Honest Ads About Detroit's Transit System Pulled Because They Hurt People's Feelings

[erikd]

I think any reasonable person knows the message in the ad wasn't directed towards the workers.

But in any event, to folks like Melissa Roy, I say "tough cookies" and "grow up" The truth sometimes hurts. Instead of crying like a big baby about people telling you that you shit stinks when you know it stinks, you should be focusing your energy on cleaning up your shit.

I think this is missing the point of the objection.

The objection was raised because the ads, which were intended to help increase public support for transit funding, were poorly done, and featured a negative and counter-productive message.

If you want to increase support and funding for something, the last thing that you want to do is describe it as the worst. That doesn't help to instill hope or confidence in the people that you are trying to persuade.

Instead of an ad saying: "our system is the worst because we don't have enough support, so vote to increase funding", an ad focusing on the increasing demand for mass transit, transit-oriented developments, and the benefits to be gained by increasing support and funding for transit would be a much more effective way to go.

The problem with the ad was not that "the truth hurts", but that the ad was counter-productive, and was having the opposite effect of its intended purpose.

[313WX]

I think this is missing the point of the objection.

The objection was raised because the ads, which were intended to help increase public support for transit funding, were poorly done, and featured a negative and counter-productive message.

If you want to increase support and funding for something, the last thing that you want to do is describe it as the worst. That doesn't help to instill hope or confidence in the people that you are trying to persuade.

Instead of an ad saying: "our system is the worst because we don't have enough support, so vote to increase funding", an ad focusing on the increasing demand for mass transit, transit-oriented developments, and the benefits to be gained by increasing support and funding for transit would be a much more effective way to go.

The problem with the ad was not that "the truth hurts", but that the ad was counter-productive, and was having the opposite effect of its intended purpose.

Believe it or not, there are many people in this region who would have saw this commercial that weren't previously aware of the facts presented in it. You can't possibly solve a problem if you're not aware of the problem and its severity. Sometimes, it is negativity that breeds transparency [[maybe that's why our "One Tough Nerd" lives and breathes the motto "relentess positivity," which lead to the issues with Flint's Water was swept under the rug for so long?), and we all know transparency breeds the truth.

[erikd]

Believe it or not, there are many people in this region who would have saw this commercial that weren't previously aware of the facts presented in it. You can't possibly solve a problem if you're not aware of the problem and its severity. Sometimes, it is negativity that breeds transparency [[maybe that's why our "One Tough Nerd" lives and breathes the motto "relentess positivity," which lead to the issues with Flint's Water was swept under the rug for so long?), and we all know transparency breeds the truth.

The objection is not about hiding the facts or not being transparent, it's about a poorly done ad. The new ads feature the same information, just presented without the big "we are one of the worst" as a focal point.

Is it possible that airing ads focused on being the worst will create more awareness of the severity of the situation, and cause people to support increased funding because they don't want Detroit and the metro area to be the worst? I guess it's possible, but I find that highly unlikely.

As I said previously, the better way to garner support is to showcase the opportunities and benefits of increased funding, and what we are missing out on due to the current dearth of funding - which is what the new ads are focused on.

In any event, the original ad was not pulled because of "hurt feelings", but because it was counter-productive.

[313WX]

The objection is not about hiding the facts or not being transparent, it's about a poorly done ad. The new ads feature the same information, just presented without the big "we are one of the worst" as a focal point.

Maybe I missed something, but the new ads [[one of which with Dennis Archer Jr.) say the same thing as the old ads.

The main difference is that the new ads now feature someone that people like Melissa Roy would empathize with to give their personal stories about why Detroit's transit system is one of the worst in the country.

But that seems unnecessary to me if the message is the same. We're not children.

[Wesley Mouch]

...But that seems unnecessary to me if the message is the same. We're not children.

No, we're not children. But a loud percentage of us are children, whose 'feelings' are self-celebrated too much

[masterblaster]

I wish RTA would first focus on consolidating SMART and DDOT and creating one transit authority/system instead of having 3 systems. This would improve service and cuts costs and would demonstrate to the average suburbanite that this effort would cut government inefficiency and bureaucracy.

THEN after the systems have been consolidated and bus service improved, the RTA would have demonstrated a track record for efficiency, and asking voters to fund rapid transit lines would be more palatable.

[dtowncitylover]

I wish RTA would first focus on consolidating SMART and DDOT and creating one transit authority/system instead of having 3 systems. This would improve service and cuts costs and would demonstrate to the average suburbanite that this effort would cut government inefficiency and bureaucracy.

THEN after the systems have been consolidated and bus service improved, the RTA would have demonstrated a track record for efficiency, and asking voters to fund rapid transit lines would be more palatable.

They don't need to be consolidated, they NEED to be coordinated together so that their service compliments each other. As well, they need to be talking to each other. I think we're already seeing this with the express bus plan which is being put together by SMART and DDOT.

The suburbs and the city can have their own bus systems [[many metro areas do this), what needs to be regionalized and directly controlled by the RTA is anything that provides service regionally, ie commuter rail and the bus rapid transit system.

[Wesley Mouch]

They don't need to be consolidated, they NEED to be coordinated together so that their service compliments each other. As well, they need to be talking to each other. I think we're already seeing this with the express bus plan which is being put together by SMART and DDOT.

The suburbs and the city can have their own bus systems [[many metro areas do this), what needs to be regionalized and directly controlled by the RTA is anything that provides service regionally, ie commuter rail and the bus rapid transit system.

There may be no reason why two systems covering separate territories can't work, but in practice it probably isn't the best choice.

I can't think of a good reason to have two monopolies. But if you've got the cash, and you can't get the politics to work, OK.

[erikd]

No, we're not children. But a loud percentage of us are children, whose 'feelings' are self-celebrated too much

The irony of this is so perfect.

A pro-transit advocacy group produces a poorly-done ad that is ineffective and counter-productive to the pro-transit message that they intended to convey, which causes pro-transit advocates to call for the ad to be changed.

This was an absolutely reasonable, rational, and prudent response to the poorly-done ads.

There is no controversy or outrage to be found here, but the "anti-feelings" brigade couldn't let a non-issue go by without making much ado about nothing, and getting all emotional and overly-dramatic. It is hilarious to see the "anti-feelings" people get all butt-hurt and overly emotional about non-issues.

[Wesley Mouch]

The irony of this is so perfect.

A pro-transit advocacy group produces a poorly-done ad that is ineffective and counter-productive to the pro-transit message that they intended to convey, which causes pro-transit advocates to call for the ad to be changed.

This was an absolutely reasonable, rational, and prudent response to the poorly-done ads.

There is no controversy or outrage to be found here, but the "anti-feelings" brigade couldn't let a non-issue go by without making much ado about nothing, and getting all emotional and overly-dramatic. It is hilarious to see the "anti-feelings" people get all butt-hurt and overly emotional about non-issues.

Irony is undergoing a renaissance. Now the pro-feelings camp tells the anti-feelings camp to get over it.

But onto the subject, what we are debating is whether the ad is 'productive' or 'counter-productive'. The feelings camp thinks its productive, anti -- not. The debate about feelings is important. I don't think every ad for something I favor must be 'positive' and 'feel-good'. In fact a 'conversation' about the problems with Detroit's transit agencies to me is part of the solution that's necessary before I'd be in favor of regional transit. An agency or movement in denial [[see BLM) doesn't work for me. And of course whether it works for me is important. Just as today's campus advocates [[see Heller on campus activism in the New Yorker).

[casscorridor]

They don't need to be consolidated, they NEED to be coordinated together so that their service compliments each other. As well, they need to be talking to each other. I think we're already seeing this with the express bus plan which is being put together by SMART and DDOT.

The suburbs and the city can have their own bus systems [[many metro areas do this), what needs to be regionalized and directly controlled by the RTA is anything that provides service regionally, ie commuter rail and the bus rapid transit system.

No, what is needed for the Detroit area is a transportation authority with broad and sweeping powers over all transportation in the region, including motorized and non-motorized transport as well as public transit. Then a cohesive comprehensive transportation plan can be properly development and implemented. This plan should include streets, highways, bridges, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, buses, trains, and any other transport modes. It's crucial that transportation is thought of as a whole, and not as public transit being somehow seperate from our road and highways.

[Wesley Mouch]

No, what is needed for the Detroit area is a transportation authority with broad and sweeping powers over all transportation in the region, including motorized and non-motorized transport as well as public transit. Then a cohesive comprehensive transportation plan can be properly development and implemented. This plan should include streets, highways, bridges, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, buses, trains, and any other transport modes. It's crucial that transportation is thought of as a whole, and not as public transit being somehow seperate from our road and highways.

"Bureaucracies with sweeping powers"? Be careful what you wish for. They won't always do what you want. Think M-DOT. Think Moses Triborough.

[erikd]

Irony is undergoing a renaissance. Now the pro-feelings camp tells the anti-feelings camp to get over it.

But onto the subject, what we are debating is whether the ad is 'productive' or 'counter-productive'. The feelings camp thinks its productive, anti -- not. The debate about feelings is important. I don't think every ad for something I favor must be 'positive' and 'feel-good'. In fact a 'conversation' about the problems with Detroit's transit agencies to me is part of the solution that's necessary before I'd be in favor of regional transit. An agency or movement in denial [[see BLM) doesn't work for me. And of course whether it works for me is important. Just as today's campus advocates [[see Heller on campus activism in the New Yorker).

I think there may be some misunderstandings and confusion about this.

If we replaced the word "ad" with "news coverage" in your post, then I would absolutely agree with you. To be sure, we should demand hard-hitting factual news coverage and political debate about our failures and shortcomings, but that is exactly what we have been getting.

There has been no denial of the facts, nor any attempt by the pro-transit advocates to stifle or soften media coverage that [[correctly) points out that metro Detroit transit is the worst in the nation.

If the pro-transit advocates just "can't take criticism" and are "in denial" about the issues, then why was there no outcry over the 2015 Detroit Free Press article "How metro Detroit transit went from best to worst", or the 2014 MetroTimes article "How Detroit ended up with the worst public transit."

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...nsit/22926133/
http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ho...nt?oid=2143889

Pro-transit advocates are not at all in denial of the problems with metro Detroit transit, or our status as the worst in the nation. In fact, many of the most critical and blistering articles and commentaries on the situation come from pro-transit supporters, including the two that I linked above.

The point that has seemingly been missed in this discussion is that there is a difference between dispassionate journalists reporting the facts and figures in a news article, and hired ad agencies who are being paid to portray an organization, issue, or situation in a positive manner, in an attempt to increase support for it.

Let's consider the Chrysler "Imported From Detroit" ads in 2011 as an example. At that point, Chrysler had been battered by declining sales, declining quality, declining market share, and had just come out of a bankruptcy aided by a government bailout loan.

Should Chrysler have aired ads talking about their bankruptcy and declining market share, in order to stimulate the "conversation" about the challenges around outsourcing American manufacturing, and the compounding legacy cost issues due to the skyrocketing costs of funding health care and pensions?

Were the Chrysler executives too concerned about their feelings to pay for ads that weren't "positive" and "feel-good"?

Of course not! Marketing 101 teaches you not to position your client in a negative light, and ABSOLUTELY not to position your client as "the worst." The fact that this ad ever hit the air blows my mind. This should have never even gotten to the production stage.