew Edward Bernays has turned so successfully into PR and Marketing.
Many more serious spiritual paths (like ZEN) and the modern philosophy of Deconstruction have tried to deal with this. Many of the more serious 1960’s Hippies tried similar methods.
But most of these insights are watered down and worthless these days. Feel-good-slogans and tiny flashes of semantic insights are gobbled up by activists and politicians a like. Playing pingpong with semantics is so much easier then really digging in the dirt …
Semantic Mousetivism has become the modern form of indulgences.
@Beth Kanter: Thanks again for channeling the campaign as the springboard for the post. I never intended to dispute the campaign’s motivations.
@orangeguru: Thanks for the provocative comment. By couching the post in the dualism of “for” and “against” I attempted to demonstrate the fallacy of “against” thinking. My bad if I fell short.
Inasmuch as reality is a social construct, to make my contribution I’ll take the charm and naivete of positive thinking over negative thinking any day. I’ll also opt for constructive criticism over criticism for its own sake.
As long as we sit in our respective rich-country abodes, digging in the dirt will remain a theoretical exercise.