Subject: Torture

This social marketing blog is an investigation of tools and messages for positive social change.

Most of my first postings have focused on tools for change, and rarely on the subject matter—the actual messages—that ought to be addressed by our society.

Today’s post represents a progress from theory to content:

Democratic societies are failing to eradicate the use of torture, and are now embracing it.

As a student of human rights and given a career working for international causes, I have come to begrudgingly accept that there are places in the world where despots and military dictators employ torture with impunity. The rights of so many are trounced by the privileged (or armed) few in Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Zimbabwe, Nigeria…

But I am ashamed to see torture—or more euphemistically, advanced interrogation techniques—now have become a necessity in our North American fight to protect our freedom.

Simply read through the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the documented role of the American government in sanctioning torture during the previous administration.

It is chilling.

Even Ronald Reagan, who is regarded by some as being responsible for significant aggression in US foreign policy (the Reagan Doctrine), was ardently against the use of torture for any purpose when, in 1988, he signed the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Although the full text of Reagan's statement is available here, I’ve copied the most relevant statement as follows:

"Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

Let’s compare this noble statement to the words of former VP, Dick Cheney, reported in Politico, Feb 4, 2009 and quoted in the Red Cross report:

"If it hadn't been for what we did—with respect to the...enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees—then we would have been attacked again."

And the most discouraging fact? Virtually everyone knows that torture yields confessions or information that is unreliable at best, and a lie at worst. Even the US military! Note the following quotation, given at a Department of Defense News Briefing with Deputy Assistant Secretary Stimson and Lt. Gen. Kimmons from the Pentagon on September 6, 2006:

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that."

We are living in an oxymoron. The more freedoms we curtail in the name of security and self preservation, the less freedom we have. We are living in the protected, relatively safe confines of our own rules, and now we are breaking our own rules.

Here are five ways that you can help ensure that we don’t become victims of ourselves:

1. Remain informed of human rights issues through one of the following organizations: Amnesty International , the Canadian Centre for International Justice , Human Rights Watch, and Relief Web.

2. If something that is said in the political arena makes you feel uncomfortable, contact your member of parliament for more information.

3. Visit this site to learn more about the positions of your MP on the discussions and votes in parliament. They are speaking for you.

4. Read “around” the current media by searching online for different perspectives. Consider using the Google “Alerts” function to amass news postings on key words and have the links sent directly to your inbox.

5. (Re)visit the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights to remind yourself of the basic human rights, and to reflect on the value of those rights in your life, your career, your community and your family.

Note particularly the following articles:

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Torture is unecessary, ineffective, unjust and cruel.

The use of torture for any reason belittles us all.

To document with a purpose

I am quite sure that every documentary film maker wants to believe that through their work they will change the world. They are the self-proclaimed editors of truth.

One could argue that the “raison d’etre” of a documentary film is to expose a set of facts that will leave the audience with an innate desire to change the status quo; it is not just to document, it is to document with a noble purpose.

Journalists, at least in their idealistic days, wish to do the same. So do communications staff members at non-profit organizations. Perhaps even altruistic politicians.

The skill of external relations is to craft the facts to effectively capture the attention of the audience and have them believe and embrace the importance of the message. But the documentary film has a special place in the marketing tool box, as it draws upon a certain air of authenticity and truth. It is not blatant spin doctoring. It is narrated by a confident, trustworthy voice. It is the antithesis to advertising.

Yet its goal is the same.

Sadly, for most people, documentary films represent the offspring of an elite subculture, reserved for the “repertory cinema” intellectual literati. Documentaries are the non-fiction of the film world, where the often unpleasant facts are put on display to make us THINK. On the other hand, the vast majority of Western citizens live in a culture of escapism where films—or more often movies—offer the sanctuary of brain candy.

It seems we only take notice in extraordinary cases, when documentary films merge with pop culture: An Inconvenient Truth, Supersize Me, The Killing Fields, Bowling for Columbine, When We Were Kings, The Last Waltz, Koyaanisqatsi, to name a few. I suppose that pop culture adds a sort of “everyperson” appeal, and this might explain why narrators of documentaries are chosen from the ranks of celebrities: Al Gore, Michael Palin, Morgan Freeman, and Sir David Attenborough (who narrates 98 titles, by one count!).

And of course, we take notice when documentary meets technology at the IMAX if only for the sheer spectacle of the natural world.

But in truth, the documentary film is an artform that spans from the 15 second news story to the 30 second public service announcement, to the hour long expose, to the multi episodic “period pieces” that recount a chapter of history.

These works of art are very effective tools for social change.

The crafting of these visual essays makes them remarkably accessible to most. Of course, it is challenging to fund and then market documentaries in a crowded media environment, but if done well, the documentary is an edited visual synopsis through which a social problem or story can be described succinctly.

The pages of ink to accomplish the same would defeat all but the most avid reader. Although fine art, dance and other art forms may also have the ability to convey these messages, they are even more rarified and subject to (mis)interpretation by the viewer.

The challenge, then, is to bring to a wider audience the documentaries that are made. There are literally hundreds of thousands of documentary films that fade into obscurity. Even from a list of the most highly acclaimed documentaries, only a handful of titles might be recognized by anyone but a film buff.

However, in today’s world, the documentary has a new life. You can download documentaries from the web, they are available on social networking sites, and streaming videos are commonplace on cause specific sites now that the constraints of dial-up access are all but lifted. (see a forthcoming blog from jonsview describing sites that are effectively helping to promote social causes through film and video)

The real issue, then, is that documentaries must be part of a marketing mix.

By themselves the film may be extraordinary, but its success in fostering social change relies on getting reviewed, promoted, marketed to and viewed by right audiences. Films need to be buttressed by speaking tours, posters, online campaigns, festival screenings, media releases, public viewings, blog “buzz,” email broadcasts and other marketing streams.

Of course, to know which streams to use, we need to test each stream for its relative effectiveness.

In the spirit of supporting integrated marketing efforts for documentaries and testing the value of face-to-face pitches, I invite all who are interested in human rights causes to join me at The Good Pitch at HOTDOCS on May 7th in Toronto.

At this public forum, producers and directors of five human rights documentaries will be pitching their work to an audience of non-profits, foundations, governments representatives and others in order to generate new audiences, new marketing opportunities, and to foster discussion on the cause of human rights.

Documentary films provide the intersection between austere facts and necessary response.

No wonder they offer such potential for change.

The role of personality in messaging

How necessary is it to ensure that social marketing messages are delivered with personality?

As a society, it seems we are attracted to and want to associate with personalities: the rich and famous, the funny, the beautiful, and the flawed diamonds…those who demonstrate human characteristics that have been tempered by extraordinary “presence” or skill.

The question, then, remains: Do we need to feel some sort of attraction to the messenger for us to listen to the message?

The success of peer-to-peer or viral marketing efforts appear to underline the inherent value in messages received from a trusted source, or at least a real person.

Certainly, in fundraising, monthly donors are being acquired on the street all over the world—from Australia to Europe to North America—for well known organizations based upon human interaction with (ironically) paid-to-be-friendly solicitors. The same success has been found in the last several decades with the explosion of “a-thons” where participants in a charitable event (golfing, running, walking, biking, fasting…) solicits the financial support of friends, family, and colleagues.

We also can presume that any of us are more likely to pay more attention to family or friends, and possibly change our behavior(s) based upon those peer or blood relationships.

But what about the danger of the cult of personality? If the message becomes synonymous with the personality who represents it, will the marketing remain effective if the person leaves the cause, does something that is out of keeping with the message, or passes away? What about the future of the David Suzuki Foundation without David Suzuki? Would such a scenario mirror the decline in awareness about USC after Lotta Hitchmanova’s death?

Perhaps the fear of linking charitable purpose with a person has lead the charitable sector intentionally to use sterile and "mission" language in official correspondence, while fundraising appeals are laden with often applied personality. By this, I mean that the copy is written by a professional to sound personal, and then it is “signed” by a significant person—a director, a celebrity, a benefactor—as if it were there own words.

In the quickly expanding world of social media, it is clear that we will all “listen” online to very personal accounts: blogs like this one, tweets, Facebook updates, etc.

Look at the success of the ING banking advertisements with that quirky individual whose name we don’t know who simply states “Save your money.” This message is certainly delivered with personality.

My conclusion, then, is that social causes--even at the risk of fostering a cult of personality--should use more genuine personality in their attempts to get a point across in order to foster behavior change.

In a world of spin doctors, political correctness, and communications theories, maybe we just need to feel that behind the message, there is true conviction, belief, and honesty.

Maybe we need to know that social causes are championed by the true flawed diamonds among us.

The Matching Law

“Stated simply, the Matching Law suggests that an animal's response rate to a scenario will be proportionate to the amount or the duration of positive reinforcement delivered.”

Initial research to support this law was done with pigeons, where two buttons would dispense food at different rates as the birds pecked them. Over time, the pigeons would peck more frequently on the button that dispensed more food. In fact, over several tests, the numerical analysis led to a mathematical relationship between the amount of food dispensed and the relative frequency that the more lucrative button would be pressed.

In 1970, one of the founders of this law, Herrnstein paraphrased the importance of this principle by stating: “choice is nothing but behavior set into the context of other behavior” which has since been extrapolated to mean that behaviors can be predicted…and thereby challenges the concept of free will.

In social marketing, we’d love to be able to predict behaviors.

But whereas this law defines a principle that applies reliably in non-human subjects, humans tend to be an anomaly. We don’t always act in a way that is mathematically based upon any objective measure of increased benefit to ourselves.

Perhaps it is that concept of free will that explains why humans—especially in our society of individual rights—do not respond reliably: we desperately want to apply free will to our every action. As a result, we respond to scenarios irrationally, at least according to the Matching Law.

To explain our inefficient response to the natural trend towards maximizing benefit, perhaps we should turn to Dr. Robert Deutsch. He is a cognitive anthropologist and one of the leading strategists on how the mind creates beliefs and how beliefs can be influenced. He is known for saying, ‘Data or attributes are not the issue. The mind evolved to act, not to think.’"

In effect, humans develop a response to new information by both rational logic, and emotion. This may seem self evident, but it is important to recognize that emotion and intangible factors—not information—is what makes us respond in unpredictable ways.

The field of Behavioral Economics, which debates the reasons for economic choices made by humans, is closely related to this discussion. Just as in social choices, humans often make economic decisions that are not rational. Is a brand name dish soap really more effective at cleaning? Is business class really that different? We develop irrational perceptions that there is a difference based upon intangible factors.

In social choices, we also act irrationally, or perhaps we cloud our thinking by applying extra (often unrelated) information or feelings: Fear? Inertia? Laziness? Lack of trust? Group association? Peer pressure? Does it matter to me right now?

Social marketers must not disregard the science behind the Matching Law, but work to understand the influence of emotion and intangible (irrational) factors that truly guide our audiences’choices and behaviors. In a world where social communications from social causes are replete with facts, we almost need to forget about communicating the FACTS and focus on communicating with emotion.

Biologically speaking, facts should elicit a rational change in behavior, but now we know that facts are wantonly insufficient: emotional response is the key to effective behavior change.

What do donors need to know to support effective change?

This IS NOT a question for charitable fundraisers to answer.

What donors need to know is already within them: what do they want, what do they need, and what questions should they ask of the charity fundraisers?

Let’s say that a woman in her 50’s finds herself with a lifetime of savings, relatively few expenses and humble consumer behaviour. Sadly, she has just lost her husband, and with his passing, she has been awarded proceeds from a significant life insurance policy, and his pension from 30 years of work is now to be transferred to her in the coming years.

After a time of grief and loss, she feels strongly that she would like to share what she considers to be considerable wealth with worthwhile causes.

But where does she begin?

Let’s presume that her philanthropic intent did not just begin; her first thought is to increase her annual contributions to the charities she already knows. The local food bank, her church, she sponsors another child overseas may all receive increases. But is that necessarily the best course of action? What about all the other worthwhile causes?

Does the donor now collect all the direct mail that lands on her doorstep to make an informed decision? This is one way of surveying the charitable landscape in Canada, but there are a few more useful resources. Of course the first stop might be the Canadian Revenue Agency where you can search registered charities by type, name or other criteria. This list is only registered charities. But what of churches, service clubs, universities, individual scholarship options or UN Agencies like the UN Refugee Agency ?

More resources are available on the web, but every donor’s first place to start should be self-reflection. Social Delta offers a good resource of questions to begin this contemplation.

Once the donor has assessed what type of organization they want to support, and through what means, and what they will need in the way of recognition, and other preferences, they can then investigate the organizations that meet their criteria.

Of course, they should consider the capacity of the organization to responsibly accept their money. Malcolm Burrows offers an excellent resource to help donors ask the right questions of the charity.

Charity has become a remarkably passive activity in recent years. Donors respond to charitable requests in the mail, on the phone, on TV, on the internet, in the workplace, or from friends who sit on Boards.

These charitable requests are being informed by the fundraisers, and are laudable approaches, but when donors take an active role in INVESTING in charities, then they are likely going to apply a robust research strategy to ensure that their gift is used in the most responsible, efficient, and effective programs to help others.