It’s 2012 and I figured I would start by trying something a little bit different, testing out a few things. If NASCAR can introduce EFI (electronic fuel injection), then I can try something new too. Not necessarily iMedia, not necessarily racing, more of a commentary/analysis take on things. Things like …
Kinda grabs your attention, doesn’t it? Yes, it’s the curious case of Sydney Spies and her choice for her senior portrait in the Durango High School yearbook, a photo she described to Matt Lauer on a Today show appearance this way- “I honestly think (the picture) describes who I am, … I am an outgoing person and I really do think it’s artistic.” (nbc17.com, 1/9/2010, http://bit.ly/zQeWZs)
“When the yearbook advisor saw the picture, however, she decided that the picture could not be included in the yearbook on the grounds that it violates school dress code. Durango High requires students cover the entirety of their chests, backs, midriffs, and sides during the school day, you see. Fair enough. Except Sydney says that she was never told that her yearbook photo needed to adhere to school dress code, and that, in fact, there’s no policy in place to govern what students can and cannot wear in the picture that will end up smushed up against the pictures of everyone else’s senior quotes from The Notebook or Entourage for all of eternity.” (jezebel.com, 1/6/2012, http://bit.ly/AkL9PQ)
There is no doubt that the photo in question does not adhere to the school dress code. But if what Spies claims is correct, that there is no policy in place dictating what is or is not acceptable for the senior photos for the yearbook, then she totally got hosed. Spies has every right to be upset and claim unfairness. Yet, claiming infringement on her freedom of expression may be taking it a bit too far. First Amendment rights aren’t necessarily black and white when it comes to school-produced publications.
However, apparently “according to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 22-1-120, “students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press” and that “no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint.” (durangoherald.com, 1/4/2012, http://bit.ly/ybsIBf ), so she may have a leg to stand on after all. Yet, “… school administration can overrule the law under certain requirements, including obscenity” (durangoherald.com, 1/4/2012, http://bit.ly/ybsIBf), so the checkered flag hasn’t flown yet on possibility of this moving from the schoolroom to the courtroom.
In reading more about the situation, there seemed to be a little confusion as to who actually made the call to ban the provocative photo in question. Initially blame was placed on school administrators. Yet, it appears that it was the student editors who made the decision — “The administration really had nothing to do with it,” said Tevan Trujillo, a student yearbook editor. It was us. … The editors – Trujillo, Erin Edblom, Paige Shacklett, Alyssa Spencer and Brian Jaramillo – said they unanimously came to the decision not to run her submitted photo as a senior portrait.” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).
But, it was the reason the student editors gave that rubbed me the wrong way. It wasn’t the dress code as originally cited when the administration was getting the blame. The reason they gave: “We are an award-winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional,” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).
To me, that just smacks of elitist arrogance. It’s the editors picking on the pretty girl, sticking it back to the privileged and the ‘genetically blessed.’
Those of you following along have to be saying, ‘but Erik, surely this is not the first time this has happened with a student’s yearbook photo, is it?’ It is not. In fact, it is not even the first time this has happened with the Durango High School yearbook. “Two years ago, yearbook staff made a similar decision when a male student wanted to run a picture of himself bare-chested as a portrait” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).
Eureka! Precedent! Spies’ photo is not the first to run afoul of the yearbook editors. Surely this will settle all the questions, all the protests. ‘But Erik,’ you say, ‘it is comparing apples to melons so-to-speak. Spies is not bare-chested, and it is comparing a male and a female. You can’t do that.’ Apparently, no one did. Frankly, I’m confused as to why the editors didn’t go the precedent route in explaining their decision. That, to me, would have read better than the ‘unprofessional’ reasoning.
All of this could have been avoided if there was a policy in place outlining standards for the senior portraits. The school yearbook had this problem before, with the bare-chested male student, so guidelines should have been implemented then, with the forward-thinking that such a situation would likely happen again. Alas, no one did, and now we have this Spies kerfuffle.
Now, as a yearbook veteran (both high school and collegiate), I find it unusual that the students can submit their own photo to use as their senior portrait. Every yearbook I have been involved with had the class photos, including senior portraits, taken by the official photographer. As far as dress for the senior portraits, everyone had the same thing – males had a tuxedo top and bow tie, females had a shawl/drape wrapped around their shoulders. In fact, when I first read stories about this particular incident, I thought the photo was something for Spies’ senior ad. As it turns out, that is what is going to happen anyway. Spies’ has paid $300 for a full-page ad in order to have her photo published in the yearbook.
Ultimately, what we have here is a failure to communicate. If, from the very beginning, the photo was rejected citing the precedent of the bare-chested male student, and a compromise was offered to run it in a senior ad (perhaps at a discount), I have a feeling all this would have blown over. Yet, those involved went the ‘it’s banned, it violates the dress code – but you didn’t say it had to follow the dress code – you’re infringing on my freedom of expression – it has nothing do to with the dress code, it makes the yearbook look unprofessional – ok, buy an ad and run the photo then’ route, and now lawyers are involved, the national media is paying attention and way more people have seen the photo now than would have ever seen it just in the Durango High School yearbook.
Writer’s note: I agree with Spies. I think the photo is artistic. It is a model-style professional shot. I know it is way more artistic than the mirror self-portrait in a skimpy outfit posted to Facebook or Twitter. But that’s just my opinion.
Post Script: As I mentioned, the problem seemed to be a lack of clear communication coupled with a mishandling of the situation. These are two mistakes that can be the death of you or your organization when it comes to the arena of social media. Not making sure your message is clear and tailored to the medium almost guarantees that someone will misunderstand – possibly take offense to – what you are saying. A deliberate, measured, professional yet personal approach to handling any controversy will be better for you in the long run when it comes to handling social media interactions. Don’t give a canned response or something in PR/legal-speak. Also, don’t run to the nearest microphone (or keyboard as the case may be) and fire off your knee-jerk reaction. Odds are that first thing that pops into your head is something that won’t help the situation; an emotionally-charged, likely-not-fully thought out statement does more harm than good (guess I tied it back to iMedia (social media) after all).
One week ago, in the final of the 2011 Women’s World Cup, the proverbial unstoppable force and immovable object met on the pitch, with Japan capturing its first-ever title with its first-ever win over the United States.
Personally, I find the women’s game more enjoyable to watch – a more pure, natural and entertaining soccer product. It’s not about brute force, or who can flop and act better or pull the biggest trick – it’s more about teamwork, refined technical skill and love of the game. It’s hard to argue with the heart-stopping, last second heroics of the US Women’s National Team, not to mention the fact that the 2011 WWC final went the first 20+ minutes without a foul called.
Immediately following the match, analysis seemed to split into two distinct paths –
pointing out the missed opportunities the United States had to score or hold the lead, including the missed penalty kicks that sealed the match for Japan
praising the team’s effort and heart, fighting back against Brazil and France to even reach the final
Then, I came across the following …
this tweet –
@StaciNWilson RT @bobfordsports Equality test: if USMNT blew 2 leads, whiffed on PKs, they’d get ripped. Will WNT get equal treatment or hearts/flowers?
I think analysts are missing the point when it comes to their ‘equality’ arguments, a point I believe the Deadspin post is lampooning to a degree.
[For what its worth, talk on the airwaves following the match did include questions of whether or not the USWNT ‘choked’ in the final, a charge that is decidedly not hearts/flowers.]
Men’s and women’s sports are inherently different – and not just in the Mars/Venus kind of different. I think attempts to compare them cannot accurately nor fairly be done.
There are larger, more societal issues in play when it comes to discussion of women’s sports – in large part because of the uphill struggle women’s sports have had in trying to gain acceptance and commercial popularity. In our society, women’s sports are arguably viewed as ‘second tier’ – even at times a ‘punchline’ as the Deadspin post mentions.
The important issue of equality should not be solely focused on whether or not sports media will criticize a women’s team or athlete as harshly as a men’s team or athlete they lose or play poorly – there are bigger issues to be focusing on:
Equality in coverage – live coverage of matches, highlights on TV/SportsCenter, coverage in print media
Equality in salaries/compensation – male athletes make decidedly more than their female counterparts
Equality in sponsorship – corporate and national sponsors, local support
Equality in facilities – cities and towns aren’t exactly stumbling over themselves to build new arena and venues to lure a WNBA, WPS, LFL or NPF team
Equality in support – marketing and promotions, advertising
Equality in recognition – no longer viewing the women’s teams as ‘second tier’ or a ‘punchline’
Until those benchmarks of equality are achieved, women’s teams will always be playing for something bigger, something greater:
Playing to increase exposure and growth for the sport (both on the amateur/Olympic level and professional level)
Playing to be taken seriously and considered deserving of respect
Playing for the future of women’s sports as a whole
Because of the societal, environmental and economic inequality surrounding women’s sports, it is a perfectly valid story line to go with a ‘hearts/flowers’ narrative, regardless of the final score. For example – with a professional league, Women’s Professional Soccer, on life support, focusing on the attention garnered by the USWNT with their incredible World Cup run (including the epic match against Brazil in the quarterfinals) is a perfectly understandable story angle to pursue.
As a result of those societal, environmental and economic disparities, female athletes are there more for the love of the game – as opposed to being there for the lucrative contract or endorsement deals.
One cannot simply say the women’s team ‘choked’ and claim we are treating men’s and women’s sports equally. Also, praising a women’s team for their effort and heart, even in a loss, is not ‘coddling’ – nurturing, yes; coddling, no. Women’s sports are at a distinct disadvantage, facing an uphill struggle, playing on an uneven playing field. You don’t kick someone, or something, when they are down. Women’s sports still need to be built up and celebrated – nurtured – especially given their ‘second tier’ status in the sports landscape.
And that’s the main point I’m driving at, men’s and women’s sports are inherently different. Praising a women’s team for their heart and effort is not coddling, it is nurturing – something that is necessary in order to build up women’s sports in general to where they are on equal footing with their male counterparts.
Giving women’s teams the ‘hearts/flowers’ treatment may be considered a ‘double standard’ – but that is only a reflection of the double standard between men and women that exists in society in general. Show me where a female earns the same money and respect as her male counterpart – be it in the boardroom or ball field – then we can talk about equality.
Think of the last time you did business with a company and it left a bad taste in your mouth. Maybe the company got your order wrong and it was a pain to get it corrected. Perhaps the salesperson was rude, ignored you or couldn’t answer your questions. Got it in your mind? Good.
Now, how many people did you tell? Probably a handful of friends, some family – maybe five or six people tops.
Back in the day, companies could keep unsatisfied customers ‘under wraps’ … responding (or not) to that particular situation, knowing the damage would be minimal at best should they find the situation unfixable. Any bad press would be limited to the verbal reach of that specific customer. Occasionally, a higher-profile customer may be the one unhappy, necessitating a rapid, more public correction.
Now, take a look at these –
@promotingyou (3,935 Followers) Ok this @redbox representative “Michael” has NO customer service skills. Please offer classes to your employees
@IrinaVoronina (9,885 Followers) Another awful @unitedair experience . I m soo done w that airline!!!
@CarieIsSoVery (2,135 Followers) Fort Myers BMW, thanks AGAIN for the absolutely horrible customer service. This is exactly why I bought my car in Ft Lauderdale. You suck!
See the problem? Each of these people has thousands of followers on Twitter, with @IrinaVoronina close to 10,000. No more is the bad experience limited to the half-dozen, but now a negative experience reaches thousands with the press of a button.
If companies aren’t paying attention to tweets on Twitter, or basically anywhere in the new social interactive media landscape where people can share their opinions and experiences with dang-near everyone, they are doing themselves a disservice. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook are the new arenas in CRM – Customer Relationship Management. Companies need to be proactive when possible and respond quickly when necessary. Engaging your customers in the social conversation, not just those that ‘like’ your brand, but those that may have issues with your business only serves to help your company in the long run. Customers want to feel that they matter, that people are paying attention to them. A simple reply to a disgruntled tweet can make all the difference, turn that negative customer into a positive example of your company in action, taking its customers seriously, caring about their experience.
Monitor social media channels like Twitter for what people are saying about your company and your brand. Be prepared to respond to concerns and problems as well as reward loyal brand champions.
Today in the 2011 Women’s World Cup in Germany, the United States Women’s National Team went the FIFA equivalent of NASCAR’s third attempt at a green-white-checker finish in their match against Brazil with a trip to the semifinals on the line (didn’t think I’d work in racing there, did you?). Tied 1-1 at the end of regulation, the US coming back, down a player, to tie the match 2-2 with the latest goal in Women’s World Cup history on a header by Abby Wambach off a cross from Megan Rapinoe in the 122nd minute. In honor of the US WNT defeating Brazil 2-2 (5-3 PK) to advance to the semifinals to face France, here are seven links (2 goals + 5 made penalty kicks) from around the ‘interwebz’ gathered for your convenience:
With Labor Day just a week or so away (the unofficial end of summer), let’s hop in the way-back machine and revisit Memorial Day weekend (the unofficial start of summer) and NASCAR (of course)…
Take a gander at this photo:
This lovely young woman is working on behalf of:
a hard liquor/distilled spirits company
an automotive product manufacturer
a beer company
a consumer products corporation
an insurance company
a tobacco company
Our mystery brunette (to whom I apologize for taking the paparazzi-style photo) is working the NASCAR crowd at Charlotte Motor Speedway in front of the booth for…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nationwide Insurance, sponsor of the NASCAR Nationwide Series.
Apparently the advertising axiom ‘sex sells’ even works for insurance.
Where I am going with this? Well, as a certified master of Interactive Media, I tend to highly sensitive to the principles of interactive media, no matter where they are being employed.
Much like a good website, an effective social media campaign, a viral video or a solid Flash animation:
the trick is to capture the attention of the viewer/user/browser/consumer
and
hold their attention and keep them on your website/at your store/in your booth
Given the audience in question – NASCAR race fans – Nationwide using an attractive young woman to help direct people into their booth is simply making use of a proven marketing method. The same idea applies in the realm of interactivity – what you are presenting has to look good enough to draw people in and invite them to interact.
Now for the chaser – what the young woman is holding.
People love getting free stuff. NASCAR fans in particular seem to collect freebies, particularly from their sport’s sponsors. Walk through any midway or Souvenir Row at a NASCAR event and sponsors are handing out branded items to loyal fans.
The idea of giving something away is certainly not unique to NASCAR and definitely not new concept. Typically it is done in hopes of getting something back.
Social psych folks call it reciprocity – the societal norm of people feeling obligated to respond in-kind to the actions of others; to say yes to a request made by someone who has done something for you.
To use the specific example of Nationwide Insurance, the bags in the young woman’s hands are designed to be used by fans as they go through the Nationwide booth from station to station; participating in games or simulators, getting a web photo taken and collecting Nationwide-branded trinkets like license plate frames and key chains.
Now, what’s the other half of the reciprocity equation? What is Nationwide aiming to get from all those fans going through their booth? One word – information.
Part of moving through the booth is collecting pieces of information from fans. A basic information package of at least:
name
address
e-mail address
answers to a few general questions about their current insurance company and their insurance needs
is crucial as they look to expand their consumer base and increase the number of people in their marketing database.
Any good interactive media campaign can make use of the same principle Nationwide did in their booth at Charlotte Motor Speedway. Part of the ‘grabbing people’s attention’ along with an attractive presentation can be offering a freebie.
Companies using interactive media can have visitors subscribe to a newsletter or enter their e-mail address to get a coupon offer sent right to their inbox. Customers and potential customers get a free coupon offer and the company gets the all important e-mail address.
Interactivity … online and trackside. Interesting what you can see when you just stop to look.
I’m Too Sexy for My Yearbook
It’s 2012 and I figured I would start by trying something a little bit different, testing out a few things. If NASCAR can introduce EFI (electronic fuel injection), then I can try something new too. Not necessarily iMedia, not necessarily racing, more of a commentary/analysis take on things. Things like …
Sexy Student’s Sexy Yearbook Photo Banned for Being Sexy
Kinda grabs your attention, doesn’t it? Yes, it’s the curious case of Sydney Spies and her choice for her senior portrait in the Durango High School yearbook, a photo she described to Matt Lauer on a Today show appearance this way- “I honestly think (the picture) describes who I am, … I am an outgoing person and I really do think it’s artistic.” (nbc17.com, 1/9/2010, http://bit.ly/zQeWZs)
You can read all about it here, here, here, here, and here.
Oh, and here is the photo (via Facebook) –
I have a couple of points of question.
First, this:
“When the yearbook advisor saw the picture, however, she decided that the picture could not be included in the yearbook on the grounds that it violates school dress code. Durango High requires students cover the entirety of their chests, backs, midriffs, and sides during the school day, you see. Fair enough. Except Sydney says that she was never told that her yearbook photo needed to adhere to school dress code, and that, in fact, there’s no policy in place to govern what students can and cannot wear in the picture that will end up smushed up against the pictures of everyone else’s senior quotes from The Notebook or Entourage for all of eternity.” (jezebel.com, 1/6/2012, http://bit.ly/AkL9PQ)
There is no doubt that the photo in question does not adhere to the school dress code. But if what Spies claims is correct, that there is no policy in place dictating what is or is not acceptable for the senior photos for the yearbook, then she totally got hosed. Spies has every right to be upset and claim unfairness. Yet, claiming infringement on her freedom of expression may be taking it a bit too far. First Amendment rights aren’t necessarily black and white when it comes to school-produced publications.
However, apparently “according to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 22-1-120, “students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press” and that “no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint.” (durangoherald.com, 1/4/2012, http://bit.ly/ybsIBf ), so she may have a leg to stand on after all. Yet, “… school administration can overrule the law under certain requirements, including obscenity” (durangoherald.com, 1/4/2012, http://bit.ly/ybsIBf), so the checkered flag hasn’t flown yet on possibility of this moving from the schoolroom to the courtroom.
In reading more about the situation, there seemed to be a little confusion as to who actually made the call to ban the provocative photo in question. Initially blame was placed on school administrators. Yet, it appears that it was the student editors who made the decision — “The administration really had nothing to do with it,” said Tevan Trujillo, a student yearbook editor. It was us. … The editors – Trujillo, Erin Edblom, Paige Shacklett, Alyssa Spencer and Brian Jaramillo – said they unanimously came to the decision not to run her submitted photo as a senior portrait.” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).
But, it was the reason the student editors gave that rubbed me the wrong way. It wasn’t the dress code as originally cited when the administration was getting the blame. The reason they gave: “We are an award-winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional,” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).
To me, that just smacks of elitist arrogance. It’s the editors picking on the pretty girl, sticking it back to the privileged and the ‘genetically blessed.’
Those of you following along have to be saying, ‘but Erik, surely this is not the first time this has happened with a student’s yearbook photo, is it?’ It is not. In fact, it is not even the first time this has happened with the Durango High School yearbook. “Two years ago, yearbook staff made a similar decision when a male student wanted to run a picture of himself bare-chested as a portrait” (durangoherald.com, 1/5/2012, http://bit.ly/welX9a).
Eureka! Precedent! Spies’ photo is not the first to run afoul of the yearbook editors. Surely this will settle all the questions, all the protests. ‘But Erik,’ you say, ‘it is comparing apples to melons so-to-speak. Spies is not bare-chested, and it is comparing a male and a female. You can’t do that.’ Apparently, no one did. Frankly, I’m confused as to why the editors didn’t go the precedent route in explaining their decision. That, to me, would have read better than the ‘unprofessional’ reasoning.
All of this could have been avoided if there was a policy in place outlining standards for the senior portraits. The school yearbook had this problem before, with the bare-chested male student, so guidelines should have been implemented then, with the forward-thinking that such a situation would likely happen again. Alas, no one did, and now we have this Spies kerfuffle.
Now, as a yearbook veteran (both high school and collegiate), I find it unusual that the students can submit their own photo to use as their senior portrait. Every yearbook I have been involved with had the class photos, including senior portraits, taken by the official photographer. As far as dress for the senior portraits, everyone had the same thing – males had a tuxedo top and bow tie, females had a shawl/drape wrapped around their shoulders. In fact, when I first read stories about this particular incident, I thought the photo was something for Spies’ senior ad. As it turns out, that is what is going to happen anyway. Spies’ has paid $300 for a full-page ad in order to have her photo published in the yearbook.
Ultimately, what we have here is a failure to communicate. If, from the very beginning, the photo was rejected citing the precedent of the bare-chested male student, and a compromise was offered to run it in a senior ad (perhaps at a discount), I have a feeling all this would have blown over. Yet, those involved went the ‘it’s banned, it violates the dress code – but you didn’t say it had to follow the dress code – you’re infringing on my freedom of expression – it has nothing do to with the dress code, it makes the yearbook look unprofessional – ok, buy an ad and run the photo then’ route, and now lawyers are involved, the national media is paying attention and way more people have seen the photo now than would have ever seen it just in the Durango High School yearbook.
Writer’s note: I agree with Spies. I think the photo is artistic. It is a model-style professional shot. I know it is way more artistic than the mirror self-portrait in a skimpy outfit posted to Facebook or Twitter. But that’s just my opinion.
Post Script: As I mentioned, the problem seemed to be a lack of clear communication coupled with a mishandling of the situation. These are two mistakes that can be the death of you or your organization when it comes to the arena of social media. Not making sure your message is clear and tailored to the medium almost guarantees that someone will misunderstand – possibly take offense to – what you are saying. A deliberate, measured, professional yet personal approach to handling any controversy will be better for you in the long run when it comes to handling social media interactions. Don’t give a canned response or something in PR/legal-speak. Also, don’t run to the nearest microphone (or keyboard as the case may be) and fire off your knee-jerk reaction. Odds are that first thing that pops into your head is something that won’t help the situation; an emotionally-charged, likely-not-fully thought out statement does more harm than good (guess I tied it back to iMedia (social media) after all).
Tagged banned, commentary, Durango High School, Facebook, iMedia, photo, Spies, Sydney Spies, yearbook |