The phrase, and the face of Canadian Olympic star Clara Hughes, are all over the media today in a campaign organized by Bell Canada. It's planning to spend $50 million over five years on this program, and today it's giving five cents for every text message and long-distance call by a Bell customer to mental health initiatives.
To promote this, the campaign has pulled out all the stops, and has ... partnered ... with news organizations to spread the word. CTV, which Bell is in the process of purchasing, has devoted just about everything it can - including TSN and MuchMusic - to the campaign, forcing each one to mention it somehow. Hughes has been doing non-stop interviews today. She was on Canada AM. She was on CP24's breakfast show. She was on the Marilyn Denis show. She was interviewed on CFCF. And that's just daytime. There's an entire channel online devoted to this stuff.
And, of course, during the actual commercials, Hughes appears again - over and over - in ads paid for by Bell talking about the campaign.
It doesn't stop with CTV, though. My own newspaper The Gazette has two pages devoted to this subject today, one of which has a giant ad featuring Hughes and the Bell logo. I'm sure it won't be hard to find other examples in other media.
Fighting mental illness is a laudable goal. No one with even a trace of a soul can stand up and say they oppose this campaign. I salute Hughes and Bell for their efforts, and wish the campaign success (
though I'm not quite sure what that would mean - they've already said they're spending $50 million over five years, so are the donations in excess of that, or did they just estimate how much it'll cost them? UPDATE: The money from this event - more than $3 million - was in fact in addition to the $50 million they'd already pledged)
This also isn't the first time that a big, rich company has bought news for a good cause. Newspapers often have pages devoted to issues chosen by advertisers. They have various names for this, referring to them as "partnerships" or "joint ventures". "Directed content" is my favourite term. A step beyond the advertorial, the content is presented as news, it doesn't talk about the advertiser directly, and the advertiser has no say in the content of the news pieces themselves, other than their subject.
Oral B and Listerine sponsor coverage of oral care. Big oil companies sponsor articles about the environment to greenwash their image. Banks and other financial institutions sponsor entire sections on the importance of RRSPs. It is, in the eyes of the publishers and advertisers, a win-win: the news outlet gets much-needed advertising money, the advertiser gets to see its logo all over the place, and the issue gets public exposure.
The only drawback is the crumbling wall between editorial and advertising. The precedent is established that an advertiser can get all sorts of journalistic outlets to contribute to its campaign, provided it's for a good cause (or something that can be interpreted as a good cause), and that big media companies will use the power of convergence to please those advertisers, if given enough money.
Most importantly, it means that issues advertisers want to bring up - whether because they want to appear charitable or because it is in line with their business interests - get more exposure than those nobody wants to spend money on. People who want their causes to get news coverage are better off pleading to large corporations' marketing departments than to journalists. And good luck getting anyone to pay attention to a cause that puts one of those big corporations in a bad light.
To be clear, I have nothing against this cause. Bell is spending a lot of money it could have just as easily given to its shareholders or spent on ads lauding its services. I don't think the good PR that will come from this will bring in more than $50 million in new subscribers. And I hope the campaign is very successful and helps a lot of people.
But I think it sets a bad precedent when a company like Bell can simply dictate to all its divisions, including news, that a certain topic is covered on a certain day. It's hard not to think of that as a slippery slope.
UPDATE: A response from Bell worth reading. And another blog post that goes a bit farther than mine, suggesting this is more of an advertisement for Bell than a campaign for mental health.