Once upon a time, in the media mecca of New York City, Tamara strolled past a liquor ad which adorned the sides of many street payphones. She was shocked, shocked to see in the ad an image of a faceless, huge darkly (but completely) clothed man straddled over a surprised bikini clad supernaturally buxom woman. The woman seemed to be overtaken or about to be, by this hulky, scary guy. He clenched a liquor bottle in his powerful tightfisted hand.
Whatever its intent, to Tamara the image read as an intimidating man threateningly positioned to dominate this unsuspecting woman, and adding alcohol to the mix. She could not believe what she saw, and was especially surprised that this image was in so many public spaces, regularly seen by kids and all.
Soon she remembered that several years earlier, many advocacy groups across the country had started a campaign called Dangerous Promises to convince alcohol companies to stop using images of women and men in their ads which suggested violence against women. Besides being a matter of good sense and compassion, the Dangerous Promises campaign was based on the fact that violence against women, including sexual assault and domestic violence, increases when alcohol is used. The Dangerous Promises campaign was based on the premise that it's irresponsible for alcohol advertisers to even hint at the association of alcohol with violence against women.
When Tamara talked and sent e-mail to some of her colleagues and real-time mates, she realized she wasn't the only one who was very disturbed by this ad. Twenty-first century communication being what it is, she helped direct a host of e-mails to the company so they would know how many people (potential customers, too) were upset.
Then Tamara accessed materials from the Dangerous Promises campaign, which in 1995 had successfully convinced the distilled spirits trade association (DISCUS) to adopt a voluntary code of advertising discouraging these harmful associations. Then Tamara sent the Campaign materials to the president of the company which had displayed their ads in New York City. She had informative conversations with him directly about why the issue was so important..
Much to his credit, the company's president began to realize why many people were angry about the ad campaign. At substantial expense to the company, the public space ads were soon removed and haunted the streets no more.
As word about the company’s positive response magically spread, so did the network of people who wanted to know more about what they could do to influence their own media environments, especially regarding unhealthy or dangerous sexist messages they and their children were forced to see.
Back to the future . . .
.
[Want to try to make some change in your neighborhood?
See our section "What You Can Do; Media Activism 101]
