4.25.02
Correctional Capitalism
-- OR --
Customer Captivity
A couple of years back, the socially conscious couturiers at Benetton unleashed their ultra-PC campaign entitled, We, On Death Row. This time, the patronizing pisans had decided that by slapping their brand name on portraits of death-row inmates, they could kill two jailbirds with one stone: provide awareness that death row has a human face and entice the anti-death penalty crowd to buy a few overpriced sweater sets. I wonder…if Benetton were in the business of dressing prisoners in designer jumpsuits, would their stance on the death penalty be different?

It's a harsh thing to think, but it looks as though a recent American RadioWorks documentary featured on NPR's 4/13 Morning Edition Saturday broadcast is accusing the makers of prison uniforms and other incarcerated creature comforts of something quite similar.

The report provides an in-depth look at the $50-billion corrections industry machine and the companies that turn its cranks. It argues, "The crackdown on crime has enriched corporations that build prisons or sell products to them…." It also claims that "some groups with vested interests work to influence public policy -- helping to keep more people locked up longer."

Prison goodies and services run the gamut: there are Kevlar protective vests made by Dupont; $5,000 B.O.S.S. (Body Orifice Security Scanner) chairs from Ranger Security Technologies; food supplies from Canteen Correctional Services; board games and puzzles by Quality Table Games; collect-call services from Sprint, Verizon and AT&T; and medical care provisions from Correctional Medical Services.

Gee…do you think any of these companies hire prison labor? That would be like cannibalism or something.

The American Correctional Association attracts vendors such as these for its annual corrections industry trade show through its website which, according to the NPR story, "warns companies, 'Don't miss out on this prime revenue-generating opportunity.' " Not surprising, the Association's recent event in Philadelphia attracted a few naysayers who believe that "the prison-industrial complex - perpetuates the war on crime for money," as the report puts it.

Of course, the big house blood sucking trade convention attendees see things differently. The report quotes conventioneer Ray Zaroufie, who comments, "Do prisoners got to eat? Do they got to shave? I mean, somebody's got to sell that to the state to put in those jails and the prisons, right?"

Just imagine: Zaroufie and his cohorts are corrupt enough to actually think it's OK to make a living by providing a needed service to a steadily-demanding market. Apparently to some, that's a crime.

The report goes on to cover the lobbying practices of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which includes firms that do prison business and "more than a third of the nation's state lawmakers." Apparently the organization has played a role in promoting laws that serve to boost prison enrollment, including the Three Strikes laws and Truth-in-Sentencing laws.

I don't doubt that ALEC has influenced legislation that's led to tougher crime laws. I don't doubt that manufacturers and service providers that count prisoners as clientele are happy that an increase in prison enrollment will increase their profits.

Still, this vilified "prison-industrial complex" helps to meet the daily needs of prisoners by providing specifically designed goods and services: adequate clothing, decent meals, reliable phone service, health care, and even not-so-necessary items like board games. It seems to me that no matter how much prison enrollment were reduced, there would be some group protesting the fact that there's a corporation out there profiting from the "prison-industrial complex". I suppose if the prisoners could be taught by some non-profit organization how to sustain their own in-cell organic gardens and hand-weave their own hemp uniforms, the corrections industry would be more acceptable to these people.

Surely the anti-prison profiteering crowd wants prisoners to be treated humanely, whether or not they agree that they should be locked up. The irony is that the corrections industry supplies wares that enable just that. Well…unless you count the B.O.S.S. chair, that is.

Potent Quotables
-- OR --
Can I Misquote You on That?
New York is home to some truly influential newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, The Village Voice and of course, The New York Times. The words printed in these publications can sway elections, make or break careers and even determine what folks chat about over drinks at the neighborhood tavern. The New York Post, however, has played an even more dominant role of late; it's been changing what people say -- literally.

As featured in a 4/19 excerpt posted on Jim Romenesko's Media News from just-launched New York-centric daily, The New York Sun, The Post has been botching its readers' babble quite a bit lately. The paper's been running a series called My Post, My Paper which features "thumbnail photos of readers paired with praise-filled quotes," according to the story. The problem is, the accolades seems to be originating in the deluded minds of The Post's commercially-driven editorial staff, as opposed to those of the actual readers.

According to one of many examples, the words of Janice Mahan were entirely misrepresented in the My Post, My Paper blurbs, which Post spokeswoman, Germaine Febles, refers to as "part of the paper's editorial content." Mahan was quoted in the April 14 edition of the dumbed-down rag as saying, "I like the fact that the Post's news coverage doesn't discriminate. The articles are written for the community and for people from all walks of life. I always prefer it over the New York Times."

In actuality, Mahan claims she said nothing of the sort. According to the Sun piece, Mahan stresses in frustration, "I said nothing about their news coverage. I said nothing about how the Post doesn't discriminate. I said that it's easier for people who are not as educated to read."

I just don't get it. Why is Mahan so upset? I mean, first of all, The Post didn't really change the meaning of her comments; they simply performed a little word massage. She said "it's easier for people who are not as educated to read." The Post re-vamped it to "the Post's news coverage doesn't discriminate." In other words, The Post doesn't discriminate against stupid people. It's just too bad The Post doesn't discriminate against stupid editors.

If I Had A Million Brain Cells
-- OR --
Focus Dupe
If you're a radio junkie like me, you know how obnoxious radio ads can be. One recently-run ad that's made my hate list features a bunch of people singing along to the Barenaked Ladies tune, If I Had A Million Dollars. It's for the New York Lottery and it seriously makes me reconsider my love of music. It also makes me think, if I had a million dollars I'd buy up as much of this ad space as possible and fill it with some peace and quiet (either that or a few dozen Dwarves songs).

Chances are that wish wouldn't have gone over too well with DDB Worldwide, the agency behind the "If I Had a Million Dollars" campaign. I shouldn't feel so bad though. As featured in a 4/9 Wall Street Journal article (Ad Firm's Wishful Thinking Forces Changes on Billboards, By Vanessa O'Connell), they didn't like Dana Fisher's response too much either. So they changed it. The thing is, they kept her image and first name for use in billboard ads strewn throughout the city and state.

Fisher was paid a whopping $200 by ad agency, DDB, for the use of her face and name, but she doesn't seem too upset with that. She's just mad that her fellow New Yorkers might think she's shallow. You see, DDB decided to accompany her portrait with copy that would "reflect the average dream of the average New Yorker." In the end, after running ideas by a focus group, the ad read, "If I had a million dollars I'd buy a car and a cute driver to go with it."

So, what did Fisher really want with her fantastical million bucks? She claims that if she had the cash, she'd "establish a foundation that would deal with global environmental issues."

C'mon, don't we already have Sting to do that for us?

DDB's spokeswoman, Marianne Flatley, stresses that Fisher and other interviewees signed a release form that gave the agency the right to alter quotes and other personal information about them. Still, rather than cause a fuss, DDB has announced that it will change all 82 billboards in New York that feature Fisher's image.

"We've learned a valuable lesson from this experience," Flatley expresses soberly, "and we'll make sure it won't happen again." Now that's what I call a canned apology. Isn't that what you're supposed to say when you use mom's silk robe as a superhero cape for your dog or something?

Evidently DDB does not think the average New Yorker has socially conscious or altruistic goals. It seems to me that Fisher's response is something a lot of people, especially in left-leaning New York, would appreciate. I guess the all-knowing focus groups thought more people would be into a "car and a cute driver" than doing something good for their planet. Man, that's just so September 10th. I mean, who do they think the average New Yorker is, anyway -- Zsa Zsa Gabor? Why didn't they throw in the penthouse apartment and the stuffy butler while they were at it?

This incident reflects how out of touch and insecure ad agencies can be. I mean, here they are, interviewing New Yorkers in an attempt to appeal to other New Yorkers, and rather than actually consider their responses to be relevant, they second guess them. Perhaps Fisher should have said something that the average New York agency exec could appreciate like, "If I had a million dollars I'd buy a summer home in the Hamptons," or, "If I had a million dollars, I'd hire Sarah Jessica Parker's personal trainer," or better yet, "If I had a million dollars, I'd hire a focus group to do my thinking for me."