Click here to download:

beef (57 KB)

A recent campaign issued by the National Cattle Association is promoting the benefits of eating “lean beef” as part of a healthy diet.  The tagline of the campaign is “ 29 lean cuts. One powerful protein” starring a generously sized portion of T-bone steak in their feature ad.  The initiative is intended to educate the public on the health benefits of eating lean beef as part of a healthy, balanced diet.

The main portal for the campaign has a great deal of nutritional information including breakdowns of caloric values, saturated fat grams, and total fat per serving.  In their nutritional information, they state:

“Beef is an excellent source of protein. In fact, it’s one of the best natural sources of protein in the supermarket! While your customers often associate beef with protein, they may not know about its other nutritional benefits and how those nutrients can contribute to a healthy, well-balanced diet. Beef is also an excellent source of zinc, vitamin B12, selenium and phosphorous; and a good source of iron and other B-vitamins.” (Beefretail.org)

While there is no argument that beef contains vitamin B12, zinc, selenium and phosphorous, is their message entirely accurate and ethical?

The ethics of advocacy addresses the “practices of persuasion that operate only on the basis of what is effective in the quest to achieve advocacy objectives, without sufficient regard for the basic moral principles that might be violated, or the people and interests that might be harmed in the process” (Baker, 2009, p. 115).  When we examine the  “29 lean cuts” campaign through this lens, we might first consider the motivation of the message, before moving on to determine its accuracy, truthfulness and social responsibility.

The first indication of the moral fogginess of this campaign is the self-serving motivation of the advocates (a group made up of cattle ranchers and livestock farmers that have a vested interest in the promotion of beef in the US).  According the 5 Baseline model for assessing motivations of advocacy (Baker, 2009, adapted from Baker, 1999b), this campaign would fall under the guise of the Entitlement Model which suggests that “professional persuaders have a right to advocate for legal products and causes, even if they are harmful; that caveat emptor [let the buyer beware] is a morally acceptable position” (Baker, 2009, p. 121).  But is the buyer aware?

There are very opposing views on the overall morality of positioning beef as a healthy food, but based solely on their advertising, it’s clear they have bypassed some ethical steps to advocate their message. For example, their  “model T-Bone steak” which appears in their ads is clearly no less than an 8 oz portion of steak. According to CalorieKing.com, this caloric size represents less than a 4 oz portion – at least half the size of the steak they show in their photo. Ironically, they suggest a T-bone steak has only 150 calories and 8.2 grams of fat, but this is over 50% calories from fat, so hardly a choice for a low-fat dieter.

Kim Essex, SVP of Marketing for the National Cattlemen’s Association was quoted in Brandweek noting the campaign “stemmed from research that showed consumer interest in leaner meats, but most being unaware that there are 29 such options that meet government standards” (Brandweek).  However, the USDA suggests Americans “Keep total fat intake between 20 to 35 percent of calories, with most fats coming from sources of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, such as fish, nuts, and vegetable oils. (Health.gov).  It’s unclear then, which government standards they are aiming to withhold.

Is this campaign truthful and authentic?  Apparently not.  Does it have respect for the persuadee or does it take advantage of the audience?  I would argue for the ladder.  Is it a socially responsible message?  This might be debatable, although certainly a diet focused on T-bone steaks might well be considered harmful.   These are the questions we would evaluate this campaign on base on the TARES Test, a five principle based model for addressing the “basic and moral duties of advocates” (Baker, 2009, p. 122).

In my opinion, the campaign failed the test.  Miserably.

References

Baker, S. (2009). The ethics of advocacy: Moral reasoning in the practice of public relations. In L. Wilkins & C. G. Christians (Eds.), The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics. New York: Routledge.

Beef Producers Go Lean in New Campaign. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i8f1f42046a622bdab369305cf8550d24

Beef Retail – Nutrition Central. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://beefretail.org/nutritioncentral.aspx

Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board – MyBeefCheckoff.com. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.beefboard.org/

Key Recommendations for the General Population, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/recommendations.htm

Posted via email from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

[[posterous-content:pid___0]]I’ve been noticing a momentum of pushback toward companies (small businesses especially) that use social media to sell their products.  There’s been a few angry Facebook status updates in the last few weeks, but what really caught my attention was Chris Brogran’s declaration that he intends to “unfollow” anyone who mindlessly flags their wears online.  Given that he’s one of the nicest people I’ve ever encountered in the social sphere, that’s a pretty significant statement.

Social media is a tool for conversation and connection.  It’s not a promotional vehicle and it likely won’t convert potentials into payers.  It can however, give your market, your brand, and your products or service some credibility and mindshare.  If you’re really good, you can use storytelling and narrative to weave a call-to-action without anyone ever feeling sold-to.  You can do this by marketing “for” your client, not “to” them.  Be educational, entertaining, inspiring or funny, but never be “salesy”. 

Are you up for the challenge? 

Here’s a great example of a call-to-action that’ educational and entertaining.  It’s worth the watch.

Posted via web from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

I’ve been noticing a momentum of pushback toward companies (small businesses especially) that use social media to sell their products.  There’s been a few angry Facebook status updates in the last few weeks, but what really caught my attention was Chris Brogran’s declaration that he intends to “unfollow” anyone who mindlessly flags their wears online.  Given that he’s one of the nicest people I’ve ever encountered in the social sphere, that’s a pretty significant statement.

Social media is a tool for conversation and connection.  It’s not a promotional vehicle and it likely won’t convert potentials into payers.  It can however, give your market, your brand, and your products or service some credibility and mindshare.  If you’re really good, you can use storytelling and narrative to weave a call-to-action without anyone ever feeling sold-to.  You can do this by marketing “for” your client, not “to” them.  Be educational, entertaining, inspiring or funny, but never be “salesy”. 

Are you up for the challenge? 

Here’s a great example of a call-to-action that’ educational and entertaining.  It’s worth the watch.

Posted via web from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

People have a tendency to develop social relations based on a universal need to belong. The basis for these relations require frequent personal contact, and generally a “relationship marked by stability, affective concern, and continuation in the foreseeable future” (Baumeister & Leary, pg 500). The very function of social media sites facilitates these needs little effort from the individual participants. Even individuals with few or no primary attachments (family or close friends) can be satisfied with a heavy attachment to a community or cause (Baumeister & Leary, pg 500). The primary requirement as Baumeister and Leary suggest, is for “regular social contact with those to whom one feels connected (pg 501).

Posted via web from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

Posted via web from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

Before the onset of new media and citizen journalism, we (adults, teens and children) consumed media in the same context of one to many with limited opportunity, if any, to interact with the message.

Today things are different. Now media – both social and traditional, is interactive. Its context spans across one to many, many to many, many to one and one to one. We consume media and we create it. We can support messages, virally spread them, or speak out against them. The playing field is very different.

How does this effect media literacy? When I was young, this included parents explaining that gory scenes on TV are not real, but rather “just a movie” or advising vulnerable teens on the magic of airbrushing so as not to give them all physical complexes. But today, the landscape has changed. Kids create media in addition to consuming it. They are far savvier about airbrushing and other media manipulations than kids 30 years ago. But media extends much further than our TV’s these days, and rarely are younger people consuming media with an adult who is monitoring the appropriateness of the messages they are receiving.

Henry Jenkins, (2006) has defined the new role of media literacy within the context of a participatory culture which

“shifts the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement. The new literacies almost all involve social skills developed through collaboration and networking. These skills build on the foundation of traditional literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom.” (p. 4)

The role of education in creating this participatory culture, as I see it, is more about building consciousness rather than literacy, as often the student is savvier about the medium (not necessarily the content) then the teacher. Educating students to be conscious of the impacts of social media will go much further in developing critical thought about how young people will shape their own digital selves, and interact with others.

In her article Social Network Sites: Public, Private or What? Danah Boyd (2006) suggests educators focus on defining “mediated publics” and develop awareness around how the content people create is persistent, searchable, replicable and invisible (uncontrollable) (Pg 2 &3). Awareness and consciousness about these crucial elements will protect young citizen journalists and digital creatives who still lack the mature perspective of consequence.

Social media can and should play a critical role in reinforcing these messages to students. Using case studies of young (perhaps fictitious) individuals who have irreparably damaged their own or other’s reputation and cyber bullying can encourage kids to think responsibility about the content they create, replicate or share with others in their peer group and beyond.

• Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21-41.
• Gecas, V. (1989). The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1), 291-316. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001451
• Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robinson, A. J. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Retrieved September, 12, 2009 from http://newmedialiteracies.org/. Read the summary, not all of it unless you want to.
• MIT. (2006). New Media Literacies. (Video) Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://newmedialiteracies.org/.

boyd, d. (2007). Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? Knowledge Tree, 13 (May). Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28

Posted via web from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

Before the onset of new media and citizen journalism, we (adults, teens and children) consumed media in the same context of one to many with limited opportunity, if any, to interact with the message.

Today things are different. Now media – both social and traditional, is interactive. Its context spans across one to many, many to many, many to one and one to one. We consume media and we create it. We can support messages, virally spread them, or speak out against them. The playing field is very different.

How does this effect media literacy? When I was young, this included parents explaining that gory scenes on TV are not real, but rather “just a movie” or advising vulnerable teens on the magic of airbrushing so as not to give them all physical complexes. But today, the landscape has changed. Kids create media in addition to consuming it. They are far savvier about airbrushing and other media manipulations than kids 30 years ago. But media extends much further than our TV’s these days, and rarely are younger people consuming media with an adult who is monitoring the appropriateness of the messages they are receiving.

Henry Jenkins, (2006) has defined the new role of media literacy within the context of a participatory culture which

“shifts the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement. The new literacies almost all involve social skills developed through collaboration and networking. These skills build on the foundation of traditiona l literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom.” (p. 4)

The role of education in creating this participatory culture, as I see it, is more about building consciousness rather than literacy, as often the student is savvier about the medium (not necessarily the content) then the teacher. Educating students to be conscious of the impacts of social media will go much further in developing critical thought about how young people will shape their own digital selves, and interact with others.

In her article Social Network Sites: Public, Private or What? Danah Boyd (2006) suggests educators focus on defining “mediated publics” and develop awareness around how the content people create is persistent, searchable, replicable and invisible (uncontrollable) (Pg 2 &3). Awareness and consciousness about these crucial elements will protect young citizen journalists and digital creatives who still lack the mature perspective of consequence.

Social media can and should play a critical role in reinforcing these messages to students. Using case studies of young (perhaps fictitious) individuals who have irreparably damaged their own or other’s reputation and cyber bullying can encourage kids to think responsibility about the content they create, replicate or share with others in their peer group and beyond.

• Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21-41.
• Gecas, V. (1989). The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1), 291-316. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001451
• Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robinson, A. J. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Retrieved September, 12, 2009 from http://newmedialiteracies.org/. Read the summary, not all of it unless you want to.
• MIT. (2006). New Media Literacies. (Video) Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://newmedialiteracies.org/.

boyd, d. (2007). Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? Knowledge Tree, 13 (May). Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28

Posted via web from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

Is social media more persuasive than mass media? Do we spend social capital when we persuade?

I’ve been thinking a lot about social proof, defined as the tendency for people to adopt the behaviors of everyone else when the appropriate thing to do seems ambiguous. (wikipedia)

Social media has a unique advantage over traditional media in garnering persuasive positioning though social proof because the audience has an immediate understanding of how fast an idea is moving or how many people are willing to get behind it through numbers of Fans, Followers or viewers listed beside the media piece. As Fogg (2008) suggests, “when an experience gains momentum, people take notice and are more likely to join in, even without an explicit invitation from friends.” (p. 9) This viral momentum is much harder to understand in traditional media where one can’t immediately determine how many people consumed and reacted either positively or negatively to a situation, unless the media outlet initiates feedback from the audience through call-ins, letters to the editor or polls.

However there are some interesting examples where traditional media is able to get their arms around social proof, quite eloquently, specifically with respect to political campaigns.

An eloquent example of social proof in action with traditional media is the coverage of live electoral polls, indicating which candidate has the most voter support in specific regions. In swing states such as Ohio, with a large number of independent voters, it would be interesting to see how much social proof dictated their final votes.

Do we run the risk of spending social capital if we use it to persuade? Possibly, depending on the context. If persuasion is defined as the act of trying to get someone to do something, it’s very possible to push your social capital to the point of tuning you out. Wellman et. al (2001) suggest that people who are online a great deal have greater exposure to annoying behavior (such has repeated messages of persuasion) and therefore “[e]xperiencing such distasteful computer-mediated communication will weaken commitment to online community”. (p. 448) This is situation is ramped in the small business community where people join groups to
“sell their stuff” rather than to contribute to the conversation. It’s amazing to see how quickly they loose their social capital as well as any credibility they may have come with.

· Fogg, B. J. (2008). Mass Interpersonal Persuasion: An Early View of a New Phenomenon. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Persuasion, Berlin.

· Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12 (4), 1143-1168.

· Steinfield, C. (2009). Bowling Online: Social Networking and Social Capital within the Organization. Paper presented at the C&T, University Park, PA.

· Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Keith, H. (2001). Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455. doi:

· Social proof – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof

Posted via web from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

Click here to download:

hate (14 KB)

 In the realm of communication, especially in interactive media, we’re often confronted with opportunities to consider morality and ethics in the context of how to respond, or even “show up” online.  In the case of social media, our affiliations are often public, and our choices to stand behind certain positions tend to be made in an instant.  A recent example of a crowd-sourced statement is a rather flippant prayer suggesting the death of President Obama on Facebook that reads:

“Dear Lord, this year you took my favorite actor, Patrick Swayzie (sic). You took my favorite actress, Farah (sic) Fawcett. You took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson. I just wanted to let you know, my favorite president is Barack Obama. Amen.”

Sadly, this mantra has garnered close to 1.2 million “likes” since the time of it’s posting on April 10^th.  When CNN asked if they will remove the highly offensive fan page, Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said, "while it may be considered distasteful and objectionable to some, the page doesn't violate the company's content policies.”  He went on to say that Facebook is “sensitive to content that includes pornography, bullying, hate speech, and actionable threats of violence, and we react quickly to remove content that violates our policies when it is reported to us"  (CNN, 2010).

Is Facebook wrong to refuse to pull this page?   It depends.

If we are to look at this situation purely from an ethical standpoint, one could argue that it would be unethical to remove the page.  To do so would create a precedence for censorship on a website that is considered to be self-regulating and a representation of public opinion.  If they were to take down a page that exhibits distain for one politician, certainly they would have to do so for all, then Facebook would become censored media rather than social media.

But if we look at this from a standpoint of collective morals, values and beliefs, we can argue quite differently.  To oppose or even disparage a politician on a website is one thing, but to gently suggest a prayer for one’s death, would be considered immoral by our cultural standards.  As a democratic nation, we value freedom of speech, yet most of us believe words that promote hate (or death in this case), should not be given a platform, or at least fall on deaf ears. 

So here we have a situation that hinders on ethics, morals, beliefs and values.  What’s the best course of action in this situation?  I believe that since American political and cultural ideals have become so polarized in the last 20 years, it would seem reasonable to take values and beliefs off the table.  Morality and ethics can often stand alone as a reasonable measurement of appropriate action.

In the case of the “Obama Prayer” Facebook page, we have already determined that ethics would suggest it should not be censored, however morals might lead us toward a different conclusion.   Wikipedia defines morality as “personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society”.  Within our own American society, with the exception of a small fringe group of individuals, it’s fair to say that most people within this country would not hope for the death of the President, even though they may oppose his position in office.  Even the creator of the page himself suggested "We are not really praying for the death of Obama. It is just some humor to show our disapproval of our current president" (CNN, 2010).

As author Daniel Solove points out in his book The Future Of Reputation, “[c]rowds can be impulsive and excitable”.  He describes the term “group polarization effect” as masses of people who crowd behind a particular issue.  As he suggests, “they tend to polarize in their opinions, resulting in more extreme points of view” (2007, p. 101). With this said, given that we can understand how the 1.2 million supporters of this page may not actually wish death upon the President, but rather they feel compelled to communicate their political position in a highly reactive way, it would seem morally reasonable to remove the page, as it reaches beyond the boundaries of appropriate expression of honest opinion, and suggests an immoral statement that is counter to our cultural norms.

What do you think?

Does Facebook user pray for Obama's death? – CNN.com. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/obama.facebook.prayer/index.html

Facebook | DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.facebook.com/pages/DEAR-LORD-THIS-YEAR-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-ACTOR-PATRICK-SWAYZIE-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-ACTRESS-FARAH-FAWCETT-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-SINGER-MICHAEL-JACKSON-I-JUST-WANTED-TO-LET-YOU-KNOW-MY-FAVORITE-PRESIDENT-IS-BARACK-OBAMA-AMEN/111712585523370?ref=ts

Morality – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Solove, D., (2007) The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy On The Internet. Caravan Books.

Posted via email from Caren Magill

Tweet This Post 

via thislife2.com

Posted via web from carenmagill’s posterous

Tweet This Post