let's talk about bell let's talk
DESCRIPTION
ABSTRACT — This research paper examines the Bell Let’s Talk campaign through an in-depth exploration of public relations strategies. It analyzes through a functional and critical perspective how Bell is constructing its profile of corporate social responsibility, namely by the strategic implementation of a cause marketing campaign seemingly aiming to raise social awareness, and enhance the understanding of mental illness and its impact on Canadians. Findings are drawn from Bell’s application of PR in reference to the four pillars of the campaign: anti-stigma, enhanced care and access, new research and workplace leadership. Furthermore, our focus of the inquiry is split into theoretical analysis by drawing upon Foucault’s conceptions of “power knowledge” and discourse; our functional analysis is done through the lens of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign as cause marketing, addressing the influence of cause marketing on the cause, on the brand, and overall, whether Bell Let’s Talk was a successful cause marketing campaign. These two critical and functional analyses have allowed us to understand to what extent the PR practices of the campaign are aligned with said framework, and ideally, helped inform our understandings of the role and practices of public relations in our society.TRANSCRIPT
LET’S TALK ABOUT BELL LET’S TALK
Formal Research Paper
COMM 4304 AProfessor: Dr. Gina Grosenick
December 9, 2013Ilana Belfer, Julie Damaren, Ellen Donnelly, and Gary Shi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...................................................................................................................................................1
Background/Rationale.............................................................................................................................1
Functional Framework: Cause Marketing................................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework: Foucault............................................................................................................5
Results and Findings................................................................................................................................8
Functional Analysis................................................................................................................................14
Critical Analysis.....................................................................................................................................20
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................24
References............................................................................................................................................26
1
ABSTRACT
This research paper examines the Bell Let’s Talk campaign through an in-depth
exploration of public relations strategies. It analyzes through a functional and critical
perspective how Bell is constructing its profile of corporate social responsibility, namely by
the strategic implementation of a cause marketing campaign seemingly aiming to raise
social awareness, and enhance the understanding of mental illness and its impact on
Canadians.
Findings are drawn from Bell’s application of PR in reference to the four pillars of
the campaign: anti-stigma, enhanced care and access, new research and workplace
leadership. Furthermore, our focus of the inquiry is split into theoretical analysis by
drawing upon Foucault’s conceptions of “power knowledge” and discourse; our functional
analysis is done through the lens of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign as cause marketing,
addressing the influence of cause marketing on the cause, on the brand, and overall,
whether Bell Let’s Talk was a successful cause marketing campaign. These two critical and
functional analyses have allowed us to understand to what extent the PR practices of the
campaign are aligned with said framework, and ideally, helped inform our understandings
of the role and practices of public relations in our society.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE
Bell, as a Canadian leading telecommunications enterprise, has been engaging itself
in the overall improvement of the society’s well-being through enabling economic growth,
connecting social communities and safeguarding the environment (Bell Canada Corporate
Responsibility Report [BCCRR], 2012). Arguably its most visible investment in this
societal well-being is the annual Bell Let’s Talk campaign. The Bell Let’s Talk campaign is
an unprecedented multi-year charitable program dedicated to the promotion and support of
mental health initiatives across Canada. The largest-ever corporate commitment in Canada
supports a wide range of programs to enhance awareness, understanding and treatment of
mental illness, as well as research and access to care across the country ([BCCRR], 2012).
In 2010, Bell announced that it would be contributing $50 million over five years to mental
health related initiatives through Bell Let’s Talk (Bell Canada, 2013c). The Bell Mental
Health initiative supports an extensive range of programs in Canada, including academic
research on mental health in the workplace, community access and care, and anti-stigma in
the discourse surrounding mental health, as it is often perceived as an invisible but
pervasive health issue with profound lasting consequences ([BCCRR], 2012; Bell Canada,
2013d). This campaign is a perfect example of corporate public relations practice, as it
exemplifies Bell’s attempt at promoting themselves while competing amongst a complex
corporate and political culture for our attention, interest, and actions towards a matter of
public interest which is in this case, represented by public awareness of mental health. It is
fair to say that we live in a “promotional age”, and that it is crucial for us to understand the
relations of power within said promotional culture to understand the impact the actors
within it have on the public with regards to matters of public interest. Through the in-depth
exploration of the PR strategies executed as part of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign, our
interest lies in a critical analysis of how BCE is constructing its profile of corporate social
responsibility through the strategic implementation of a cause marketing campaign
seemingly aiming to raise the social awareness and enhance the understanding of mental
illness and its impact on Canadian life.
The scope of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign is massive, in part due to Bell’s powerful
standing within the Canadian telecommunications landscape. As such, the reach of the
campaign annually brings discourse surrounding mental health to the forefront of public
interest discussion. Although the Canadian public has acknowledged its philanthropic
contribution to the Canadian society in a seemingly positive way, the practice of the
campaign itself is still, in essence, out of an apparent commercial motivation. From a
critical communications perspective, this begs the question of whether or not corporate
philanthropic practice surrounding a social phenomenon in general, benefits any political,
social, and/or cultural interests in our society? Based on this general interest in the purview
of the campaign, our rationale for this research project will be to focus on uncovering the
corporate reasoning behind Bell’s apparent philanthropic practice through a strategic
analysis of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign. We will question whether or not the campaign (as
a means) actually structured or influenced our societal knowledge and perceptions on issues
surrounding mental health, as well as on the Bell corporation itself, and if so, to what end.
Our focus of the inquiry will be split into theoretical analysis by drawing upon
Foucault’s conceptions of “power knowledge” and discourse, and our functional analysis
will be done through the lens of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign as cause marketing. These
two critical and functional analyses will allow us to understand to what extent the PR
practices of the campaign are aligned with said framework, and ideally, will help inform
our understandings of the role and practices of public relations in our society. The questions
that will guide us in our research follow the trend of understanding the balance between
corporate philanthropic activity and bottom line corporate interests, and so we will first ask
what the interests of Bell were in deploying this campaign: how much was truly corporate
philanthropic activity and how much was commercial promotion/ reputation management
of the Bell corporate brand? Furthermore, how did the Bell Let’s Talk campaign structure
itself to influence our societal knowledge, and which societal knowledge (aka surrounding
issues of mental health or BCE itself)? Our guiding research question is an integration of all
of the above: Did the Bell Let’s Talk campaign leverage cause marketing specific public
relations practices by stimulating discourse surrounding mental health, an issue of public
interest, for the primary purpose of improving its brand and ultimately, satisfying its private
corporate interests? We expect to prove this hypothesis to be correct, as well as discover
that whether or not it was intended, the PR practice of cause marketing in the “Bell Let’s
Talk” campaign had a positive impact on the discourse surrounding mental health.
FUNCTIONAL FRAMEWORK: CAUSE MARKETING
In an era of consumerism that covets corporate social responsibility, the
practice of associating a corporate brand with a cause has become increasingly
prevalent. As a subcategory of corporate social responsibility, cause marketing (CM)
can be defined as “the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities
that are characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a
designated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy
organizational and individual objectives’’ (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988 p. 60). This
section will analyze cause marketing as a PR tool through three separate lenses: the
influence of CM on the cause, the influence of CM on the corporate brand, and more
generically, what makes a successful CM campaign.
CAUSE MARKETING AND VALUE FOR THE CAUSE
When conceptualizing a CM relationship, there are two ways in which we can
analyze how it was valuable to the cause: increased fundraising and support, and
increased ability to change individual behaviors and perceptions in a manner
consistent with the goals of the cause (Gourville and Rangan, 2004). Successful CM
campaigns provide tremendous amounts of visibility, credibility, and awareness to a
cause, and by default, often create more support for the specific cause as well.
Likewise, a successful CM campaign will also change consumer behaviors or
perceptions surrounding the cause or the issue. However, it is important to always
consider that this cause promotion is being done via an already existing for-profit
brand: as such, we must ask ourselves how successful CM campaigns are for the
cause in relation to the potential opportunities for successful brand promotion.
CAUSE MARKETING AND BRAND PERCEPTION
It has been historically accepted that providing evidence of good corporate
citizenship can help establish trust and confidence in a brand (Anand, 2002). The
strategic operationalization of cause marketing seeks to form more concrete bonds
with consumers (both current and potential), with employees and investors, and with
the general public by differentiating a specific brand from the rest, seeking ultimately
to culminate in its’ long-term market positioning (Davidson, 1997; Gourville and
Rangan, 2004). Critics of modern capitalism would argue that corporations would not
engage in CM if it did not provide some sort of benefit to the brand or give them some
sort of competitive advantage in the market. The underlying question then, is does
cause marketing increase positive brand perception? A study done by Lafferty and
Goldsmith (2005) found that cause-brand alliances improve overall appraisal of a
brand, and that this “confirms the validity of using this strategic marketing tool [cause
marketing] to enhance brand image” (p. 428). Similarly, Myers and Kwon (2012)
applied McCracken’s meaning transfer as a theoretical framework in attempting to
explain the influence of cause marketing on post-brand attitudes, applying the
presupposition that “if individuals experience two objects simultaneously, the objects
may become associated in the individual’s mind and the meaning of one object can
transfer to the other object” (p. 76). What they found was that where there is a
positive experience of a CM campaign, there will be a transfer of positive experiences
directly to the brand doing the execution, ultimately strengthening brand perceptions.
The significant point then, is that CM campaigns must be strategically executed in
order to maximize effectiveness of the campaign itself and to successfully reinforce
positive brand recognition. The following section will identify strategic methods
employed in cause marketing that stimulate success.
WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL CAUSE MARKETING CAMPAIGN?
The expectation is that successful CM campaigns will achieve two distinct
goals: the first being the improvement of firm performance, the second is supporting a
social cause (Robinson et. al., 2012). Oddly enough, this is also the way consumers
perceive CM campaigns: according to Myers and Kwon (2012), consumers either
perceive corporate motivations in CM as altruistic (with the brand trying to help the
cause), or as profit-motivated (simply to increase profits). They assert that consumers
perceiving corporate CM campaigns as altruistic increases positive attitudes towards
the campaign and the brand, and thus “demonstrates the importance of creating
conditions that persuade consumers to favorably view the alliance for maximizing the
effectiveness of a cause–brand alliance marketing activity in strengthening the brand”
(p. 85). Similarly, “individuals hold more favorable campaign attitudes when
messages [are] positively framed… this effect of framing on attitudes is mediated by
their belief that the firm is acting in a socially responsible manner” (Landreth and
Garretson, 2007 p. 28). This is consistent with research suggesting that social causes
elicit emotional responses in consumers, and that they think more positively about a
brand if it is perceived to be socially responsible (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 2005).
Another way a brand can generate success through a CM campaign is to associate
itself with a cause that has low-familiarity: CM can improve evaluations of both a
brand and a cause when a positive brand takes on a cause that is not familiar, because
the brand becomes the anchor for the unknown cause and facilitates an upward
movement in attitudes and perceptions (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 2005).
All of the above will be considered when analyzing the success of the Bell
Let’s Talk campaign as a cause marketing campaign, a subcomponent of corporate
social responsibility.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: FOUCAULT
DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS
The following section will establish the theoretical framework through which
we will later analyze the Bell Let’s Talk campaign: French philosopher Michel
Foucault’s theories of discourse and power/knowledge. In accordance with Foucault’s
wish that his work act as a “toolbox which others can rummage through to find a tool
which they can use however they wish in their own area” (1974, p. 523-4), Judy
Motion and Shirley Leitch (2009) affirm that Foucault’s tools make for valuable
additions to the public relations tool belt. In their chapter of Public Relations and
Social Theory, they argue that by applying Foucault’s theories to the field of PR, one
can come to understand the practice of PR as a discourse technology, power effect,
and knowledge system (p. 92).
In a Foucauldian context, discourses can be defined as “systems of thoughts
composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that
systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak” (Lessa,
2006, p. 285), as well as how the subjects understand those worlds. These thought
systems are constituted and governed by analyzable rules (Foucault, 1972, p. 211) that
determine who can speak, what can be said, and the interests, stakes and institutions
that get represented. They are also subject to transformation (Motion and Leitch,
2009, p. 88). Discourse, then, is basically a non-static social boundary, or framework,
through which social actors (otherwise known as humans) think, communicate, and
organize society, as well as their lives within it.
Foucault was concerned with determining the factors that set those social
boundaries. Using problematization, a technique that poses questions to challenge the
uncontested assumptions and commonplace “modes of thought and practices”
(Foucault, 1988, p.154), his research method involved mapping out the production
and transformation of discourses to find the points from which they stemmed or
changed. Power and knowledge were at the centre of these investigations because
Foucault saw power as “underly[ing] all aspects of human existence” (Motion and
Leitch, 2009, p. 87).
For Foucault (1998), “power is everywhere” (p. 63). As he puts is, “Power is
not something that is acquired, seized, or shared, something that one holds on to or
allows to slip away; power is exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of
nonegalitarian and mobile relations." (1978, p. 94). In other words, power is not an
independent entity that one can possess or acquire. Rather it is an action, and is the
name for a set of dynamic and unequal relations. Power, therefore, is not top-down
from one, central, all-powerful individual. It can be employed at all levels and forms.
At the same time, one has more power than another at any given moment and
therefore power is hierarchized in that sense, making it “a more or less organized,
hierarchical, co-coordinated cluster of relations” (Gordon, 1980, p.198). Foucault
used the term “capillary” to describe power (Gordon, 1980, p. 39). Metaphorically
speaking, those capillaries filled with power would be distributed throughout the
social fabric for use, with some accessing them more easily than others. As an
analogy, there are capillaries filled with blood that run through our bodies, but our
veins only rise up when we incite them to. It is important to note that for Foucault,
“power is not just a negative, coercive or repressive thing that forces us to do things
against our wishes. It can also be a necessary, productive and positive force in
society,” (Gaventa, 2003, p. 2).
Foremost, however, Foucault saw power as inseparable from knowledge. As
Motion and Leitch (2009) explain it, he saw knowledge as a creator and creation of
power and power as a creator and creation of knowledge (p. 87). For that reason, he
coined the term power/knowledge. Another way to view it is that those who hold
power are the ones who can lead discourse in their preferred direction therefore
shaping knowledge and truth. Since they decide what knowledge is, they can then
claim to be the most knowledgeable (Fillingham, 1993). For example, the medical
systems we’ve built in society determines that people with certain knowledge get
classified as doctors, which puts those people in the position where they can exercise
power upon others and shape medical or health-related discourses. We accept what
they say as truth, and they are then the most knowledgeable on those truths, which
reinforces their power.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISCOURSE AND POWER/KNOWLEDGE
To sum up the relationship between power/knowledge and discourse,
discourse is the vehicle or medium through which power/knowledge circulates. If
power/knowledge is the capillaries, then discourse is the body through which they
flow.
When discourses are so pervasive they are perceived as common sense, that’s
referred to as hegemony. On a macro level, hegemony is formed by societal
configurations of power/knowledge relationships. On a micro level, power/knowledge
relations operate through the production and acceptance of particular “truths” (Motion
and Letich, 2009, p. 88). Each society, on a macro-level, according to Foucault
(1991), has its own “regimes of truth,” otherwise known as hegemonic discourses (p.
207). On a micro-level, “games of truth” is the subjectification of those truths and
how individuals come to see them as applying to themselves (Motion and Leitch,
2009, p. 88).
RELATION TO PR
PR is a discursive process, meaning it seeks to “influence the concepts and
systems of thought that shape how we think about and understand the world” (Motion
and Leitch, 2009, p. 93).
PR practitioners are central discourse actors using PR as a discursive strategy
to influence and shape discourses. If discourse is the vehicle for power/knowledge,
discourse strategies, or operations of power, are essentially “the means by which the
relations of power/knowledge are created, maintained, resisted and transformed”
(Motion and Leitch, 2009, p. 88). This deliberate attempt to “engineer sociocultural
change” is what Norman Fairclough (1992) called “the technologization of discourse”
(p. 8).
It is important to note that discourses are created and transformed by the
“aggregation of actions and statements of many individuals and many organizations”
(Hardy, 1998, p. 1) within that web, or net, of power relations over time, and
individuals who are not PR practitioners are also part of that make-up.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
As previously outlined, to date the Bell Let’s Talk campaign (promoting
positive conversation around mental health across Canada, increasing support for
community care, research and workplace best practices) has committed
$62,043,289.30 (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate Responsibility Report, p.2). They
incorporated multiple public relations strategies into their campaign; the following
section will analyze the results derived from these specific tactics to better determine
the connections to cause marketing and corporate brand management. The results will
focus on the 2012-2013 year of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign timeline.
The company’s overall strategy can be broken down into what they refer to as
their four pillars: anti-stigma, enhanced care and access, new research and workplace
leadership (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate Responsibility Report, p.18). Each pillar has
employed certain public relations strategies, and each has produced separate results,
all of which will be outlined below.
PR STRATEGY 1: USE OF CELEBRITY SPOKESPERSON (CLARA HUGHES) TO PROMOTE
“NATIONAL CONVERSATION” ON BELL LET’S TALK DAY. (PILLAR 1: ANTI-STIGMA)
To begin, Bell highlighted anti-stigma as a main pillar with the goal of joining
Canadians coast to coast in a national conversation about mental illness. To
accomplish this goal, they employed the public relations tactic of using a celebrity
spokesperson: Clara Hughes. Clara acted as a national ambassador and was
accompanied by other spokespeople including Michel Mpambara, Stefie Shock, and
Seamus O’Regan, to invite people in communities across Canada to join in on the
mental health discussion (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate Responsibility Report, p.19).
As a result, the anti-stigma platform of driving positive, long-term change in
the way Canadians perceive mental illness saw Clara Hughes lead millions in talking
about mental illness to end the stigma (Bell Canada, 2013a). More numerically,
96,266,266 calls and texts by Bell and Bell Aliant customers, tweets using
#BellLetsTalk, and Facebook shares of the Bell Let’s Talk Day image were generated
by Canadians on the Bell Let's Talk Day; this allotted to an additional $4,813,313.30
for mental health programs (Bell Canada, 2013a). This offered a 23% increase over
last year’s Bell Let’s Talk Day total (Bell Canada, 2013a).
What’s more, the campaign was largely popular on Twitter in the 2013
campaign. Twitter generated 1,562,485 tweets and retweets; Bell Let’s Talk along
with #BellLetsTalk were top trends in both Canada and the United States (Bell
Canada, 2013a). It garnered attention from other public Canadian figures such as
Governor General David Johnston, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, federal members
of Parliament, provincial premiers and ministers, the Canadian Armed Forces, sports
teams and players, and Canadian entertainers including Justin Bieber and William
Shatner (Bell Canada, 2013a). Justin Bieber’s tweet was re-tweeted over 34 million
times alone (J. Michelis, personal communication, November 14, 2013).
In our interview with Bell Media Relations’ Jacqueline Michelis, Clara was
outlined as “not just the face you see in the pictures, she’s actually out there doing a
lot of stuff and talking to a lot of people and getting the conversation going, which is
what this is all about – getting people talking.” When we asked more specifically if
Bell has analyzed the success of her involvement, in terms of a marketing strategy
success for the campaign, Jacqueline summed it up with awareness growth, amount of
money contributed, and the results issued on February 13th:
“I think you just need to take a look at the results year over year, from going
into our fourth one in January… it has gone from what started as a $50 million
campaign where we’re already at over $62 million in over three years. So awareness
growth, amount of money, and the results issued on February 13th; over 96 million
calls, texts, tweets, and Facebook shares on Bell Let’s Talk day. A lot of that is the
onus that’s been created by her. So when you ask about analyzing, we look at the
results of the whole campaign but she’s the spokesperson and she’s the face of the
campaign.”
It is important to note that Bell measures awareness by looking at the amount
of calls, texts, tweets, and Facebook shares that are generated, and by analyzing their
media coverage; for instance every interview, story, print story, and broadcast
interview is collected and analyzed each campaign to determine how the awareness
has grown, and in what part of the country it has grown in. Bell has a substantial
platform to leverage and disseminate the campaign, therefore they also acknowledge
how much media is being generated by Bell properties as well as non-Bell media;
however, “a lot of it is Bell Media, for sure” (J. Michelis, personal communication,
November 14, 2013). Jacqueline provided us with un-publicized figures from their
media analysis from between December 1, 2012 and February 18, 2013. She disclosed
that Bell reached a total audience of 833 million from all sources including print,
broadcast, and online; they generated $8.5 million in ad value from their PR campaign
($4.5 million on Bell Let’s Talk Day); what’s more, 92% of media coverage was
broadcast (TV and radio), and their top ten broadcast outlets came from CTV stations
(which are owned by Bell) (J. Michelis, personal communication, November 15,
2013).
Referencing back to Clara’s involvement, she, accompanied by Bell Let’s
Talk, announced a new initiative in early 2013 to continue Canadians engaging in
conversation about mental health: Clara’s Big Ride for Bell Let’s Talk is described as
an epic journey around the country by bike, scheduled to begin in March of 2014 and
will span over 100 days, covering 12,000 km; Clara will visit hundreds of
communities to engage and connect Canadians to build awareness, fight the stigma
and drive fundraising for local mental health programs (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate
Responsibility Report, p.19). In our interview with Jacqueline, she confirmed that it
was strategically scheduled to conclude on Canada Day with Clara finishing her ride
in Ottawa (personal communication, November 14, 2013). By designing the ride this
way, it not only aligns the Bell Let’s Talk campaign, but the Bell brand with the
Canadian brand and patriotism associated with Canada Day. Furthermore, there has
been much debate over the wireless spectrum bid with Verizon trying to enter the
Canadian market. This strategic finale offers the notion of identifying Bell as
‘Canada’s Communications Company.’
PR STRATEGY 2: INITIATING MENTAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIP WITH GRASSROOTS
AGENCIES, LOCAL HOSPITALS, AND TREATMENT FACILITIES. (PILLAR 2: CARE AND
ACCESS)
Care and access were highlighted as the second pillar with aspirations of
increasing Canadians’ access to mental health care. Bell’s public relations strategy for
adhering to this pillar included initiating mental health partnerships with grassroots
agencies, local hospitals, and treatment facilities.
Prior to the 2013 Bell Let’s Talk campaign Bell announced three new mental
health partnerships: (1) La Fondation du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
(CHUQ), (2) Concordia University's Department of Psychology, and (3) Brain
Canada (Bell Canada, 2013a). As such, Bell contributed $500,000 to CHUQ to
upgrade its acute psychiatric care unit, and another $500,000 to Concordia
University's Department of Psychology to subsidize therapy and assessment at the
university's Applied Psychology Centre and Centre for Clinical Research in Health
(Bell Canada, 2013a). Brain Canada received a $500,000 gift from Bell to help fund
the $1 million Bell Mental Health Research Training Awards supporting talented
young Canadian mental health researchers (Bell Canada, 2013a).
Other contributions were made to the Royal Ottawa Hospital, the Douglas
Mental Health University Institute, Hôpital Louis-H Lafontaine, the Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Queen's University, the University of British
Columbia and other leading institutions and organizations (Bell Canada, 2013a).
More specific to their grassroots engagement, Bell Let’s Talk contributed to
60 mental health organizations in communities across the country in 2012 distributing
grants ranging from $5,000 to $50,000; in 2013, Bell announced its extension of
supporting grassroots agencies with the 2013 Bell Let’s Talk Community Fund, a $1
million annual fund that supports grassroots mental health organizations throughout
Canada (Bell Canada, 2013a).
Jacqueline concluded that the Bell Let’s Talk $1 million Community Fund “is
an amazing part of the program where we get tons of visibility in smaller communities
through these partnerships… [with] coverage at the local level… Giving us a good
balance between supporting big organizations in the large cities and supporting what’s
going on in the smaller communities.” Bell was able to leverage their donations in the
distribution of these funds, further raising awareness and maintaining top-of-mind
with the public. These grants will result in an event in the community, announcements
and presentations that are all relatively easy to organize and garner coverage
throughout the year. This has resulted in a larger reach and scope for the Bell brand,
and can perhaps even be considered as taking place on a more local and personal
level.
PR STRATEGY 3: LEADING BY EXAMPLE, BELL IS COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
CORPORATE CANADA AND THE HEALTH CARE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP AND
ADOPT MENTAL HEALTH BEST PRACTICES IN THE WORKPLACE. (PILLAR 3:
WORKPLACE BEST PRACTICE)
Bell has undoubtedly led by example in accomplishing the third pillar:
workplace best practice. The company has strategically positioned itself as committed
to working with corporate Canada and the health care community; their aim always
being to develop and adopt mental health best practices in the workplace. These are
all public relations strategies that Bell has employed to succeed at workplace best
practice.
Resulting from the latter commitments, Bell has implemented programs
throughout the three years of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign. The programs have been
designed to help foster a mentally healthy work environment, build awareness about
the stigma of mental illness and equip team leaders with proper tools and resources to
support employees (Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report, 2012). As a result,
Bell has been presented with a Canada Award for Excellence for outstanding
performance in Mental Health at Work; suggestively perceptual for brand image. Bell
was presented with the Silver Award for Mental Health at Work, described by Bell as
“the highest ever awarded by Excellence Canada,” (Bell Press Release, 28 Oct 2013)
In a press release about the company’s acceptance of the award, Mary Deacon,
Chair of Bell Let’s Talk said, “Bell is honoured by this national recognition of our
efforts to improve mental health at work… The workplace plays an essential role in
maintaining positive mental health. As part of our Bell Let's Talk commitment, Bell is
partnering with corporate Canada to develop workplace mental health best practices
and implementing them across our organization” (Bell Canada, 2013b).
In other strategic moves, Bell supported the development of a national
standard for mental health in the workplace (Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility
Report, 2012). This further fuses the company image with mental health
improvements and acting on best practices. This development is being integrated into
its existing health and safety framework as a long-term commitment for psychological
health and safety in the workplace.
Overall the public relations strategies employed for this pillar have
strengthened public awareness and brand image for Bell. Making the public aware
that all Bell senior leaders and managers are taking part in new training and
information programs further syndicates the company and workplace best practices
(Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report, 2012). Leading by example, and
fostering an overall culture of mental health support across the Canadian business
landscape leads to corporate social entrepreneurialism; however, it does not hinder
corporate brand reputation management.
They internally engage their own employees in positive mental health
practices. As such they won the Excellence award for their actions and efforts in
improving workforce standards. In regards to public relations, this ultimately benefits
their brand management because good public relations within an organization projects
positive overall image and brand support.
PR STRATEGY 4: ADEQUATE FUNDING INTO THE GROUND-BREAKING RESEARCH
(PILLAR 4: RESEARCH)
Lastly, Bell has publicized that it is supporting research for understanding and
treating mental health. Supporting the fourth pillar, Bell has strategically chosen
where to donate funding for groundbreaking research. They strive to select what is
described as “best-in-class research programs at hospitals, universities and other
institutions across Canada; in addition to supporting the best researchers with funding
of new chairs, fellowships and project grants” (Supporting best in class, 2013).
Some of the public relations results include Bell’s donation of $1 million to
the University of British Columbia to establish the Bell Youth Mental Health Impact
Project; this will provide UBC researchers with funds to conduct mental health
outreach to youth in need across BC (Support best in class, 2013). What’s more, Bell
is donating $2 million to the Douglas Mental Health University Institute in Montréal
for research activities associated with the Douglas-Bell Canadian Brain Bank, a
world-class brain centre unique in Canada. Notably, both research funds have been
titled to include ‘Bell’ making it conscious that Bell has been involved and made the
research possible.
When asked how Bell ensures these endeavors are tied to Bell Jacqueline said,
“We certainly try to get the Bell name into the actually official name of whatever the
project is to make sure that’s captured. You do your best to make sure the name and
Bell brand is highlighted in the name of the project,” (personal communication,
November 14, 2013).
Lastly, Bell Canada and Queen's University announced the establishment of a
new $1 million research initiative to help fight the stigma associated with mental
illness; linking the first and fourth pillars through the means of a public relations
strategy (Supporting best in class, 2013). The official name is the Bell Canada Mental
Health and Anti-Stigma Research Chair.
As a result, all of the research funding is publicly tied to Bell and the public is
made aware of that through name recognition in titles or news coverage, in which it is
clearly noted that the research has been made possible by Bell. Again, it is socially
stimulating but comes back to supporting corporate brand management.
Lastly, although Bell publicized that they’ve committed $62 million, they’re
not transparent in their corporate annual report or their campaign data on the total
amount raised, as well as total spending for the campaign. Because it’s a cause
marketing campaign, it’s important to know how much they’re committing, but
arguably it’s strategic in keeping the marketing costs undisclosed and using the words
“committed” rather than “amount raised” because it would take away from the social
good tied to the campaign.
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
Through the following functional analysis, we seek to analyze the use of cause
marketing as a strategic PR tool to determine how much influence the Bell Let’s Talk
campaign had on the cause, on the corporate brand, and overall, what makes a
successful cause marketing campaign.
INFLUENCE OF CAUSE MARKETING ON THE CAUSE
As has been previously identified in the functional framework, there are
generally two ways to determine the influences of cause marketing on the cause: the
first being to analyze if there is any increased fundraising and support for the cause,
and the second being to analyze if there is any change in individual behaviors and
perceptions in a manner consistent with the goals of the cause (the latter being
determined by augmented visibility and awareness to a cause as well as the
establishment of credibility to the campaign.)
Every year on Bell Let’s Talk day, Bell donates 5 cents to various mental
health initiatives for every text message sent and long distance call placed on the Bell
network, for every tweet using the official campaign hashtag (#BellLetsTalk), as well
as for every Facebook share of the Bell Let’s Talk image (BCCRR, 2010). In its first
year (2011), the Bell Let’s Talk campaign raised $3.3 million of additional funding to
complement the $50 million Bell had already committed to its’ five-year mental
health initiative (BCCRR, 2010). On the second annual Bell Let’s Talk day,
Canadians participated with 78,520,284 texts, long-distance calls and retweets - a
19% increase over the first Bell Let’s Talk day in 2011.With Bell donating 5 cents for
each method of participation, the 2012 campaign raised $3.9 million, a 0.6 million
increase in donations and funds to the cause (BCCRR, 2011). This past year (2013)
Canadians participated more than 96 million times, resulting in an additional $4.8 million
added to the Bell Let’s Talk commitment (BCCR, 2012). Participation thus increased
another 22%, while funding increased by over 1 million dollars from 2012. The total
amount committed now stands at $62 million ($62,043,289.30), which is $12 million more
than Bell’s original commitment (BCCRR, 2012).
All of the above statistics not only demonstrate an annual increase in donation and
engagement rates for the Bell Let’s Talk campaign, but also perhaps most significantly,
illustrates that the cause (Mental Health initiatives in Canada) is receiving increased
fundraising and support.
In terms of change in behaviors and attitudes consistent with the goals of
cause, the background section delineated that the Bell Let’s Talk campaign aims to
eliminate discrimination and stereotype surrounding mental illness through
partnerships with various mental health initiatives nationwide, including the Canadian
Mental Health Association (CMHA). The CMHA annually launches multiple mental
health recovery campaigns striving to eliminate stigma and reduce discrimination
experienced by people with mental illness (CMHA, 2013). These campaigns, in part
funded by Bell, encourage people to “start the conversation” about mental health with
friends, family and co-workers, which significantly helps break down the stigma
associated with mental health, as well as allay the prejudice and discrimination towards
those people who are suffering from it (CMHA, 2013).
By partnering with and funding various initiatives such as the CMHA
recovery program, it is fair to say that Bell Let’s Talk initiative also contributes to
increasing change in individual behaviors and perceptions in a manner consistent with
the goals of the cause, as these partnerships facilitate the elimination of stereotypes
surrounding mental illness and raising awareness of mental health at a micro-level
(within the communities the initiatives reside). Although the overarching Bell Let’s
Talk campaign indeed changes behaviors on a macro-scale (stimulating the discussion
about mental health), arguably the pervasiveness of local and targeted initiatives have
more of a direct impact on behavior and attitude change consistent with the goals of
the cause.
The visibility and awareness of the cause catalyzed by Bell Let’ Talk
campaign is undeniable: according to Bell media relations spokesperson Jacqueline
Michelis (as was mentioned earlier), the total audience reach of the Bell Let’s Talk
campaign is 833 million (from all sources, including print, broadcast and online). 92%
of media coverage was broadcast either on TV or radio. Interestingly (and arguably
predictably) enough, the top ten broadcast outlets were CTV stations (all owned by
Bell Media). The official campaign hashtag #BellLetsTalk was the top trending topic
in Canada and US on Bell Let’s Talk day in 2012. (J. Michelis, personal
communication: November 14, 2013). As illustrated by this short summary of the
results section, the reach and scope of this campaign was massive, and by default, the
cause gained much visibility and awareness.
With regards to the credibility of the campaign, we can validly assert that Bell
is considered a reputable and credible brand, given its long-standing history in the
Canadian telecommunications market (Winseck, 2012). With regards to the campaign
however, Bell employed various PR strategies to enhance its’ credibility: as
mentioned, the use of a pure, whole, natural and nationalistic spokesperson in Clara
Hughes, the announcement of its’ commitment amounts and partnerships with leading
research and medical institutions, among others. The campaign also gained massive
amounts of credibility by being honored with a Canada Award for Excellence in
recognition of its Workplace Mental Health program. The Silver Award for Mental
Health at Work is the highest ever awarded by Excellence Canada following a
rigorous evaluation process to finally recognize Bell’s exemplary commitment to
workplace mental health (Bell Canada, 2013e). As the campaign has only recently
received this award, it will be interesting to see how it is integrated into future PR
efforts of the campaign.
INFLUENCE OF CAUSE MARKETING ON THE BRAND
Moving to the second facet of the cause marketing functional framework,
there are generally three crucial factors determining the influence the cause marketing
campaign might have on brand perception: firstly, successful brand promotion is
determined by whether or not the corporation can provide evidence of good corporate
citizenship to establish (or further) trust and confidence in its’ brand. Bell’s annual
Corporate Social Responsibility Reports from 2010-2012 emphasize that Bell has
maintained a good historical record of corporate citizenship by fulfilling their social
commitments to Canadian society through various efforts, ranging from their past
campaigns supporting Northern communities, to their partnership with “Kid’s Help
Phone”, as well as their role as sponsor of the “Canadian Centre for Child Protection”
(BCCRR, 2010-2012). Bell’s history of responsible community involvement has
helped to build consumer trust and confidence in it’s brand, and its’ most recent
efforts through the Bell Let’s Talk campaign are no exception. Bell’s annual release
of their Commitment amount to mental health initiatives is an exemplification of its
good corporate citizenship to consumers. It is important to note however, that many
other corporations engage in corporate social responsibility, so we must ask ourselves
what was different about the Bell Let’s Talk campaign that could have possibly aided
in improving its brand perception.
This brings us to the second crucial factor that can add significant positive
value to the perception of the corporate brand: whether or not the strategic execution
of the cause-marketing campaign gains competitive market advantage in
differentiating the corporate brand from competitors. We know from the Bell annual
Corporate Social Responsibility Reports that the Bell Let’s Talk mental health initiative
is characterized by some unique features, including “an unprecedented multi-year charitable
program”, “the largest-ever corporate commitment in Canada”, and “supporting an
extensively wide range of programs to enhance awareness, understanding and treatment of
mental illness as well as research and access to care across the country” (BCCRR, 2010-
2012). Yes this is “new” and “unprecedented”, but how is that conveyed to
consumers? We can exemplify the differentiation by comparing Bell and Rogers’
Corporate Social Responsibility Reports in 2012: in terms of investing in community,
Rogers’ contribution to Canadian charities and non-profit organization is characterized by a
one-time in total $16 million cash donation and $53 million individual in-kind donations.
(Rogers Corporate Social Responsibility Report [RCSRR], 2012). This is a total of $69
million annually to various charitable institutions. From a financial standpoint, it would
seem as though Rogers is giving more to the community. In Rogers Corporate Social
Responsibility Report however, there is no mention of any strategic public relations efforts
to accompany their financial contributions. In comparison, Bell’s calculated corporate
charitable is strategically designed with multi-faceted PR and communication plans. This
gives more competitive advantage to Bell in distinguish its brand image from others
because the Bell Let’s Talk campaign is operating on a much larger scale across a longer
time frame which makes the campaign itself more difficult to be copied or emulated by
other competitors. It is also highly visible to consumers, whereas Rogers’ activities mostly
happen behind the scenes.
The third key factor involved in improving the appraisal of a brand through
cause marketing refers back to the idea of “meaning transfer”, which was previously
defined in the functional framework section. Its implications are that if consumers
have positively experienced the Bell Let’s Talk cause marketing campaign, there will
be a transfer of these positive experiences directly to the brand doing the execution
(Bell), ultimately strengthening brand perceptions. Our media analysis of multiple
interviews both during and after the campaign illustrated how Bell has become
inextricably linked with the “cause” of mental illness. For example: Ken Wong, a
marketing professor at the Queen’s School of Business in Kingston has said that if
you mention mental health issues for the average Canadian, Bell would come to their
mind sooner or later because “they simply had the wisdom to go big, and they are all
over this, it would be very hard for someone else to stake a claim on mental health”
(Powell, 2013, para.7). The campaign has helped distinguish Bell as a company that cares
when competing for customers in a telecommunications sector with little players and very
little differentiations. “The customer still has to make a choice and if they have no
functional basis on which to make that choice and if prices are more or less equivalent, they
give the business to a friend.” (Powell, 2013, para. 29). And Bell all in all, could be that
“friend”, as it has aligned customers’ personal experiences of the Bell Let’s Talk mental
health initiatives with a positive recognition of Bell as a commercial brand in hopes to sell
its telecommunication commodities.
WAS BELL LET’S TALK A SUCCESSFUL CAUSE MARKETING CAMPAIGN?
Finally, let us now analyze the Bell Let’s Talk campaign through the third
facet of the cause marketing functional framework: overall, what makes a successful
cause marketing campaign? First there is an improvement of firm performance. Table
1 illustrates Bell Canada’s revenue and number of subscribers since 2008. It is
important to keep in mind that the Bell Let’s Talk campaign started in 2010.
Table 1.
Year Revenue (in billions)Total Growth Services
(millions of subscribers)
2008 17.7 11.3
2009 17.7 11.8
2010 18.1 12.4
2011 19.5 12.7
2012 19.8 13.1
Source: BCE Corporate Annual Reports, 2008-2012
Arguably, the above table could be used as evidence to Bell’s increased firm
performance: the years prior to the Bell Let’s Talk campaign saw a stagnation in
revenue, and a minor increase in number of subscribers. However in the campaign’s
first year, both revenue and subscriber numbers increased fairly significantly, and
have been on the rise ever since. Although it is impetuous to argue that there is a
direct causal relationship between campaign and increased firm performance, it would
be tenable to assert that the Bell Let’s Talk campaign was definitely a factor in the
corporation’s overarching inflation, as we have outlined how it increased firm
visibility and brand perceptions which ultimately help the bottom-line. The
constraints of this paper do not allow for it, but a thorough financial breakdown of
revenue by sector, spikes in timing, types of services bought, comprehensive financial
and marketing data from the campaign etc. would indubitably shed light on how much
of an influence the Bell Let’s Talk campaign had on Bell’s overall firm performance.
Secondly, with regards to supporting a social cause, the evidence is irrefutable.
Research has proven that mental health is a very protuberant societal issue that has
been remarkably under recognized and under supported. The wide success of the Bell
Let’s Talk campaign cannot be denied as the epitome of “supporting a social cause”,
however this begs the question of whether or not this support was altruistic or
corporately motivated. As the functional analyses of cause marketing as a calculated
PR tactic has already asserted, cause marketing is a profit driven strategy. The success
of the CM campaign however, is determined by whether or not it is perceived as
altruistic. Although the Bell Let’s Talk campaign avidly publicizes its “commitment”
amounts (to various research programs, institutions, etc.), which can be seen as
altruistic in and of itself, that is not enough to elicit the emotional response required
for consumers to believe they are engaging in the campaign activities for the right
reasons. As mentioned above, Bell’s strategic use of Clara Hughes as a spokesperson
for the campaign not only aided in establishing trust and confidence, but was also an
effective method of eliciting an emotional response from consumers and thus
solidifying beliefs that Bell’s campaign is altruistic: as an Olympic athlete, Clara as a
symbol already evokes strong emotions of national pride and unity. Having her tell
her personal stories, and believing in Bell’s ability to improve conditions for
Canadians just like her compels Canadians to believe in the benevolent nature of the
campaign. Finally, as mentioned, cause-marketing campaigns can increase their
potential for success by associating with an unfamiliar cause. In 2006, there was a
Senate Standing Committee on “Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental
Illness and Addiction Services in Canada.” It was one of the first reports on mental
health, mental illness, and addiction in Canada, and recognized mental health as being
an issue of growing prominence and concern in Canadian society (The Senate, 2006).
The report was a federal recognition of mental illness as a stigmatized issue, and one
that “hits Canada hard in the pocketbook. We lose close to $33 billion in industrial
production each year due to mental illness.” (Quirion, 2006). The Mental Health
Committee of Canada (MHCC) was formed as a result of this report, with the goal of
undertaking a major national campaign to reduce and combat stigma, with the
foundational understanding that “only by making it completely acceptable to discuss
issues relating to mental illness in public can we ever hope to fully eradicate the
scourge of stigma” (Kirby, 2008). It is important to note here that many of the
initiatives of the MHCC have been funded and sponsored through the Bell Let’s Talk
campaign, and that although the MHCC may play a role in combating the stigma
surrounding mental health, arguably its’ efforts have not had the same impact or
overall magnitude as the Bell Let’s Talk cause marketing efforts have. Although the
issue was federally recognized in 2006, mental health awareness stayed out of the
corporate social responsibility realm in Canada until the Bell Let’s Talk campaign
began in 2010. As mentioned in the earlier functional framework, CM can improve
evaluations of both a brand and a cause when a positive brand takes on a cause that is
not familiar, because the brand becomes the anchor for the unknown cause and
facilitates and upward movement in attitudes and perceptions. Because this was
initially the task of a federal committee, it is important to ask ourselves the following:
given that Bell funds many of the MHCC’s initiatives, can we argue that they are
providing the federal organization with the leverage it needs to truly be heard
(finances, reach of scope, etc.)? This leads into the critical theoretical perspectives on
discourse, as it raises an important question: do we need PR efforts by large, powerful
corporations to initiate the discourses society needs to move forward? The following
section will analyze the Bell Let’s Talk through a Foucauldian lens.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The following section will critically analyze the Bell Let’s Talk campaign
using the theoretical framework of Michel Foucault, as outlined in the critical
perspective section. In our functional analysis, we determined that the Bell Let’s Talk
campaign was likely a factor that contributed to improving Bell’s bottom line.
However, when we analyze the campaign critically, through a Foucauldian lens, we
shift our focus from seeing PR as within the “discourse domain of business where it is
understood as a commercial practice” to a more political discourse domain where it is
understood as a “power effect that produces and circulates certain kinds of truth”
(Motion and Leitch, 2009, p. 99).
POSITION WITHIN POWER/KNOWLEDGE AND DISCOURSE
Power relations, as discussed earlier, are everywhere. Within those relations,
however there is a hierarchy. Within the discourses of our capitalist society, Bell, as a
big and wealthy corporation, is on the higher end of that hierarchy, and is in the
position to exercise power. It is one of Canada’s “big three” telecommunications
companies, which together make up 90% of the nation’s mobile market. In addition to
dominating the cell phone sector, Bell provides services in two other major areas
Canadians use to send and receive information: television and Internet. It is also part
of the conglomerate that owns Bell Media, which in itself operates several media
outlets. As such, it has thousands of “likes” on its Facebook page, and thousands of
Twitter followers. This means it can easily reach a large amount of Canadians (more
so than the average Canadian) in a short amount of time, and that Canadians look to
Bell and rely on Bell for important services and information.
In an interview with the journal History of the Present, Foucault explains, “In
most societies, organizations are created to freeze the relations of power, hold those
relations in a state of asymmetry, so that a certain number of persons get an
advantage, socially, economically, politically, institutionally, etc.” (Bess, 1988, p. 1).
Bell can be considered one of those organizations.
Therefore, in keeping with the introduction to this section, if Bell is in a
position of power, its PR efforts through the Bell Let’s Talk campaign are an effect of
that power, producing and circulating certain kinds of truth. Bell’s Media Relations
representative, Jacqueline Michelis, said herself that this is true: the Bell CEO held a
meeting and sat down with some employees to decide how they would use their
money, time and resources (in other words, implement their power) to impact a
particular cause (in other words, to “technologize” a discourse) (J. Michelis, personal
communication, November 14, 2013).
TRUTH CIRCULATION
Since Bell’s PR practitioners acted as discourse actors employing discursive
strategies to circulate truths, this begs the question: what truths were they circulating?
We can determine that Bell aimed to circulate two main truths: (1) the de-
stigmatization of mental illness and raised awareness for mental health, as explained
further in the findings section, and (2) an association between the Bell brand and an
image of philanthropy, and social benevolence, as well as being distinctly and
identifiably Canadian, as explained later on in this section.
While we cannot claim that these truths reached a hegemonic status, Bell
managed to successfully bring their attempted truths into the public discourse as
knowledge, which individuals could then accept or reject as truth. We also cannot
claim that there was an A to B cause and effect relationship between the Bell
campaign and the acceptance of these two truths. However, we have found that within
a broader context and working alongside a multitude of other factors, this campaign
likely contributed to improved public perception of Bell’s brand, and also, at the very
least, sparked a positive discussion on mental health.
GIVING INDIVIDUALS POWER
It is interesting to note that Bell did not attempt to circulate these truths on its
own. As opposed to utilizing its power/knowledge via, say, a campaign based solely
in television commercials, radio advertisements, flyers or billboards, Bell instead
chose an interactive model based mainly in social media which effectively placed the
power in the hands of individuals to contribute to shaping the discourse by way of
their social media accounts (for example, by tweeting). Essentially, Bell initiated and
facilitated the power/knowledge of individuals, who wouldn’t normally have enough
“sway” on an individual level to make an impact on the discourse, but who might on a
collective level.
The question then becomes how does the role of new media fit into the
Foucauldian dynamic? If, as the maxim goes, “it’s not what is said, but who is heard
that counts,” does new media level the playing field and allow everyone equal
opportunity to be heard — an individual as much as a corporation like Bell? This
would certainly clash with Foucault’s theory because a power struggle would not have
been at the forefront of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign.
As we understand it, the answer is the following: at the end of the day,
individuals could participate but only within the framework Bell had preconceived for
them. It created a sort-of discourse within a discourse, if you will. If someone wanted
to join the conversation, they had to follow a certain protocol: the discussion took
place on only one specific day of the year, it had to be on Bell’s network, or, if not,
the individual had to tweet or share Bells “official” message in order to get their
donation received. Facebook and Twitter, in particular, had to be used as opposed to
any other websites, and the donation rate, set by Bell, was five cents — no more and
no less. If one wanted his or her tweet to be seen, one had to use the campaign and
brand specific hashtag. Ultimately, it was still Bell controlling the conversation to
Bell’s end and, therefore, it was Bell’s truth that was being circulated. New media
may be a new medium on which discourses can take place, but, even on new media,
there are still Foucauldian power relations at play.
IMPLICATIONS / VOICES SILENCED
While the fact that a discussion surrounding mental health arose out of this
campaign can be considered positive consequence of the campaign, it is not the only
implication. Having Bell at the helm of this mental health discourse also means that
certain voices get silenced.
Firstly, not everyone can participate in this particular conversation because
some people do not know how to use social media; for example, a large portion of the
senior demographic, and some people cannot easily access a computer or the Internet,
as evidenced by an ongoing digital divide in Canada based on income disparity
(Statistics Canada, 2012).
Secondly, as Mason Hanrahan (2013), (who is recovering from depression),
points out on his blog, the TV commercials promoting the February 2013 Bell Let’s
Talk day, featured white, middle class people, like much of their other promotional
materials:
Bell has hinted at how the discussion should be framed with two TV spots …
Both commercials seek to dispel stigma and myths about mental illness. It is
interesting that in order to do so, the examples depict white, middle-class
dwellers of (seemingly) suburban homes … Are we to think that it’s okay to
be mentally ill so long as you can hold down a job, fit in, and be just like
everyone else? What about the mentally ill who line our sidewalks? Our
prisons?
Consider that mentally ill people who are homeless or in prison are not likely
to be Bell’s existing or ideal customers. Also consider what this says about the
hegemonic societal truths that are engrained in the Canadian discourse at large: it’s no
secret Bell has always strived to link their brand to Canadian identity, their old TV
commercials featured beavers as the main characters! With the recent possibility of
American company Verizon entering the Canadian market, the theme of linking their
brand to the Canadian identity was arguably expanded further: this perhaps
demonstrated by Clara Hughes’ Terry Fox-esque “Big Ride” engaging Canadians
nation wide and culminating in the Capital on Canada Day. Is this notion of a white,
middle-class person portrayed as the average Canadian emblematic of greater
Canadian stereotypes or a prevalent trend in Canadian advertising? While this
question is certainly one that should be evaluated further, for all intents and purposes
of this paper, it is important simply to recognize the PR strategy used by Bell through
it’s campaigning, and acknowledge that it is a silencing of voices.
Lastly, according to Ms. Michelis, mental health as a cause was selected
because it “affected people in the workforce,” because it was “unprecedented,” and,
arguably, because it could be best leveraged as a cause-marketing tool to benefit
Bell’s corporate interests. This means that it was not selected based on merit or
because it was the cause that needs the highest immediate priority in society.
Although this campaign means there is one more discourse surrounding mental health,
it is also means there is one less corporate discourse surrounding cancer research, the
United Way, saving the polar bears, or any other cause Bell chose to ignore.
ROLE OF CORPORATE PR PRACTITIONERS
This brings us to the question raised at the end of the functional analysis: Do
we need the PR of big power structures, such as Bell, to initiate the discourses society
needs moving forward? If these companies didn’t practice corporate responsibility or
cause marketing, would the issues we need talk about get talked about? As mentioned
earlier, the Mental Health Committee of Canada (MHCC) tried to do many of the
things Bell is doing for mental health in terms of decreasing stigma and raising
awareness, but the MHCC was arguably not nearly as successful as Bell because they
did not have access to the necessary funds. In our society’s discourse at large and the
power/knowledge structures at play, corporations like Bell do have the resources to
operate power/knowledge to shape what gets talked about — or, in other words, to
influence discourse.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
It would not be possible for us to know with complete certainty Bell’s
intentions behind the implementation of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign. However, we
can draw several conclusions from our analysis of the campaign. Regardless of
whether the campaign was corporately motivated, socially motivated, or both, it was
indeed beneficial to Bell’s bottom line, as suggested in our functional analysis. But,
when examined through a Foucauldian lens, we see that in addition to this, the
campaign was a power effect that empowered individuals to circulate certain truths.
While one of those truths was related to Bell’s brand, the other was the sparking of a
public discourse surrounding mental health — something that might not have
happened had Bell, as a corporation, not taken up the cause. This discourse was
largely positive in the sense that the cause received massive amounts of awareness,
visibility, fundraising and increased support. This positive impact on society’s mental
health discourse by Bell stands true no matter how much corporate gain was involved,
or how many other voices were silenced in the process.
CONCLUSION
As proven through the results, and the functional and critical analyses, the Bell
Let’s Talk campaign was a strategic and successful corporate execution of a cause
marketing public relations strategy. It was effective in both improving the bottom line and
altering discourses surrounding an issue of public interest: mental health. Functionally, it
was effective in both aiding the Bell brand and the cause of mental health awareness/de-
stigmatization. This was because of its’ effective execution of the public relations practices
of cause marketing and its’ ability to leverage pre-existing structures (its own vast and
diverse media network resources, emotions towards nationalism and the Olympics, an
already established consumer confidence in the brand, social media platforms, etc.) It has
also been successful in altering the discourses surrounding a stigmatized issue, by using its’
resources as a dominant player in the Canadian telecommunications landscape to foster and
stimulate independent discourses within the context of its’ branded campaign. We have
proven that although this campaign is corporately motivated, it has in fact done much good
for the cause, both financially and societally. Although our functional analysis proved it to
be an excellent execution of a cause marketing campaign, the critical analysis raised
important questions about the sincerity of cause marketing awareness “discourse”, in the
sense that whilst it is improving visibility of the cause, it is doing so within the corporately
framed discourse, and ultimately, improving positive visibility of the brand. The question
then, is can cause marketing public relations practice still be a positive thing if it is (for lack
of better terms) killing two birds with one stone and acting doubly as a corporate
promotions activity? We have proven that one cannot be independent of the other, but will
conclude by asserting that bringing awareness to both a cause and a brand is better than
having no awareness for an issue that has been scientifically proven to impact the lives of
numerous Canadians. Although corporate cause marketing may not be altruistic, the
initiatives it supports often are. As such, the validity of Bell’s successful execution of this
public relations strategy cannot be denied.
REFERENCES
Anand V. (2002) Building blocks of corporate reputation, social responsibility
initiatives. Corp Reputation Revolution 5 (1), 71-74.
Bell Canada. (2013a). A record-setting Bell Let's Talk Day - an unprecedented
national conversation about mental health [Press Release]. Retrieved from
http://www.bce.ca/news-and-media/releases/show/a-record-setting-bell-
lets-talk-day-an-unprecedented-national-conversation-about-mental-health
Bell Canada. (2013b). Bell receives Canada Award for Excellence for outstanding
performance in Mental Health at Work [Press Release]. Retrieved from
http://www.bce.ca/news-and-media/releases/show/bell-receives-canada-
award-for-excellence-for-outstanding-performance-in-mental-health-at-
work?page=2&perpage=10&year=&month=&keyword=
Bell Canada. (2013c). Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.bce.ca/aboutbce/bceoverview/
Bell Canada. (2013d). Bell Initiatives. Retrieved from
http://letstalk.bell.ca/en/initiatives/
Bell Canada. (2013e). Bell receives Canada Award for Excellence for outstanding
performance in Mental Health. [Press Release]. Retrieved from
http://letstalk.bell.ca/pdf/press/2013/10-28-2013.pdf
Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report. 2010. Retrieved November 29, 2013
from
http://www.bce.ca/assets/Uploads/Documents/archivesCRReports/Bell_201
0_CR_Report_en.pdf
Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report. 2011. Retrieved November 28, 2013
from
http://www.bce.ca/assets/widgets/Responsibility/EN/Bell_2011_CR_Repor
t_en.pdf
Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report. 2012. Retrieved November 10, 2013
from http://www.bce.ca/responsibility/corporateresponsibility/
Bess, M. (Interviewer) & Foucault, M. (Interviewee). (1988). Power, Moral Vlaues,
and the Intellectual. History of the Present, 1-2, (11-13). Retrieved from
http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/historydept/michaelbess/Foucault
%20Interview
Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). 2013. CMHA encourages all
Canadians to increase the volume and frequency of conversations about
mental health in communities across the country on Bell’s Let’s Talk Day
[Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.cmha.ca/news/bell-lets-talk-
day/#.UovdQXxRdC
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fillingham, L. (1993). Foucault for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers
Publishing, Inc.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.).
London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1974). Prisons et asiles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir [Prisons and
refuges in the mechanism of power] (C. O’Farrell, Trans.). Dits et Ecrits, 2,
523–524.
Foucault, M. (1978) [1976], The History of Sexuality, 1. An Introduction.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-
1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall,, J. Mepham, & K. Soper Trans.). New York:
Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton
(Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (16-48).
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Foucault, M. (1998) The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. London:
Penguin (R. Hurley, Trans.).
Gaventa, J. (2003). Power after Lukes: An overview of theories of power since Lukes
and their application to development. Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies. Retrieved from
http://www.powercube.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/power_after_lukes.
Gourville, J. T., & Rangan, V. (2004). Valuing the Cause Marketing Relationship.
California Management Review, 47(1), 38-57.
Hanrahan, M. (2013). Let’s Talk About Bell. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from
http://masonhanrahan.blogspot.ca/
Hardy, C. (1998). Discourse as a Strategic Resource. Department of Management.
Melborne: The University of Melborne. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.195.7738&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Kirby, M. (2008, Jun 28). CANADA'S MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. The Globe and
Mail (1936-Current). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1371253525?accountid=9894
Lafferty, A., Goldsmith, R. (2005). Cause–brand alliances: does the cause help the
brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of business research,
58(4), 423-429.
Landreth, S., Garretson Folse, J. A. (2007) Cause-Related Marketing (CRM): The
Influence of Donation Proximity and Message-Framing Cues on the Less-
Involved Consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36 (4), 19-33.
Lessa, I. (2006). “Discursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen
motherhood.” British Journal of Social Work, 36 (2), 283-298. doi:
10.1093/bjsw/bch256
Moosmayer, D. C. (2010) Consumer perceptions of cause related marketing
campaigns. The Journal of consumer marketing 27, (6), 543-549.
Motion, J., & Leitch, S. (2009). On Foucault: A Toolbox for Public Relations. In O.
Ihlen, B. van Ruler & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public Relations and Social
Theory: Key Figures and Concepts (83-102). New York: Routledge.
Myers, B., Kwon, W. S. (2013) A model of antecedents of consumers' post brand
attitude upon exposure to a cause–brand alliance. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(2), 73-89.
Powell, C. (2013, February 13). A look at Bell’s Let’s Talk Program.
Marketingmag.ca. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from
http://www.marketingmag.ca/news/marketer-news/a-look-at-bells-lets-talk-
program-71865
Quirion, R. (2006, Nov 02). Canada must overcome stigma of mental health. Star –
Phoenix. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/348863780?
accountid=9894
Robinson, S., Irmak, C., & Jayachandran, S. (2012). Choice of Cause in Cause
Related Marketing. Journal Of Marketing, 76(4), 126-139.
Rogers Communication Inc. Corporate Social Responsibility Report. 2012. Retrieved
November 28, 2013 from
http://about.rogers.com/Libraries/CSR_Reports/2012_Rogers_CSR_Report.
sflb.ashx
Statistics Canada. (2012). Table358-0154 - Canadian Internet use survey, Internet
use, by location of use, household income and age group for Canada and
regions, occasional (percent), CANSIM (database). (accessed: 2013-12-
01)
Supporting best in class. (2013). Bell Let's Talk. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from
http://letstalk.bell.ca/en/initiatives
The Senate. (2006). Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Illness and
Addiction Services in Canada – Final Report. Ottawa. Available at
http://books1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.library.carleton.ca/viewdoc.html?
id=/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_cppc/2009-12-01/4/204232#tabview=tab1
Varadarajan R. P., Menon, A. (1988) Cause-related marketing: a co-alignment of
marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. J Mark, 52(3), 58–74.