PunBB

This is a part of a new advertising campaign on now in Toronto. The advertising agency paid homeless people to take part in it. There are other components to the campaign aside from this one.

The National Post just posted this Q&A with the Executive Creative Director from the agency running the campaign:

---------------------------------

It is an advertising campaign meant to get people talking about the most pressing issues in Toronto. Created by the zig ad agency for CFRB 1010, the campaign features a number of placards and flyers posted around the city. One, tied to a bicycle, asks, “Should cyclists have to obey traffic laws?” Another, pasted to a Queen West utility pole, asks, “Is advertising out of control?” All come with the campaign’s tagline: “We need to talk.” But the most controversial element of the campaign has homeless people holding signs that read, “Should panhandling be illegal?” Exploitation or clever marketing? Reporter Dave McGinn spoke to zig executive creative director Martin Beauvais:

Q: You hired actual homeless people for the campaign, right?
A: Yes, we did, actually. We went out one morning and we asked people if they were ready to cooperate, help us, for a fee obviously. They understood what the question was and they understood what we were trying to achieve.
Q: How many did you hire?
A: We went to Bloor and Yonge, and we went to Dundas Square. I think at the end of the day we had three guys to do this.
Q: How much did you pay them?
A: We didn’t pay them thousands or hundreds. We paid them the kind of money they would make on the street because it would have been wrong to do more than that. We paid them something decent.
Q: Where did the idea for the campaign come from?
A: Obviously we briefed the creative team here, and they came back quite quickly with this tagline, “We need to talk.” Mainly because this is what it is, it’s talk radio, and they talk about subjects that Torontonians care about, that affects the city, that are part of the fabric and social life of the city.
Q: Given that the campaign is to encourage discussion, did you anticipate that it would be controversial?
A: I didn’t anticipate it to be controversial. We hoped for it to be popular. We hoped for Torontonians to care about it and want to talk about it. I don’t know if it’s controversial. It’s not more controversial than the station itself would be, because they do talk about some pretty hot topics. I don’t think that CFRB is about being politically correct.
Q: Torontoist.com took the campaign to task for being exploitive. Do you think it’s exploitive?
A: I don’t think it’s exploitive at all because we’ve asked people if they wanted to do it and they agreed to do it. We presented them with the whole idea of what it was about. I don’t think it’s exploitive at all. It’s not more exploitive than putting a billboard on a building. They did that without being forced.
Q: And what’s been the reaction from CFRB? Are they pleased with the campaign?
A: They’re really pleased with the campaign. They’ve got great feedback about it.
Q: How long will the campaign be running for?
A: It’s going to be out there for a while. There’s going to be a few more things. But expect some other ambient and stunt ideas in the next little while.
Q: Is it going to be really pushing the envelope?
A: We’ll probably try to push the envelope. We will do it within what CFRB is, you know what I mean? We’re not going to go further in terms of what they do. We have to do this within what the brand is about, the CFRB brand. This is the purpose of advertising, to stop people in their tracks and make them think differently about something.




<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://torontoist.com/2008/09/hitting_rock_bottom.php">http://torontoist.com/2008/09/hitting_rock_bottom.php</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/09/09/q-amp-a-a-little-work-for-the-homeless.aspx">http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... eless.aspx</a><!-- m -->

Just a question; is CFRB 1010 known as a left wing, centrist or right wing radio station? I have to wonder if the people getting outraged about hiring homeless people for advertising purposes are getting outraged because the people are getting money from other than a government source or because its a commercial talk radio station doing the paying.

When I read 'bumvertising', the first thought that crossed my mind was the writing on the butt of the pants/shorts that you see so much nowadays.. 'juicy', etc.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:Just a question; is CFRB 1010 known as a left wing, centrist or right wing radio station? I have to wonder if the people getting outraged about hiring homeless people for advertising purposes are getting outraged because the people are getting money from other than a government source or because its a commercial talk radio station doing the paying.

Yes, that's it. Yes. We Canadians get upset when homeless people get money from anyone other than the government. :roll:

To answer your question, I can count the number of left wing and centrist talk radio stations in this country without taking off my boots, my mittens, or indeed, my boxer shorts.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:

VioletlightHeron Wrote:Just a question; is CFRB 1010 known as a left wing, centrist or right wing radio station? I have to wonder if the people getting outraged about hiring homeless people for advertising purposes are getting outraged because the people are getting money from other than a government source or because its a commercial talk radio station doing the paying.

Yes, that's it. Yes. We Canadians get upset when homeless people get money from anyone other than the government. :roll:

To answer your question, I can count the number of left wing and centrist talk radio stations in this country without taking off my boots, my mittens, or indeed, my boxer shorts.

Ahh, ok so for those morally superior people who think an unique and legal way of starting a discussion on homeless issues is exploitation; this is a two-fer for them. cratch: :roll:

VioletlightHeron Wrote:

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:

VioletlightHeron Wrote:Just a question; is CFRB 1010 known as a left wing, centrist or right wing radio station? I have to wonder if the people getting outraged about hiring homeless people for advertising purposes are getting outraged because the people are getting money from other than a government source or because its a commercial talk radio station doing the paying.

Yes, that's it. Yes. We Canadians get upset when homeless people get money from anyone other than the government. :roll:

To answer your question, I can count the number of left wing and centrist talk radio stations in this country without taking off my boots, my mittens, or indeed, my boxer shorts.

Ahh, ok so for those morally superior people who think an unique and legal way of starting a discussion on homeless issues is exploitation; this is a two-fer for them. cratch: :roll:

I don't know what you think you mean by that. Are you assuming that no conservatives see this as an exploitative gimmick? I'll guarantee you that you're wrong on that.

In any case, yes, it is unique and legal. It's a very effective approach for talk radio, too. It's also almost certainly exploitation, in that the wage paid these guys is almost certainly exploitative. The station as much as admits this in the article.

I forgot to mention that, when counting right wing talk radio programs, I like to start by taking off my boxer shorts rather than my mittens; this reminds me of exactly what I'm counting.

I'd like to know where exactly you got the wage figure that you are bandying about like a red flag (Yes, very appropiate symbolism, that) because that article never mentioned the wage that these guys are getting paid. So unless you are on a first name basis with one of the homeless employees or have a linkable source, I'd say you are talking out of your piehole, Skippy.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:I'd like to know where exactly you got the wage figure that you are bandying about like a red flag (Yes, very appropiate symbolism, that) because that article never mentioned the wage that these guys are getting paid.

Uh, yes, it does:

We paid them the kind of money they would make on the street because it would have been wrong to do more than that.

Actually, it was wrong to pay them what they would make on the street. The appropriate rate of pay is determined by the service performed, not whether the person performing it is homeless. The attitude that it would be wrong to pay a homeless person more than what they would make panhandling is inexplicable, and exploitative.

So I'd suggest that I'm not talking out of my piehole, and that you learn to read English.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:

VioletlightHeron Wrote:I'd like to know where exactly you got the wage figure that you are bandying about like a red flag (Yes, very appropiate symbolism, that) because that article never mentioned the wage that these guys are getting paid.

Uh, yes, it does:

We paid them the kind of money they would make on the street because it would have been wrong to do more than that.

Actually, it was wrong to pay them what they would make on the street. The appropriate rate of pay is determined by the service performed, not whether the person performing it is homeless. The attitude that it would be wrong to pay a homeless person more than what they would make panhandling is inexplicable, and exploitative.

So I'd suggest that I'm not talking out of my piehole, and that you learn to read English.

I think if you read between the lines of that statement, it seems clear to me that they didn't want to pay them an amount which would enable them to go buy huge quantities of drugs or booze with their earnings. I'm not going to play blame the homeless guy for his or her situation, but having volunteered at food banks and shelters in the Wisconsin and Buffalo area, a substantial percentage of the homeless are on the street due to drug/alcohol addiction. Some try to break their bad habits, but some choose to live hand to mouth and looking to cage enough money to get themselves high or wasted. I think it would be unethical and irresponsible for anybody to pay a homeless person wages that would be substantial enough to tempt them to go blow it on alcohol or drugs;rather it would be smarter to give them a nominal sum of money (say 20 -50 bucks, depending on how long they were holding the sign) and provided them with clothes, food and water. Exactly what the company paid them, we don't know for sure; it sure would be nice for the torontoist writer who wrote this piece to do some actual investigative journalism instead of ranting about exploitation with a bare minimum of facts.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:I think it would be unethical and irresponsible for anybody to pay a homeless person wages that would be substantial enough to tempt them to go blow it on alcohol or drugs;rather it would be smarter to give them a nominal sum of money (say 20 -50 bucks, depending on how long they were holding the sign) and provided them with clothes, food and water.

And that would be illegal, because you'd be paying less than minimum wage. The employer's responsibility is to pay the wage; what this guy does with it is up to him.

See, I'd take the position that we all have the capacity to reinvent ourselves. But if you refuse to pay a guy anything but a pittance, because he's homeless, you're denying him that chance. Pay the guy fairly, and let him stand or fall on his own. That's what we call freedom.

The kind of paternalistic, we-know-what's-good-for-you attitude you're promoting here denies people their own responsibilities and treats adults like children.

So which one of us is the conservative, and which the social democrat? It's getting hard to tell, VLH.

So therefore you'd be willing to stop government support for homeless shelters and the like, right Skippy? Somehow I doubt that. You can't have it both ways. You can either wax eloquent about the indignity of a corporation (which is really what this is all about, a corporation, evil nasty word that, right?) paying a bum a small amount of money and providing said bum with clothes, food or water in lieu of payment or you can pretend to be a conservative.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:So therefore you'd be willing to stop government support for homeless shelters and the like, right Skippy? Somehow I doubt that. You can't have it both ways. You can either wax eloquent about the indignity of a corporation (which is really what this is all about, a corporation, evil nasty word that, right?) paying a bum a small amount of money and providing said bum with clothes, food or water in lieu of payment or you can pretend to be a conservative.

Now you're not even making sense.

It is entirely possible to both support public funds going to help the homeless, and also believe that it is ultimately up to them to change their circumstances. This is not inconsistent at all. Homelessness is not going away; we can't legislate people out of homelessness either by providing shelters or by banning panhandling.

This has nothing to do with "evil corporations." Apparently, public discourse has now become so debased that people are unable to communicate without resorting to these stupid clichés. Are you unable to see the world except through convenient ideological lenses?

It is exploitative to take advantage of someone's homelessness to pay him less than you would otherwise have to pay to perform a service. This applies whether the payment is coming from a corporation or from an individual. It is also completely legal, but what is legal is not always what is moral -- conservatives, who like to claim morals as their exclusive domain, should understand this. Anyone who does something immoral -- for example, exploiting the homeless -- is open to criticism on those grounds.

I don't disagree with your idea that the government can provide help for homeless shelters and expect that the homeless are responsible for their own choices; what I object to is the automatic assumption by some people that the advertising company is exploiting them by paying them less than the legal minimum wage in cash and other payment in kind. I'm sorry to say that the media and the court of public opinion would blame the advertising company if the homeless people used would go out and get wasted or stoned on the money they earned. If the company did in fact give some other payment in kind, like clothes, water or food, along with the cash, then I would believe they did the smart and responsible thing. If they just paid them 10 bucks and a bottle of water, then yeah that would be exploitation in my mind. But, we don't know all the facts in this case and the torontoist writer was being sloppy and misleading in his presentation of the story.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:But, we don't know all the facts in this case and the torontoist writer was being sloppy and misleading in his presentation of the story.

What, precisely, is sloppy and misleading here? Think you can be precise about that, instead of throwing out generalizations in such a sloppy and misleading way?

The reason we don't know all the facts is that the advertising agency refused to provide them. So now we don't report news stories where the subject of the story says, "no comment" -- because reporting their refusal to comment would be sloppy and misleading? How convenient, for those who want to stay out of the news.

Why do you think the agency refused to provide the information? Quick, everyone, think real hard ... so that, in the absence of hard information, people like you could complain that the writer was speculating. But the writer is not speculating. The report is factual.

You, on the other hand, are speculating, with your references to payment in kind.

So let's talk about sloppy and misleading, shall we?

Poor Skippy. How tiring it must be to interject on every topic with that exasperated condescending attitude. We can only hope that going through life with the intellectual burden of a Salinger Glass child doesn't produce the same results as poor Seymour Glass.

I can only implore of all of us to take a moment in our day to sympathize with the poor shlub: he's forced to attempt to communicate with knuckle dragging simpletons at every turn, constantly declaring how confused, confusing, unclear and moronic everyone else's incorrect opinions are. What a burden...