Altruism is supposed to be about selflessness—helping others without expecting anything in return. Yet, in a world where generosity is often posted online, referred to as “challenges”, and shared via links and stories, it’s worth asking: How much of giving is about making a difference, and how much is about being seen doing it?  As audiences become savvier and more skeptical about performative philanthropy and cause-marketing, it’s important for brands to ensure their altruistic efforts pass muster.  

What Stories Are We Telling?

The way we talk about helping often follows a pattern. The giver is portrayed as generous and powerful, while the recipient is shown as vulnerable and helpless. It’s not always intentional, but it happens—especially in the media. The way givers are portrayed is one of dominance and superiority whereas those receiving aid enforce their perceived vulnerability and reliance.  

For example, a study on 2017’s Hurricane Harvey coverage found that people of color were mostly depicted receiving aid, while white individuals, who were also victims, were shown grieving but not necessarily needing material help. In cases when aid was portrayed, white individuals were more often showcased as “heroes” than people of color in similar situations.    

This imbalance in portrayal is detrimental to how the world views victims, pushes inaccurate stereotypes and discourages those affected from seeking or accepting help.    

Do We Give to Help, or to Feel Good?

Giving is often framed as purely selfless, but we have learned that it is not entirely true. Research suggests there’s usually a personal benefit involved in relation to providing aid. In 2023, Americans donated over $557 billion to charity yet 43% of donors said they gave at least partially because it made them feel good. Meanwhile, nearly half of Americans say they’ve volunteered recently, but actual labor statistics put that number closer to 25%.  

Moreover, social media has reshaped charity in both positive and complicated ways. Viral fundraisers, influencer-led philanthropy, and brand-driven giving have created new opportunities for generosity—but they’ve also blurred the lines between meaningful impact and performative philanthropy. 

Take campaigns like the Ice Bucket Challenge or Instagram fundraisers. They raise awareness and money, but they also make giving something that’s often performed rather than quietly done. Studies show that people are more likely to donate when there’s an immediate, visible crisis—like a natural disaster—than they are to preventative causes. This could be the reason why some issues get massive attention while others struggle to get support, making it easier to engage with a cause at a surface level, without really comprehending its core issue or ways to continue support. 

Brands have taken notice, as well. With 78% of consumers expecting companies to support social causes, many businesses are quick to make statements about their charitable efforts. But there’s a fine line between genuine support and a PR stunt or authentic brand altruism.  

What Makes Giving Meaningful?

Taking all of this into account, we must ask ourselves, how can we truly become altruistic?  If we want to ensure that altruism stays true to its purpose, we can start by shifting the conversation.  Instead of focusing on who helps, we should focus on what’s being done and on whether we are contributing to lasting change.

To truly be altruistic, we must:  

• Put the focus on the cause, not the giver

• Be mindful of representation

• Support existing efforts

• Commit to long-term action

• Destigmatize receiving help

For brands, non-profits, and content creators, navigating the fine line between authentic brand altruism and good optics is more important than ever, especially now that audiences have developed a keen eye for performative actions. It is crucial to know:

• Transparency extends for miles 

• Go beyond one-time gestures  

• Involve the community  

• Make caring a part of your DNA  

• Avoid savior narratives  

There’s no perfect way to give, but as philanthropy continues to evolve, it’s worth asking if we’re truly making a difference or making ourselves look good.  

How does your organization try to be altruistic? Have you been able to get the balance of marketing and substantive giving right? We’d love to talk shop with you! 

The post The Optics of Altruism: Is your brand helping, or trying to look helpful? appeared first on PACO Collective.

And influencers aren’t exactly a new phenomenon; the Instagram parody account “Influencers in the Wild has been around since 2019, after all. Nor did they just get involved with politics. Prominent Republicans in particular, including figures like Representatives Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Matthew Gaetz, were social media figures before running for office. For that matter, Donald Trump himself – a “lifestyle influencer” long before that term had been invented – built his political following on the back of his Twitter following, bypassing traditional media filters and influencing public discourse in real-time. 

OK, then What Gives? 

So influencers have been around for a while, and they’ve been involved in politics for at least the past decade, particularly on the Republican side. With Democrats playing catchup in a form of voter outreach for the first time since the direct mail era, some sort of reaction was inevitable if they were to have a chance of winning this election. But it was the particular mixture of three elements that 2024’s DNC social media joyruption happen: COVID, Gen Z…and a final catalyst. 

Pandemic-era social isolation affected Gen Z more deeply than any other age group. With face-to-face interaction drastically curtailed during formative years, this already digital-native generation was forced to make up for the (in some cases, very relative) lack of social interaction in virtual spaces. TikTok’s popularity exploded, to the point where it’s how a plurality of Gen Z gets its news. Where the Republicans’ older low-propensity voter groups actively disdain the legacy media, Gen Z has, simply, moved on. Interestingly, Gen Z is more likely than their older generational counterparts to fall for fake headlines; and not because they don’t know how to fact check, but because they’re twice as likely to trust information shared online by “people like them than traditional, mainstream news. 

In years past, big celebrity headliners were the easy way to get eyeballs at conventions. But those shiny big names do little for Gen Z—a majority of this generation actively trust influencers more than celebrities, meaning Dems would have to leverage social media…but influencers were wary of backlash. Taking sides was risky. Influencers needed motivation. 

And then Kamala Harris replaced Joe Biden at the top of the ticket. 

Somewhere between that moment, the Olympics, and the DNC, a whole lot of apparently pent-up positivity erupted. “Kamala Is Brat.” “Tim Walz is America’s Dad.” Meme on meme on meme. What’s noteworthy is that the Democrats have thus far been very savvy about how they reacted – rolling with the phenomenon rather than trying to control it or stop it. It’s vibes…and social media loves vibes. 

Vibes Are Vibes, and Brands Are Brands – Even in Politics 

Are there lessons to be learned here? Of course! Take away the implications for things like the rule of law and national security, and unique considerations like the election calendar, and you’re left with two campaigns facing a classic business dilemma: how much effort to invest in 1) stealing share from one’s opponent (i.e. pursuing swing voters) vs. 2) increasing devotion among existing enthusiasts (i.e. motivating the base) vs. 3) gaining share by attracting people from outside the category (i.e. encouraging turnout among friendly low-propensity voter groups). 

The Republicans have, as with their campaign as a whole, staked their influencer efforts on the second strategy to the near-exclusion of the first and ambivalence towards the third. Meanwhile, the Democrats are relying more heavily on a friendly third-party constellation of influencers to pursue the third strategy for them, making sure their own campaign doesn’t undermine the phenomenon while pursuing the first strategy themselves. 

As we gear up for the first presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Harris, we’re likely to see fingers hit keyboards before the first remark is even made. Within 24 hours, debate highlights will flood TikTok, and influential voices from both political parties will share POVs across social media and podcasts. Regardless, it’s impossible to ignore the role influencers play in driving public discourse. And if you’re curious about how to make that work for your company or even how we see this playing out politically, we’d love to discuss it.  

P.S. don’t forget to register to vote.  

The post Vibes, Memes, and Votes: How Influencers Are Shaping the Political Landscape  appeared first on PACO Collective.

Then this commercial came on. The pub was silent at first as folks tried to figure out what we were watching…and then absolutely erupted when we saw George Washington behind the wheel of a Dodge Challenger, Betsy Ross flag flying out the passenger side window, followed by the only spoken words in the spot: “Here’s a couple of things America got right: cars, and freedom.” I like to think that the sheer delight this caused among the entire crowd – fans of both squads were repeating the line endlessly through the rest of the match – helped generate enough karmic momentum to keep England from winning.

Americana – What Is It?

While a soccer match may not be the first thing one thinks of when the word “Americana” is mentioned, the Dodge spot itself is a classic of the genre. In advertising, the term refers to ads with elements of national identity such as history (esp. the Revolutionary era, the Old West, and WWII/postwar), folklore, and nostalgia.

Americana’s been a staple of advertising since the beginning of the industry. It shows up most frequently in settings where mass appeal is important (like sports), but has also been leveraged to both portray and appeal to diverse audiences – even before inclusivity was considered a virtue. But with polarization seemingly ever-increasing, and the feeling among some that overt displays of patriotism or even the American flag itself have become a partisan signifier, I got asked a question: has Americana been fading out of advertising lately?

The answer, it seems, is not really. While I didn’t do a full-bore, academic-style longitudinal quantitative analysis, here are some selected proof points.

The Evidence

Exhibit A: Volkswagen’s love letter to America in this year’s Super Bowl. What’s more American than an immigrant’s story? Particularly one that’s drenched in some of the biggest cultural touchstones of the last 75 years.

Exhibit B: Impossible Foods’ 2024 campaign is about as red-blooded as possible for a plant-based food company. Mid-century imagery and palette are slathered atop Team America-esque lines like “let’s punch cholesterol in the face!” and “we’re solving the meat problem…with more meat!” Is it ironic and over the top…or is it juuust right? I’d say the answer is “yes.”

Exhibit C: The General insurance serves high-risk and financially challenged drivers are both more culturally diverse than the driving population at large. Since 2011, their mascot has been a pugnacious caricature of an army general with a handlebar mustache. They’ve tweaked his appearance a bit here and there, but his endurance is testament to his appeal among their target markets.

Whence the Enduring Appeal?

If Americana were truly divisive, a mass-market car company like VW would hesitate to alienate half their audience than lean into it. A plant-based food maker would almost certainly avoid the risk of pushing existing customers towards their competitors in an effort to chase the carnivorously-inclined. And brand equity or no, a car insurance company would abandon a problematic mascot with extreme prejudice. How, then has Americana persisted, even in the face of polarization?

It turns out rumors of patriotism’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. The “historic low” level of patriotism in 2024 is still pretty high; over ⅔ of us remain either “extremely” or “very” proud to be Americans. And even the most MAGA-leery can get plenty performative, or just plain thrilled to live where and when they do, when the right moment or mood strikes.

Getting Americana Right for Today’s America

So how to get Americana right in 2024 and beyond? First, don’t feel obligated to play it too straight or reverent; subverting expectations or adding a bit of tongue-in-cheeck over-the-top-ness can help mitigate what might otherwise seem jingoistic. After all, the only thing Americans love as much as we love America is making fun of America…and making fun of how we make fun of America (we’re a pretty meta-inclined people).            

Second, remember that Americana was never just a thing for and about middle class White folks! Like VW recognized, Americans of all backgrounds have had a great and growing impact on our culture since the beginning of the Republic. Celebrate that. And celebrate it in a way that’s authentic to the people and the experiences you want to portray. We’ll be happy to help you.

Author’s Note

Since I wrote this, there has been an attempted assassination of one of the candidates in the 2024 election. The attempt to deny, through violence, the American people their ability to choose who they can vote for is fundamentally un-American – no matter what one thinks of that candidate, his past actions, or his platform. The fact that un-American ideals and actions persist is itself part of the fabric of American life, and has been since the beginning, but that’s no reason not to try to ever-more-fully live up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The post A Faded Flag? Americana in Branding and Advertising in 2024 appeared first on PACO Collective.

There’s a common misconception that Title IX only pertains to sports, and not for small reason– it has indeed revolutionized athletic opportunities for women and girls. Before it was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1972, only 15% of college athletes were women, and a meager 2% of athletic budgets were allocated to women’s sports. Today, those numbers have dramatically increased, with women making up 43% of college athletes and receiving 40% of athletic budgets. This shift has had a profound impact, encouraging more girls to participate in sports and fostering a culture of athleticism and teamwork. 

However, unless you are a policy wonk, you probably didn’t know that Title IX is a comprehensive federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in ANY education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX has paved the way for gender equity in all areas of education. Its scope includes academic opportunities, financial aid, housing, and employment within educational institutions.  

The origins of Title IX can be traced back to the pioneering efforts of Congresswoman Patsy Mink, the first woman of color and first Asian American elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Mink, along with Rep. Edith Green and Sen. Birch Bayh, recognized the systemic barriers faced by women and sought to create a legislative solution. Title IX was born out of a broader movement towards gender equality, following milestones such as President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11375, which prohibited sex discrimination in federal employment and contract work. 

The journey of Title IX since then has not been without challenges. Over the past 50 years, it has faced numerous legal battles and legislative amendments. From early attempts to exclude revenue-producing sports from compliance to ongoing debates around protections for transgender students, Title IX has been at the center of many contentious issues. Despite these challenges, it remains a cornerstone of gender equity in education. 

One of the most significant recent updates to Title IX regulations was announced in April 2024, a couple months short of its 52nd anniversary: new regulations confirm protections for LGBTQ+ students and expand the definition of sexual harassment. However, these reforms fell short of addressing the inclusion of transgender athletes comprehensively.  

The ongoing legal and social battles highlight the complexity of ensuring equity and the importance of continued advocacy and education around Title IX. Like the common perception of the law, many arguments against the inclusion of transgender people under the law’s protection are rooted in sports–and are legitimately complex and thorny questions. This is why it’s more important than ever to remember that Title IX is more than just a law governing athletics–it’s a powerful framework for ensuring equity in all areas of education, extending to mental health services and protection against sexual assault.

What can marketers take away from all this? If nothing else, that narrative framing matters significantly. While Title IX is often attacked on understandable concerns around fairness in sports, focusing on only that part of its impact would be myopic. Title IX is a textbook example of how crucial the starting point of a discussion is in setting its agenda.  

If you’ve been struggling with how best to frame your brand’s story—especially if you want a framing that’s as inclusive as possible—don’t hesitate to reach out to us for help! 

The post Title IX’s Importance Goes Way Beyond Sports appeared first on PACO Collective.

For example, the Interstate Highway System is regularly heralded as one of the major accomplishments of the Eisenhower Administration, linking cities, facilitating travel, and serving as the backbone of the U.S. supply chain. But linking cities with new roads meant building new roads. And when it came time to decide where to build them, in city after city the answer was the same: in predominately Black and Latino neighborhoods. Thriving communities were bisected and destroyed by highway construction, contributing greatly to the “urban blight” of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. 

The motivation to bulldoze marginalized neighborhoods wasn’t purely based on ethnic animosity, although that was certainly a factor in many cases – economics also played a role (and gave cover for more explicitly racist motivations). Marginalized communities have of course suffered economically as well as politically and legally, and the result of both legal and unofficial segregation policies has been that they have lived in less desirable areas. In some cases, that has resulted in physical harm as well as economic disadvantage. New Orleans serves as a prime example. When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, the Ninth Ward was among the hardest hit parts of town and also one of the slowest to recover – a repeat of the experiences of St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes during and after the 1927 flood. Man-made disasters also disproportionately affect disempowered communities, as in the infamous case of Flint, Michigan. 

Directly addressing policy may be beyond the power of a marketing campaign – but both clients and advertisers can still help combat environmental racism. We can raise awareness of course, but why stop there? Let’s portray survivors of natural disasters and other disturbances that disproportionately affect marginalized communities in a more sympathetic light than the “looters” of common perception. Let’s amplify their voices so they can lead discussions about the challenges they face and the solutions they have to offer on topics from biodiversity to climate change to housing—for example, despite being routinely disregarded in climate change conversations, Indigenous Peoples manage and conserve 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity.  Let’s help clients understand what more they can do to combat environmental racism, by making them aware of their customers’ (particularly their younger customers’) desire for meaningful action. Let’s put our talent for persuasion towards a more inclusive America with a better environment for us all.  PACO can help you do these things – give us a shout so we can talk about how. 

The post From Highways to High Water: Environmental Racism Isn’t Just about Climate Change  appeared first on PACO Collective.

That wouldn’t have been the case in the “Mad Men” era, when much of today’s “agency speak” was born. While the show Mad Men is fictional, the fact that all of the top management at Sterling Cooper were veterans was typical of the time. After all, in 1960, 45% of American men had military experience. That experience shaped how they thought, wrote, and talked – indeed military jargon permeated every creative industry at the time, not just advertising. We hear it in old episodes of Star Trek and see it in art created by folks like Jasper Johns. 

Half a century later, we still use phrases like “in the trenches”, “rally the troops”, “war rooms”, and so on. Sometimes this language is self-deprecating; sometimes it isn’t – it probably depends more on the speaker and their tone than the words or phrases themselves. But coming from the wrong speaker, martial language can certainly be a force multiplier (just did it myself!) that makes stressful situations worse. 

Martial language isn’t just prevalent in agencies; it also permeates how we talk about brands in popular culture. Over the past 40 years we’ve seen an ongoing Cola War, successive video game Console Wars, and plenty of Car Wars – The Billboard Battle Of BMW Vs Audi. All with winners and losers in the form of brands – not consumers. 

The impact of all this on ad campaigns, relationships with consumers, and more may be the most profound issue stemming from martial thinking in advertising. Seeing the market as territory to be conquered can lead marketers to forget the market is made of people. Which isn’t just dehumanizing; it’s counter-productive! It can lead marketers to talk about themselves and propagandize with misleading messages rather than making themselves and their offerings relevant to the real concerns and lives of the people they serve. 

Is it possible to, if not replace martial language, then at least add more metaphors to how we discuss what we do? Rather than thinking of advertisers as generals or warriors, perhaps we can also remember – and remind our clients and other audiences – that we’re artists, activists, and advocates as well. 

For marketers, martial excess is like Tic-Tac-Toe and Global Thermonuclear War: the only winning move is not to play. If you want to find a way to de-escalate your own brand efforts, we’re here to help. 

The post Fightin’ Words in Advertising – Do We Have a Martial Language Problem?  appeared first on PACO Collective.

The concept of a TikTok ban is not unfamiliar to anyone who has scrolled through their FYP (For-You-Page) in the past four years. Numerous videos have been created to warn the public of an impending TikTok shutdown. Over time, it starts to feel like it’s just mere talk. Nonetheless, the current “TikTok ban” carries an undeniable gravity. On Wednesday, March 13th, the House voted in favor of banning TikTok. Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of everything you need to know and its implications for the future of brands.

Why TikTok’s Future is Up for Grabs

Contrary to what may be circling on the internet, proponents of the bill are adamant that it’s not merely a matter of deciding whether TikTok should or should not be banned. Rather, dubbed the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act”, this legislation aims to pressure TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company, ByteDance. If TikTok fails to transition ownership to a U.S. entity, it faces being banned in the U.S.

But what’s prompting all the commotion?

Well, it’s not just about ASMR restock videos anymore; it’s about potential risks to user privacy and national security; the main problem lies in TikTok’s ownership by the Chinese government, sparking concerns from many policymakers regarding potential access to vast amounts of personal U.S. user data. Congresswoman DeLauro expressed her apprehension, stating, “That is why it is even more concerning that one of the United States’ most prominent adversaries, China, has control over the app. The app could be used to spy on Americans or to manufacture public opinion.” As discussions intensify, the future of TikTok in the U.S. hangs in the balance.

From the House to The Senate

The truth of the matter is TikTok’s vanishing act isn’t happening overnight. With the bill passed in the House, it moves on to the Senate for the next phase of its journey. If it successfully passes through the Senate, it will then reach its final destination to President Biden’s desk who has already given the bill his seal of approval.

While the House hurried to expedite the bill under a “suspension of the rules,” requiring a two-thirds majority to pass, the Senate is taking its time, granting users more opportunities to enjoy the app.  

If the Senate joins in the Houses’ chorus of approval, ByteDance will face an approximate 5-month deadline to find a new buyer approved by the U.S. government. The terms of acquisitions mandate a complete separation, ensuring ByteDance no longer has any control over TikTok and its algorithms.

If Byte Dance fails or refuses to sell TikTok, distributing or updating the app in the U.S. would become illegal for app stores and web hosting companies. The Justice Department could act against any company linked with TikTok or its app.

So, back to the burning question on everyone’s mind. Are we saying farewell to TikTok for good?

Well, it’s dependent on if TikTok decides to sell and who they sell to.

The Future of TikTok

Should TikTok decide to put itself (or part of its business) up for sale, it would come with a substantial price tag—grossly narrowing the pool of potential purchasers. Discussions are already underway on TikTok about who should step in as the new leader of the app. Beyoncè, Taylor Swift, and Mr. Beast are dominating the conversation. The prospect of establishing a creator-driven platform holds significant intrigue. While it wouldn’t be the first, given examples like Patreon, which was founded by musician Jack Conte, it could potentially become the most expansive platform of its kind. This would be especially compelling since it could offer creators more influence over their content and communities.

In the corporate realm, potential buyers capable of affording TikTok include tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Meta. However, the prospect of Meta acquiring TikTok seems highly unlikely due to the idea that there could be a conflict of interest in creating a social monopoly, which might limit diversity and fairness in the online space. Nonetheless, if TikTok were to change owners, it could have significant implications, especially for brands and advertisers who occupy space on the platform.

What This Means for Brands

Statistics reveal that brands have witnessed significant revenue growth in the U.S. through TikTok. If TikTok were banned, it would be reasonable to assume that these businesses could take an equally significant hit. While larger brands may have more resources to sustain an immense and immediate change, the impact of a “TikTok Ban” could hold a heavy weight on small businesses that heavily rely on the platform.

Given the rise of influencer marketing on TikTok and its significance for content creators, brands should explore alternative channels such as Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts to diversify their content and reach broader audiences. Repurposing content and refining social media strategies to encompass a multi-channel approach will be crucial in maintaining visibility and engagement.

Furthermore, staying ahead of industry trends and actively engaging with the community to communicate contingency plans are vital steps for brands navigating the evolving social media landscape.

As TikTok’s future remains uncertain, brands should also consider exploring emerging platforms like Triller and Lemon8 as potential alternatives. Ultimately, preparedness and adaptability will be key for brands to navigate potential disruptions and seize new opportunities in the ever-evolving social media landscape.

In summary, brands, especially those reliant on TikTok, must diversify their marketing strategies and stay agile amid uncertainty, exploring alternative platforms and collaborations. For expert guidance in adapting to these changes, contact us for support in optimizing your brand’s digital presence.

The post Saying Farewell to Your FYP? What a “TikTok Ban” Could Mean for Brands appeared first on PACO Collective.

The Ongoing DEI Debate – Where Do Brands Fit? 

Following the murder of George Floyd and the protests that followed it, America’s perspective on race, racism, and how to think about both shifted very rapidly. The concept of systemic racism entered the general consciousness, and younger generations in particular – being more diverse and more inclined to believe that diversity is a strength rather than a weakness of American society – became more willing to say it existed and that we should combat it. 

The debate over systemic racism inevitably got folded into the larger polarization in American society. At first glance, the increasing focus on DEI and subsequent backlash against “woke-ism” looks like Newton’s Third Law applied to politics. The reality is more complex – agreeing that systemic racism is a serious problem doesn’t mean people will agree on how best to combat it. And that question is just one of many in a larger DEI debate with eddies and crosscurrents cutting against a simple left/right divide. 

The combination of polarization, intra-partisan disagreement, and a presidential election heightening the importance of all political topics mean that 2024 will be a particularly perilous time for brands caught in an omni-directional crossfire. Why? Because Americans also don’t agree with whether brands should take stands on social or political topics. Over half aren’t interested – but those who are, expect them to do so and consider it of great importance. With almost 2/3 of consumers expecting brands to connect with them, how to reconcile those expectations and the partisan divide is a lot to consider. One crucial takeaway: whatever a brand does, it should be prepared to stick to it. Nobody wants to be the next Bud Light, and a clear action plan based on authenticity to the brand and fidelity with consumers will help make engagement on any topic meaningful and sustainable. 

Identity: from Unique to Universal 

Identity isn’t what it used to be. Thanks to factors like the census allowing individuals to select more than one racial or ethnic category – soon to be joined by the addition of more granular national origin options, as well – and greater awareness of concepts like intersectionality and colorism, Americans increasingly rank multiple elements as equally important when it comes to how they define their own identities. Our identities are becoming hyper-specific, but we also identify with ever-greater numbers of other people whose identities overlap with our own. 

Brands also face a tension between the ability to be hyper-specific when targeting groups and telling stories featuring them, and the pressure to be as efficient with budgets as possible. Co-creation and collaboration offer a way to resolve the tension, while also staying more authentic than might otherwise be possible. By amplifying specific voices, we not only center marginalized stories; we also create opportunities to demonstrate their universal appeal and importance. Of course, we also create opportunities for backlash. But we shouldn’t run from that, and we certainly shouldn’t back down in the face of it…if for no other reason that doing so will just make everyone angry while appeasing nobody. 

Battles over Data Abound 

When it comes to data, people expect transparency. And privacy. And responsibility. And accountability. And control. And…well, you get the picture. Conflicting demands over how data is collected, stored, used, and even owned aren’t going away anytime soon. And they’ll affect whether and how data can become a tool to foster greater inclusion and belonging for marginalized and historically excluded groups and subcultures of people. 

The battle over data is itself the trend for 2024. How will policy reflect these competing demands? When rights collide, which will we prioritize? What will “inclusion” mean in the data sector? How much will decisions in places like the EU and Communist China affect how data is handled and perceived in the United States? Will zero-party and/or synthetic data offer ways to address some of these questions? 

No matter what the answers 2024 holds – and we don’t believe they’ll be the final answers in any case – we can confidently predict one thing: transparency will continue to hold the key to trust for advertisers. 

AI’s Opportunities and Limitations Reflect Those in Human Society 

We’ve talked about AI bias before – its presence, what it says about us, and what we can learn from it. Well, the lessons keep coming – and perhaps the most important is that even our efforts to correct for bias contain their own biases. They also remind us that it’s very, very tricky to teach AI. 

Bias is of course just one issue we’ll be confronting in terms of AI and inclusion. Fortunately, the technology offers magnificent opportunities as well as challenges. The ability to assist volunteers and to help people fulfill religious calls they might not otherwise be able to are just two of the many ways AI can help enhance human experiences and lives. 

Rather than replacing human judgment, AI brings new challenges that require it. The trend for 2024 will be the struggle by brands, agencies, governments, and people in general to harness that judgment. 

How They Fit in the Mega-Trends 

The battle over DEI is part of the larger question of whether, when, and how brands should take stances on major issues of public interest. The increasingly complex way in which people define their identities, and how brands can reach and speak for them accordingly, is a manifestation of the niche vs. universal paradox we’ve seen in marketing for nearly 20 years. As we’ve briefly examined, opportunities abound in both.  

The struggles over data and AI we’ll see – and participate in! – this year are more fraught than many because so many of us are unfamiliar with and uncertain about them both. The absence of common frames of reference has affected all manner of public discourse of late; that’s the mega-trend the two final trends manifest. That absence is even more keenly felt when we don’t even have a frame of reference to find a frame of reference. But as we stagger towards some consensus, keeping an eye towards transparency, inclusion, and belonging for all will help ensure these powerful tools aren’t used to the detriment of society. 

The post Inclusive Trends for 2024  appeared first on PACO Collective.

Have you ever scrolled through Netflix, taken note of ads online, or looked at the magazine covers in the store? What do the featured people look like? What’s their skin tone? If you pay attention, you’ll notice a tendency towards lighter skin…even among people of the same cultural background. You can’t un-see it once you notice. What you’ve discovered is colorism.  

Colorism is a form of discrimination or bias based on a preference for lighter skin tones over darker ones. Notably, it isn’t just imposed by people of other ethnic or racial backgrounds; it involves the systemic preferential treatment of same-race people based on how light their skin is. 

Global Origins and Effects 

Colorism isn’t a new phenomenon. In the Americas, it is of course inextricably tied to the legacy of colonialism. The racial caste systems that existed in both the U.S. and Latin America favored lighter skin, eventually manifesting in a dizzying array of categories based on ancestry – with Non-White cultures internalizing the cultural elite’s preference for lighter skin tones. 

In other parts of the world, particularly South and East Asia, colorism long pre-dated contact with Europe – for example, Japanese books from the 900s CE celebrated the “porcelain” skin tones of their characters. Traditionally this reflected the typical cultural association of leisure with attractiveness, with darker skin associated with manual labor while fair skin meant one was of high status. 

But even in places like Japan that escaped being directly colonized by European powers, European notions of racial hierarchy layered on top of pre-existing colorism and the desire for lighter skin became a desire to look White. Simply keeping out of the sun was no longer enough; people resorted to hair dye, skin bleaching agents, and even plastic surgery in response to evolving beauty standards. 

No matter the particulars and origins of any particular variant of colorism, it has multi-dimensional effects revolving around self-esteem, healthcare, social ties, and economic discrepancies.  From societal beauty standards often favoring lighter skin tones to dark skin tones being significantly underrepresented in the educational materials for healthcare professionals, colorism is everywhere. Even within the workforce, lighter-skinned individuals may be more likely to receive better job opportunities, education, and treatment in various social settings further feeding into this detrimental cycle of colorism.   

Colorism in the United States 

In contemporary America, colorism is prevalent everywhere – from Hollywood to Wall Street to the campus quad. While the phenomenon is universal, it manifests differently within media and pop culture among distinct ethnic groups. In Hispanic media, colorism has been seen most prominently in telenovelas. Telenovelas often depict lighter skin tones to represent intelligence and wealth, while individuals with darker skin frequently have less screen time and are portrayed as “the help.” The trend even results in blatant misrepresentation. For example, the film In The Heights, which portrayed a predominately Afro-Dominican neighborhood, received backlash for the inaccurate representation of the community by casting mainly light-skinned Latinos. 

Colorism among African Americans runs deep as well. Dating back to slavery, the “paper bag test” was used to group darker-skinned slaves to work in the fields and light-skinned slaves to hold indoor jobs, and the standard didn’t disappear with the Thirteenth Amendment. TikTok influencer Pinkydoll, faced backlash for “light-skin fishing” after she made her first public appearance causing shock as her skin tone was darker than she portrayed online.  

Similarly, the film Crazy Rich Asians, received criticism for its Chinese-centric portrayal of Singapore’s population. This tendency parallels America’s own regarding Asian-Americans; as critics stated, “Brown Asians have been overlooked from the American definition of Asian for generations.” And while this example reflects colorism between ethnic groups within a broader census-defined category, it exists within particular Asian ethnic groups in the U.S. as well. 

What can we do About it? 

Colorism is a global phenomenon that manifests differently between and within societies. Here in the U.S., it is imperative that we as marketers take time to look at our own biases, take accountability, and improve our industry. Agencies can start internally through hiring and promoting processes that more diligently combat colorism. They can also help clients one ad at a time through strategy, storytelling, casting, and more. 

So with that in mind, who’s doing a good job? Here are a couple of examples. In 2017 Fenty Beauty, the cosmetics brand owned by Rihanna, went viral for including a 40+ shade range of her foundation line. The ‘Fenty Effect’ was coined as the chain reaction of other cosmetic brands following in Rihanna’s footsteps, dramatically changing the shopping experience for cosmetics. On the B2B side, Google recently partnered with Harvard sociologist Dr. Ellis Monk to develop a skin tone scale designed to be more inclusive of the full spectrum we see in our society. Not only that; they released the scale to the public so anyone can use it for research and product development.  

As advertisers, we need to critically question our practices through the brand cycle, and ultimately be authentic to our audiences by centering and celebrating individuals with darker skin tones. If you’d like a partner in this process, let us know! PACO Collective is delighted to help brands create a more equitable society for people of all skin tones, one campaign at a time. 

The post Skin Deep: The Historical Roots and Modern Manifestations of Colorism appeared first on PACO Collective.

Of course, we wouldn’t have this meta-tradition were it not for the tradition it builds on. Most of the discussion about the War on Christmas traces its history back to Bill O’Reilly’s 2004 “Christmas under Siege” episode of The O’Reilly Factor. But that timeline doesn’t do the War on Christmas justice; the John Birch Society had lamented a lack of Christmas spirit in the 1950s and Henry Ford did the same in the 1920s. The scapegoats reflect the particular era’s objects of right-wing paranoia – today’s “secular humanist elite” was preceded by “the UN” and “The Jews” respectively – but the general tune was the same: a nefarious conspiracy was plotting against Christmas! 

The crackpots were right in a way, though…there really was a War on Christmas at one point. In fact, it goes all the way back to Plymouth Rock. 

The War on Christmas Is Almost as Old as Thanksgiving

Unfortunately, for the self-proclaimed Defenders of Christmas, it was their heroes who waged America’s first battle against the yuletide season. That’s right, the Pilgrims discouraged Christmas celebrations and the Massachusetts Bay Colony actually banned them in Boston in 1659. Puritans were suspicious of Christmas’s pagan Roman roots and Catholic overtones, and absolutely loathed the feasting, revelry, and general merriment that went along with it (it’s not for nothing that H.L. Mencken defined Puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might be happy). So, when John Winthrop talked about America as a shining city on a hill, the glow he saw wasn’t coming from any lights that had been strung up. 

American Christmas – An Inclusive Tradition 

But while the Puritans and their theological heirs avoided celebrating Christmas until after the Civil War, the rest of the country was busy building today’s holiday traditions by mashing a bunch of culturally specific ones together in typical American fashion. “Old Saint Nick” is just one example. Saint Nicholas was a 4th-century Greek bishop who lived in the southern part of modern-day Turkey. He was the patron saint of children and gift-giving, which led to much of Europe exchanging gifts on the night before his Name Day. That day, December 6, was close enough to Christmas that the gift-giving migrated on the American calendar to the bigger celebration. 

The Dutch name for Saint Nicholas – Sinterklaas – became Santa Claus thanks to Washington Irving. His alter ego of “Kris Kringle” came from the German Chistkindl, the traditional gift-giver in German-speaking Europe. Dutch and German names notwithstanding, Santa came to resemble the English Father Christmas and Dickens’s Ghost of Christmas Present during the 1800s. All of that had to happen before the New York Sun could say “Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus”. And Santa’s still evolving to fit the needs of various communities…just look at Honolulu Hale, where Shaka Santa (and his wife Tūtū Mel) have wished passers-by a Mele Kalikimaka for the past few decades. 

Christmas became a federal holiday in 1870, so it should be no surprise that non-Christian Americans developed Christmas – and other holiday – traditions of their own. Late 19th Century Jewish New Yorkers faced a dilemma if they wanted to eat out on Christmas, when most restaurants were closed; the proximity of the Lower East Side Chinatown provided a solution and Jewish people have enjoyed Chinese food on Christmas ever since. And since Hanukkah tends to fall between Thanksgiving and Christmas, it was easy to wrap it into the general holiday season. Kwanzaa was created by Maulana Karenga in the 1960s. He intended it as a pan-African alternative to Christmas…but because it was to be an alternative, it takes at the same time as well. 

The observance of American – or Western – Christmas has even spread to places with different or no indigenous Christmas traditions. In Japan, for example, it’s become a tradition to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken on Christmas Day (thanks in no small part to effective advertising!) And in July, the Ukrainian government passed a law moving Christmas to December 25 rather than the day specified by the Russian Orthodox calendar. 

Implications for Marketers 

OK, that’s a lot to unpack. The point is, arguing over the “right” way to celebrate the holiday season is as old a holiday tradition as any other Americans have. But it says something that the same folks who wanted to ban it 400 years ago now want to dictate how everybody celebrates it. We say, don’t let them get Christmas to themselves. It’s as OK for brands to say “Merry Christmas”, “Feliz Navidad”, or any derivation thereof as it is to say “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings”. In fact, it’s kind of important to say them all. And it’s not just because about 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas in some way shape or form, and people like to feel seen. It’s because saying it will deprive the idea of a “War on Christmas” of oxygen. The Bill O’Reillys and their ilk will keep saying the war exists, of course. But it’ll be tough to take them seriously when the idea gets mugged by reality. Christmas belongs to all of us. 

We at PACO will be delighted to help you navigate the Christmas/holiday wars in a way that’s both true to your brand and inclusive to everyone you want to celebrate with. If you’d like to work with us please contact us here.

In the meantime, please enjoy one of many Christmas classics written or performed by a non-Christian American. And whatever your cultural and/or religious tradition, Season’s Greetings! 

The post The War on the War on Christmas – Or Something Like That appeared first on PACO Collective.