Round 2: Resisting the Ad Industry Backlash Against Our Campaign

The advertising industry is very annoyed with our Campaign Asking Volvo to Reject Bid by the Anti-Male Advertising Agency Arnold Worldwide. We are trying to convince Volvo to decline Arnold Worldwide's bid for a pending $150 million ad contract because of Arnold Worldwide's track record of making TV commercials which mock and ridicule men. Arnold Worldwide has been the apparent favorite to win the contract.

As they say, "when you're getting flak, you must be over the target." The angry backlash leads me to believe that our strategy of targeting offending ad agencies when they are in the final stages of bidding for large contracts is a sound one. Take a moment to email and fax Volvo by clicking here.  Numerous other ways to get involved, including media interventions, are detailed below

What's Happening? A Quick Campaign Timeline

February 27--We launch the campaign with my E-Newsletter NEW CAMPAIGN! Targeting Anti-Father, Anti-Male TV Commercials

February 27/28--Volvo receives over a thousand letters, calls and faxes from our campaign's supporters.

February 28--Advertising Age, one of the two major advertising industry publications, publishes a story on our campaign.

February 28--Arnold Worldwide CEO Fran Kelly fires back at our campaign in Adweek, and defends his company's "strong values."

February 28--Adweek, the ad industry's other leading publication, publishes a story on our campaign.

February 28--My blog and my email box are filled with angry comments and missives from advertising industry professionals. I respond to some of these criticisms here.

March 1--Volvo issues polite, carefully-worded statement on our campaign via Dan Roth of Roth & Associates, the company managing the bidding for the $150 million contract. As expected, Volvo says its hand won't be forced.

March 1--Major ad industry blogs, including Adrants and Adpulp, comment on our campaign.

March 1--A Toronto Globe & Mail columnist accuses us of 'Meddling' in Volvo's Business

March 1--Autoblog, the leading auto industry blog, discusses the campaign.

What You Can Do

First, use our convenient form to quickly email and fax Volvo. Also, below is a list of Volvo's executives, along with their phone numbers. I urge you to call them, and, if you can only leave a message, leave a short, polite message expressing your opposition to Arnold Worldwide and its anti-male commercials.

Below are some of the criticisms I've received from people who identify themselves as working within the advertising industry. Rather than publish the full letters or comments, I've tried to pick the best and most distinct argument out of each one and respond to it.

It perhaps should be noted that many of these letters contain personal insults and ad hominem attacks, many of which have been quite juvenile in nature. As a favor to the ad industry insiders who wrote the ad hominem attacks, I'll edit them out--they reflect far more poorly on the writers than they do on me.

Obviously I'm used to being publicly attacked, but the intensity of the reaction has surprised even me. As they say, "when you're getting flak, you must be over the target." However, it is also true that I've received numerous letters from advertising industry professionals who have praised our campaign as needed and long overdue.

Criticism #1) Chris Jennings worked for Arnold Worldwide from 1995 to 2002, and still works within the advertising industry. Jennings writes:

"Are you seriously targeting ad agencies? Why not target the clients that pay for and approve the work? Targeting the agency is like punishing the addicted smoker--not the tobacco company."

The ad industry seeks to evade responsibility for their mistreatment of men and fathers by placing the blame for the ads on the client companies instead of the ad agencies. It is true, of course, that it is not fair to blame the agencies 100%. Since we're currently targeting Arnold Worldwide and not Fidelity--the client for whom it made the anti-male ads--it is fair, to a point, for Arnold to feel it's being picked on. However, while it's not accurate to blame the agency 100%, neither is it accurate to blame the company 100%, either. Ad agencies share a good part of the blame, despite the protestations of advertising industry professionals.

Also, it's not as if we've never targeted companies with offensive advertising--that is exactly what we did during our highly-publicized Campaign Against Anti-Father Verizon Commercial. Both approaches have merit, though neither is perfect.

Finally, Jennings' and others' portrayal of ad agencies as poor, helpless victims--to the point of comparing them to hopelessly addicted smokers--indicates a pervasive victim mentality. And they accuse me of being a "whiner"...

#2) Advertising executive Frank Moricca, a senior vice-president at Fahlgren, makes a similar point, though (mercifully) without the hysterics. Moricca writes:

"I think your attack against Arnold is misguided and unfounded. First, as a father I am not at all offended by the Fidelity ads they produced. But if you are that's OK, focus your anger at Fidelity...

"Arnold and their client, Fidelity, are trying to garner attention of their target audience in an environment that is overcrowded and cluttered. The fact that they take a subject and service such as financial planning--serious stuff that not many people like to think about or feel comfortable with--and make it inviting [and] approachable...

"Bottom line, LET THE CLIENT MAKE THE DECISION! You are doing nothing to forward your mission. I will give you the fact that you are generating publicity, but I am no more interested in what you have to say on the really important topics you discuss because of this."

A few points:

1) Again, the ad industry seeks to evade responsibility for their mistreatment of men and fathers by placing the blame for the ads on the client company instead of the ad agency.

2) I can understand that Moricca is not "offended by the Fidelity ads"--as I've noted, none of the ads in and of themselves are terrible. What's bad is that the overwhelming majority of the ads they made for Fidelity portrayed men negatively. There's not one man who was portrayed positively, and only one ad ("Rick," with Rick Derringer) where men were portrayed as anything but foolish. Conversely, "Carol," the one ad which did feature a woman, bathed the woman in superlatives. "Carol" is a good ad, but why can't we have a similar ad about a man?

3) Moricca is right that Arnold Worldwide's Fidelity ads take "serious stuff" and make it "inviting" and "approachable." My question is this--why is Arnold's only method of making a product appear inviting and approachable to make men appear like fools?

4) Regarding "Bottom line, LET THE CLIENT MAKE THE DECISION!", we're quite sportingly offering Volvo our assistance in making its decision.

5) Moricca is correct that Arnold and its anti-male ads are not at the top of the list of the "really important topics [I] discuss." However, I do believe that negative depictions of men and fathers on television do have a negative impact on our society. This is a particular problem now, given the way fathers are often marginalized by the family law system and vilified by the mainstream media. The battle against anti-male advertising is one front in the larger war, and it is a worthwhile one.

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Arnold CEO Blasts Back at Blogger
February 28, 2007
By David Gianatasio
 
BOSTON Arnold CEO Fran Kelly defended his shop as "an agency with strong values" in the face of an unusual challenge from a blogger who blasted some of its recent work as "anti-father"--and has called for Volvo to retain Euro RSCG on its account rather than hiring Arnold, which is also a contender in an ongoing review.

Glenn Sacks, on his Web site glennsacks.com, yesterday wrote, "We are asking Volvo not to award the contract to Arnold and instead award it to one of the other agencies, preferably Euro RSCG."

He objects to several of the agency's recent commercials, notably an execution for Fidelity Investments, in which a dad jumps up and down after besting his daughter in a game of Ping-Pong.

Sacks derided as harmful the portrayal of men in general, and fathers in particular, as "stupid" and "insensitive."

Kelly, in a statement, responded:

"On the one hand I feel silly even commenting on a story like this, on the other hand, Arnold is known as an agency with strong values and relationships with our clients and important prospects like Volvo. We take our responsibility to be insightful, honest and aspirational brand communicators seriously. Our track record promoting family vacations for Royal Caribbean, driving down teen smoking rates by 22 percent with 'Truth' and raising funds to help put musical instruments in children's' hands via Fidelity's 'Music Lives' program speaks for itself."

Volvo and Euro RSCG officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Boston-based Arnold (pitching with Nitro in London) is a contender for the $150 million Volvo business along with Havas sibling Euro RSCG (which is the principal incumbent), Publicis Groupe's Fallon in Minneapolis and Omnicom Group's 180 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. (Omnicom's Goodby, Silverstein & Partners in San Francisco had teamed with 180, but exited the process on Monday.)

"This is the perfect time to intervene," as Volvo plans a decision in March, Sacks said late Wednesday. "The main concern is to let Volvo know we're unhappy, not helping Euro RSCG" prevail, he said.

Read the full article here. To write a letter to the Editor of Adweek, email letterseditor@adweek.com. To learn more about our campaign and to join us, click here.

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

National newspaper columnist and talk-show host Glenn Sacks is behind the push that started Feb. 27. His website, glennsacks.com, has a form letter to Volvo urging the Ford Motor Co.-owned brand "not to award the contract to Arnold Worldwide and instead award it to one of the other agencies, preferably Euro RSCG." The website lists names and contact information for Volvo officials in the U.S. and Sweden.

Mr. Sacks told Advertising Age this afternoon that 1,000-plus e-mails and faxes on the matter were sent to Volvo in the past 24 hours. Other male groups, including FathersandHusbands.org and Fathers and Families, are supporting the effort.

'Idiots and clowns'
Mr. Sacks said "a lot of us in the fathers' movement are upset" that dads are portrayed in advertising as "idiots, clowns," while "the wife is always right."

His site criticizes Arnold's purported anti-father work for Fidelity -- for example, a spot showing a man going to great lengths to parallel park in an empty parking lot -- while praising a TV ad that Euro RSCG did for Volvo. Mr. Sacks discusses his 2004 blitz against Verizon on the site, claiming success for getting the telecom giant to pull a TV commercial showing a bumbling father trying to help his daughter with her homework.

Richard Smaglick, co-founder of FathersandHusbands.org, said Verizon pulled the commercial, although he added the advertiser explained at the time the campaign had run its course.

A spokesman for Volvo Cars of North America confirmed the arrival of an undisclosed number of e-mails, faxes and a "handful of voice mails" on the matter. "All were very polite," he said.

Client has final say
The spokesman said he didn't understand why the pro-male groups were approaching Volvo about ads Arnold is doing for other clients. "It's not the agency that has the final say to determine what goes on air. It's the client."

Mr. Sacks said he's targeting Arnold because of the financial bounty involved in the review. If the effort is successful, "I believe it would have an impact on how other agencies portray men and fathers."

Read the full article here. To write a letter to the Editor of Advertising Age, email editor@adage.com. To learn more about our campaign and to join us, click here.

Advertising critic Richard Smaglick of FathersandHusbands.org is an expert on the advertising industry and does valuable work monitoring anti-male stereotypes in television commercials.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

More Reactions from the Ad Industry to Our Volvo Campaign While the emails and comments on my blog from advertising industry professionals have been very hostile, the reactions from Adrants and AdPulp.com, the two leading advertising industry blog, and Autoblog, the leading auto industry blog, seem pretty even-handed. To read these reactions and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here. Volvo Issues Statement, Says Its Hand Won't Be Forced Volvo has issued a polite, carefully-worded statement to Dan Roth of Roth & Associates about the controversy over our campaign against advertising which ridicules and denigrates men. Roth & Associates is managing the bidding for a $150 million contract which is currently being sought by four advertising agencies, including Arnold Worldwide. To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here. The Best Interests of the Child How to Save Our Child When We Can't Save our Marriage--New DVD set from Dr. Warren Farrell, foremost expert on children of divorce www.BestInterestofChildren.org New DVD set from Dr. Warren Farrell--The Best Interests of the Child The Best Interests of the Child: How to Save Our Child When We Can't Save our Marriage is a new DVD set from Dr. Warren Farrell, one of the foremost experts on children of divorce. In it he summarizes over 200 studies, and the research is clear: children do far better with near equal exposure to both parents with minimal conditions. The video can be submitted as evidence and Dr. Farrell is available to testify as an expert witness. www.BestInterestofChildren.org Help for Los Angeles/Ventura County Dads Certified Family Law Specialist Peter M. Walzer was one of the key figures in our successful legislative struggle to preserve the LaMusga move-away decision. As Chair of the State Bar of California Family Law Section Executive Committee, Walzer lobbied the state legislature to improve California laws on child support and child custody. He's an American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Fellow who has authored numerous articles on custody issues, business valuation in marital dissolutions and spousal and child support.  www.California-Divorce.com

Summer, a mother of two boys, defends our  Campaign Asking Volvo to Reject Bid by the Anti-Male Advertising Agency Arnold Worldwide and has an interesting perspective on the denigration of males. She writes:

"Negative commercials, cleverly done, make us laugh and shrug it off.  When the subject of the joke, a  man, says 'hey, wait a minute' and brings the damage the commercial is doing to our attention, he is told to 'get a set,' 'be a man,' 'suck it up,' etc.

"What does 'sucking it up' say to our sons (and daughters for that matter)? Can we afford to laugh and shrug it off with the cost being so high?

"As far as I'm concerned...It took more of 'a set' to cry 'foul' than it took to 'suck it up'..."

To read her full comments and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

More Coverage of the Campaign

French Publication Communication & Business News Covers Volvo Campaign

Above are two ads that Arnold Worldwide produced for its recent Fidelity campaign, "Pool Party," which features a man, and "Carol," which features a woman.

In "Pool Party," the man makes a fool of himself in front of his wife, daughter and friends. His disapproving wife corrects/scolds him, and he retreats, tail between his legs.

The ad "Carol"--which is actually a very good ad--features an interesting video montage of Carol's life. The script reads:

"This is Carol. She's been called hippy, preppy, yuppie, protestor, Democrat, Republican, Mom, CFO, CEO, cancer patient, cancer survivor, fundraiser, spokesperson, caregiver, and soon to be...world traveler."

Carol is so wonderful that it must've been a mere oversight that Arnold left out "saint" and "savior." By contrast, the men featured in Arnold's Fidelity ads "Pool Party," "Stairs," "Ping Pong," "Parking," and "Kid's Toy" are all bumbling idiots and/or insensitive fathers. If that's not reflective of anti-male bias, what is?

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

My new co-authored column, Scott Peterson in a space suit (Philadelphia Daily News, 2/26/07), asserts that the media is soft-pedaling Nowak's crime in many important ways. Family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"Would CBS commentator Harry Smith express sympathy for this 'poor' fellow for 'falling in love' and then 'crash-landing'? Would Fox News commentator Steve Doocy opine that 'love makes you do weird things,' and claim that prosecutors were being too hard on him?

"Would MSNBC describe him as a stressed out 'super dad' who 'snapped', ignoring that the two months of stalking and preparation sure were a long, slow 'snap'? Would MSNBC have a psychologist sympathetically explain that the would-be murderer acted because he was 'experiencing the fear of abandonment' that was 'so terrifying' that he had to 'secure the love object and eliminate the threat'? Would a reporter for a major newspaper describe the murder attempt as the man's effort to 'share with someone else a bit of the pain swelling inside'?

"Lisa Nowak is receiving widespread sympathy, in part because she is legitimately admired for being an astronaut. But a large share accrues because she's a woman, and our society--both men and women--views women's misdeeds more sympathetically than men's."

To write a Letter to the Editor of the Philadelphia Daily News concerning Scott Peterson in a space suit (2/26/07), click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

As I predicted, astronaut/would-be murderess Lisa Nowak will get the kid glove treatment from the legal system, and will not be charged with attempted murder. According to CNN, Florida prosecutors charged her with attempted kidnapping but "declined to file an attempted murder charge recommended by police."

This isn't surprising--the criminal justice system treats women more leniently than men, and the media helped grease the skids with its sympathetic portrayal of Nowak. Regarding the criminal charges, in Scott Peterson in a space suit (Philadelphia Daily News, 2/26/07) I wrote:

"Practically every media outlet has explained Nowak's decision to wear astronaut diapers on her journey to allegedly attack romantic rival Colleen Shipman as a bizarre, freakish action indicative of her mental instability. In reality, Nowak acted with logic and calculation--she did not want to stop several times on the way from Houston to Orlando and leave a trail of convenience store camera records behind her. For the same reason, when Nowak arrived in Orlando she disguised herself, checked into a hotel under a fake name and address, and paid cash.

"Similarly, numerous commentators have described Nowak's equipment--a 4-inch folding knife, a steel mallet, several garbage bags, rubber tubing, a BB gun, and pepper spray--as 'wacky' or 'bizarre.' They are nothing of the sort. Orlando police believe Nowak intended to kill Shipman, and she probably planned to utilize the garbage bags to dispose of her, perhaps in Galveston Bay. As Orlando police Sgt. Barbara Jones explained, it was a 'fairly elaborate plan'...

"In 2002, Scott Peterson killed Laci Peterson and disposed of her body in San Francisco Bay. Except for the fact that Nowak botched the job, is her alleged crime much different?"

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

Utah is simultaneously increasing the punishment for failing to pay child support and raising child support levels. SB 23 will increase child support levels--to learn more, see Child-support measure passes House (Deseret Morning News, 2/28/07). To learn more about HB 15, which recently passed the Utah Senate, see my new co-authored column "Utah Bill to Punish 'Deadbeat Dads' Is Based on False Assumptions" (Southern Utah News, 2/21/07).

Also see my recent blog posts Legislator Says We Need Sanctions for Visitation Interference, Not More Sanctions for CS Obligors and I've Always Wondered About That...

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

OK, it's only tennis, but the Wimbledon pay fiasco is a classic example of how feminism, political correctness and male chivalry so often bulldoze common sense and fairness. According to the Associated Press article "Women players to earn equal pay at Wimbledon," Wimbledon will now be paying what they euphemistically call "equal pay" for women. The AP writes:

"After years of holding out against equal prize money, Wimbledon yielded to public pressure Thursday and agreed to pay female players as much as male players at the world's most prestigious tennis tournament...

"Last year, men's champion Roger Federer received $1.170 million and women's winner Amelie Mauresmo got $1.117 million.

"'It is a victory for women's tennis, and a victory for women in general,' Mauresmo said Thursday after reaching the semifinals of the Dubai Open. 'It was really a matter of principle. It is a question of equality.'"

Huh? At Wimbledon the men play a best of five series while the women play only best of three. Men play 67% more sets than men do. Last year, under "discrimination against women," Federer played 67% more sets and received 5% more pay. Though Ms. Mauresmo complains about anti-female discrimination, she was actually the beneficiary of very sharp discrimination last year.

That wasn't enough, however--pay had to be "equal," so now Federer will play 67% more sets for 0% more money. Nice deal.

Perhaps the next time Federer and another top male player are playing they'll walk off the court after three matches (assuming it's not 3-0) and explain that they want "equal pay," too. But of course that would be "sexist."

I'm disappointed that not an single female tennis player or former player has been willing to tell the truth about this, instead of the "we're victims of unequal pay" shtick. One player I haven't seen quoted is my favorite tennis player, former star Steffi Graf.  I always liked the way Graf's shots were so tough that she could make a large amount of unforced errors and still win. If anybody stumbles upon Graf's take on it, let me know.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. The full AP article can be seen here.

This Associated Press article--Mom taught her 2 kids to fake retardation: Mother admits coaching children to collect more than $280,000 in benefits (2/27/07)--has nothing to do with family law, but it is exemplary of an important point. This mother was able to coach her children into putting forth a huge lie--that they were mentally retarded--from a very young age. If this woman could get them to do that, it's not hard to see how mothers in disputed custody cases can easily get impressionable young children to say "daddy put his pee pee on my pee pee" or to believe that their fathers have harmed them.

According to the article:

"TACOMA, Wash. - A woman admitted Monday that she coached her two children to fake retardation starting when they were 4 and 8 years old so she could collect Social Security benefits on their behalf.

"Rosie Costello, 46, admitted in U.S. District Court that she collected more than $280,000 in benefits, beginning in the mid-1980s. Most was from Social Security, but the state social services agency paid $53,000.

"Costello pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and Social Security fraud. Her son, Pete, 26, pleaded guilty earlier this month. Federal prosecutors in Seattle said Monday authorities had not yet located her daughter, Marie.

"According to the plea agreement, Costello began coaching her daughter at age 4, and later used the same ruse with her son. He feigned retardation into his mid-20s -- picking at his face, slouching and appearing uncommunicative in meetings with Social Security officials."

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

Background: Draconian domestic violence families often separate children from the fathers they love and need, and sometimes even separate couples. To read one example, see my blog entry Father Locked in Jail for Tossing Granola Bars at Fiance, Fiance Can't Get Him Out. To learn more, see my co-authored column Simpson Case Led to Harmful Domestic Violence Policies (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 12/5/06).

Attorney David Heleniak has an interesting article on this topic, specifically about overzealous prosecutors in Manhattan, NY. According to Heleniak, prosecutors are so obsessed with domestic violence and not wanting to appear "soft" that they are practically prying couples apart with a crowbar.

In their view there's no such thing as a minor spat, or a false accusation, or mutual, low-level family violence or, heaven forbid, a female aggressor in domestic combat. It's woman good/man bad all the way. Read and discuss David's fine article "Manhattan Prosecutors Declare War on Families" (The Conservative Voice, 2/25/07) by clicking here.
 

Help for Michigan Dads
Michigan family law attorney Mindy L. Hitchcock has experience fighting for noncustodial parents against Michigan's abusive FOC. Her holistic approach to divorce gets results for her clients while avoiding the scorched earth approach to law that leaves families emotionally and financially devastated. www.Lady4Justice.com

The LaMusga Company
The LaMusga Company provides customized solutions to assist individuals and business owners in reaching their financial goals. The LaMusga Company is committed to helping you accomplish your long-term financial objectives. LaMusgaCo.com

File Taxes Online with  Professional Help
MENstax.com allows you to file your taxes, check your refund status, and have your return reviewed by an experienced tax professional--all online.

How Does Sex Discrimination Affect Men and Boys?
The National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles is a non-profit educational & civil rights organization that looks at the ways sex discrimination affects men and boys. NCFM-LA helps provide men a unified voice on important political and social issues. www.NCFMLA.org