The Richards Group Steps into a Multicultural Minefield

The recent headlines about Stan Richards’ controversial comments regarding their Motel 6 client sounded an alarm bell throughout the advertising and marketing industry, especially as it relates to multicultural marketing.  As the recent Dallas Morning News story reports, Mr. Richards stated in a meeting at the ad agency’s office that a particular ad pitch for Motel 6 was “too Black”  for its “white supremacist constituents.”  The statements were reportedly made during an internal meeting to discuss an idea for celebrating Black artists in a Motel 6 campaign.

The ensuing reaction by the firm’s clients was a bloodbath:  In addition to losing the Motel 6 account, The Richard Group also lost accounts for Home Depot, Keurig/Dr. Pepper/Keurig, H-E-B, Orkin and Advanced Auto Parts.  Last year, The Richards Group reported revenues of $200 million, but the loss of these large accounts will lead to the loss of many jobs at the firm.

Mr. Richards has apologized for his misstatements and assured us that he has never uttered racists comments in the past. He “fired” himself from the firm while operations will be assumed by his hand-picked successor, Glen Dady, who has worked with Richards for 40 years. In addition, Richards is planning to create a new position on diversity, equity and inclusion; begin bias training for staff; and commit to becoming more “culturally relevant.”

 In the past, such apologies may have been forgiven in due time but the current volatile climate for race relations in the U.S. suggests that The Richards Group will feel the pain for a longer period of time. With such a close relationship to his successor, one wonders if changes will indeed occur or whether traditional practices will continue.

As a research professional who has evaluated multicultural campaigns for the past 45 years, it is indeed difficult to understand why Mr. Richards felt the need to make the controversial statements about the multicultural campaign.  In the normal course of campaigns, it is customary to conduct focus group research with members of the target audiences and let them judge the appropriateness of the advertising concept for themselves or members of their communities.  Why would Mr. Richards feel like his views should override the views of the Black or white customers for Motel 6?  And why telegraph the message that Blacks are not welcomed at Motel 6 or that its preferred customers are “white supremacists?”  While Mr. Richards is described as being “fiercely independent,” it appears consultation with a multicultural expert may have been the best approach.

This unfortunate incident underscores a general problem that permeates academic institutions today, that is, the relative absence of courses in multicultural marketing, public relations and research. The multicultural segment in the U.S. numbering 120 million in 2019, has brought considerable cultural and linguistic diversity to this nation, and continues to challenge the work of advertising agencies and research practitioners.  Unfortunately, these industries have not kept pace with the changing composition of the U.S. population, and college graduates are not receiving sufficient training regarding the best communicative strategies for this growing segment.  Instead, academics have chosen to focus their curricula on international markets rather than the more relevant issues related to U.S. multicultural consumers – a pattern that needs to change.

Certainly, it is never too late to make a company more culturally relevant, especially if your client base serves a large segment of multicultural consumers.  Like the recent experience of racially profiling Black customers by Starbucks, The Richards Group reputation may benefit from staff bias training to staff and hiring someone to lead a newly created diversity, equity and inclusion department. In my opinion, however, this transformation will require more substantive changes in order to be successful. My suggested changes include the following:

·       Hiring multicultural staff – Blacks, Hispanics and Asians – to become key members of the advertising staff.  Aside from ethnicity, these individuals should be experienced professionals that understand these communities.

·       Ensure that the Board of Directors includes multicultural members who are seasoned professionals with intimate knowledge of multicultural communities.

·       Persuade academic institutions to include courses on multicultural marketing, public relations, and research in marketing and advertising departments – thus ensuring that future generations of college graduates will have the foundation to make better judgments regarding multicultural consumers.

 

It will take time for The Richards Group to recover from this unfortunate incident, and the firm is paying dearly for its misstep.  On the bright side, however,  this experience provides a strong message to the broader advertising and marketing communities that their activities as well as their clientele will be closely watched in the current climate of fragile race relations.

Journalistic Practices Are Muting the Voices in Communities of Color

 

It is no secret that the world of journalism has experienced considerable difficulty in recent years with declining audiences. Web-based news networks are major competitors for news audiences, while bloggers have expanded during this time to fill the void by traditional news sources.  In the meantime, a dramatic demographic shift has taken place in the U.S. over the past decade that has added millions of Hispanics, Blacks and Asians – currently numbering 119,505,700 [i] — that are potential audiences with interest in general and culturally relevant news.

Over the past 45 years, I have conducted numerous research studies of multicultural communities throughout the U.S., many which involved their media and consumer behavior, and have also taught survey research methods at several North Texas universities. This experience, coupled with changes in the media landscape and demographic composition of the U.S. population, points to a disturbing pattern that I have observed in news coverage that is muting the voices in communities of color and limiting news stories to a set of predictable topics. As a case in point, I will describe these patterns for the Dallas Morning News, a mainstream newspaper in North Texas, which I have studied in more depth in past years and read on a regular basis. These patterns, however, may describe other media in large urban markets like the City of Dallas.  Although not an exhaustive list, following are some of the disturbing patterns that I observed:

·       A lack of interest in investigating potential bidding and contract irregularities associated with the 2020 Census campaign for Dallas County. According to recent news coverage by Dallas Morning News, concern was raised regarding vendor performance since Census response rates for Dallas County were clearly lagging behind other Texas counties with large populations.

·       A lack of interest in addressing a legacy of supermarket redlining practices that limit the healthy food choices in Black and Hispanic food deserts, especially relevant in the pandemic environment.

·       The practice of excluding Black and Hispanic faculty or experts in news stories that tap their expertise. While not the “usual suspects,” these individuals are present in North Texas and not difficult to identify.

·       A pattern of exclusion of local Hispanic op-ed contributors to the Viewpoints section.  Several years ago, Carolyn Barta – a past Viewpoints Editor at DMN — invited a group of known Hispanic writers (including myself) to submit op-ed pieces to Viewpoints, but acceptance of these submissions dwindled after Ms. Barta’s departure which muted the voices of these Hispanic writers.

·       Coverage of positive stories during Hispanic Heritage Month and Black History Month have been a common practice, but coverage over the remaining 11 months has generally focused on poverty, immigration, under-achievement, crime patterns, and similar downbeat topics.

·       Careless reporting of crime patterns has sometimes mis-portrayed communities of color as hot crime spots, which discourages economic development in these areas.

·       Rather than focus on economic activity and achievements, business news about the Dallas Hispanic Chamber has generally focused on internal problems that they were experiencing.

·       Books written by Hispanic authors with a scientific or social science focus often escape the attention of journalists — with the possible exception of cookbooks. 

·       In response to the growing presence of Latinos, many mainstream media shops have added Spanish-language publications that are primarily read by Latino immigrants. Unfortunately, Hispanic-focused stories that are placed only in Spanish-language publications become segregated from English-language audiences – reinforcing the continuing segregation that is already evident in housing, education, religious and social areas.

·       Media companies with Spanish-language assets may face tougher times into the future [ii] as the potential audience for Spanish-language media continues to decline.  Indeed, the Census Bureau experts project that, by the year 2060, 46 million native-born Latinos will be added to the U.S.— vastly out-numbering the 7.6 million foreign born Latinos.

 

Going forward, my hope is that journalists and schools of journalism will reflect on these patterns and consider the extent to which they describe their respective practices.  Unless these journalistic patterns change, mainstream media like the Dallas Morning News may become obsolete as a consequence of their reluctance to connect with the changing composition and interests of their audiences. Spanish-language media, on the other hand, may need to re-evaluate their growth strategy into the future.

The Dallas Morning News, and the other major newspapers and media outlets here in North Texas and around the country need to take bold, proactive steps to better reflect and cover communities of color, and clearly needs to intensify its efforts to at least make sure we have a share of the voice as sources and in opinion columns.

 

End Notes



[i]Census Bureau (2020). American Community Survey 2019 One-Year Estimates, accessed at www.data.census.gov.

[ii]Rincon, E. T. (2020, April 01). A perfect storm is facing U.S. supermarkets.  Journal of Marketing Channels.  

Why are Republicans Scrambling to Suppress the Latino Vote?

It is indeed puzzling to witness Republicans scrambling to suppress the Latino vote for the November election.  Governor Gregg Abbott recently ordered a limit of only one mail-in ballot drop-off location for each Texas county, an action that has initiated lawsuits charging Latino voter suppression from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Texas chapter of the League of Women Voters, and two individuals.

In addition to creating more difficulty for Latino voters, Governor Abbott’s action creates higher barriers for persons with disabilities and those 65 years and older who are concerned for their personal safety and the additional distance that they will need to travel to a single location.  

Other recent actions initiated by Republicans to limit voter participation include the numerous false allegations of fraud associated with mail-in ballots, significant reductions in the capabilities of the U.S. Post Office to process mail-in ballots, and not allowing Texas voters to use COVID-19 exposure as a basis for requesting a mail-in ballot.

The irony is not lost here – why are Republicans in such a frenzy to further limit Latino voter participation given their historically low voter turnout rates in past presidential elections? According to Pew Research, Latino voter turnout rates were 48.0 percent in 2012; 27.0 percent in 2014; 47.6 percent in 2016; and 40.4 percent in 2018. No cause for worry, right?

Rather than encourage Latino voter turnout, however, Republicans like Gov. Abbott are experiencing a re-awakening of their strategy due to several recent trends:

·       Highly populated areas like Harris County expect a surge of mail-in ballots, especially from Democratic precincts that include many Latinos and Blacks;

·        The number of mail-in ballots that have been requested from Democratic-leaning precincts are dramatically out-numbering the Republican precincts;

·        Most recent polls confirm that two-thirds of Latino registered voters would support Biden while Trump captures only one-third of the vote, a trend that is consistent across the battleground states;

·        Bloomberg is investing millions to support Democratic candidates;

·        According to Pew Research, 32 million Latinos are projected to be eligible to vote this November and represent 13.3 percent of all eligible voters in the U.S.


Governor Abbott’s action especially wreaks of hypocrisy. During the last gubernatorial election, the governor’s televised campaign included a Hispanic family member in a pitch to capture the support of Texas Latinos. While the Latino vote may have been candy to Governor Abbott in the past, perhaps the governor’s current sentiments about Latino voters is best captured in B.B. King’s song “The Thrill is Gone.”

With the exception of LULAC, it is particularly troublesome to observe the relative silence among Latino business and civic organizations that have publicly challenged the legality and morality of these Latino voter suppression tactics.  Rather than bury one’s head in the sand, these voices need to be loud and constant in the days remaining to the November election.

In my opinion, the available evidence regarding the increasing number of Latino eligible voters, registration rates, and polling results suggests that Latinos are energized to vote in the November election and that Republicans may pay a heavy price for their deliberate tactics to suppress the Latino vote.

Polls Provide Conflicting Views of Hispanic Support for Biden vs. Trump

 

As the presidential campaign gains momentum, the Hispanic vote has become the subject of focused attention by pollsters who are reporting substantially different levels of support for candidates Trump and Biden. 

A recent poll sponsored by the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation reported a rather surprising result: 47% preferred Biden while 38% preferred Trump – a 9 percent difference.  Based on this outcome as well as comparison’s to Hillary Clinton’s Latino support in 2016, various news sources are portraying Biden as losing ground with the Hispanic electorate or running a campaign that is out of touch with the needs of this important voter segment.  The online poll was conducted by YouGov using their proprietary methodology that has been widely used in past years but not necessarily in Hispanic-targeted polling.

The results from the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation poll are especially surprising because they contradicted the findings of various recent polls that included sub-samples of Latino voters that generally found that Biden has enjoyed a double-digit lead over Trump. [1] 

Recent Polls Including Latino Sub-Samples

                   (Percent)

Source

Date

Biden

Trump

Difference

Quinnipac

7/22/2020

53

29

24

CBS/YouGov

7/12/2020

60

30

30

UT/Trib

7/3/2020

46

39

7

Fox News

6/25/2020

62

25

37

PPP/Progress Texas

6/23/2020

64

27

37

PPP/TDP

6/5/2020

66

23

43

Quinnipac

6/2/2020

53

32

21

Source:  Off the Kuff, 2020

 Curiously, this summary of recent polls by Kuff [2] omitted two other key polls conducted by survey organizations that have historically used the highest methodological standards when conducting polls of U.S. Latinos.[3]  For example, recent polling by Latino Decisions in six battleground states – including Arizona, Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — confirmed a similar double-digit Biden advantage over Trump [4] while a recent poll of U.S. Latinos by Pew Research Center [5] also confirmed Biden’s double-digit lead over Trump. 

Lastly, an ABC/Washington Post poll released on Sept. 23, 2020 of likely voters shows that, among Latinos, Biden maintains a double-digit lead over Trump (61% vs. 34%) and a smaller double-digit lead in Florida (52% vs. 39%). [6]

Who is correct?  The answer to this question has important implications for the political messaging that is conveyed about Hispanic voters between now and election day since it could influence voter turnout. Is Biden really losing ground among Latino voters, or should we consider the poll sponsored by the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation an anomaly?

Over the past 45 years, I have taught survey research methods at four North Texas universities and developed an interest in conducting post-mortems on the methodology employed in studies of multicultural persons whose results were conflicting or controversial. Over the years, this interest has included challenges to the Nielsen Hispanic television ratings, measurement bias in college admissions tests, biased surveys in municipal elections, estimates of COVID-19 mortality rates for Blacks and Hispanics, biased crime reporting in urban areas, and site location methods that reinforce redlining practices in communities of color.  The goal of these post-mortems is to help the general public understand which one of these conflicting or controversial studies is more deserving of our confidence using criteria that I have discussed elsewhere in some detail. [7]In my opinion, I would place my confidence on the pollsters with a proven track record in measuring Latino sentiments.  Let me explain my reasoning.

While I did not have sufficient information to conduct a detailed post-mortem on the methodology utilized by YouGov in the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation study of Texas Latinos, there were some concerns that were noted by Huff in his recent summary of Latino polls. [8] For example, the report did not identify the Hispanic sample size and its margin of error, while the survey results may have been distorted due to the use of outdated 2016 data to weight the survey results. Huff also expressed concern about the obvious discrepancy between the YouGov poll results and the results from the various polls including Latino voters. While it has merit, it is my opinion that the methodology used by YouGov lacks the historical track record in measuring Hispanic voter sentiments that has been employed for decades by Latino Decisions and Pew Research Center.

Perhaps the more compelling reason that raises skepticism is the inference by political pundits that Hispanic voter support for Trump is on the rise, a rather untenable position given his repeated attacks and hate-filled speeches directed at U.S. Hispanics.  Indeed, are we to believe that Hispanics suddenly feel compelled to reward Trump with their votes despite these attacks?  I don’t think so. Hispanic families have suffered significantly under Trump’s presidency and are not likely to forget these attacks as they decide to cast their vote this November.

Jason Villalba, President of the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation, concluded from his organization’s polling results that “neither presidential candidate has yet to completely lock down the Texas Hispanic vote.” [9]  Based on the concerns raised about YouGov’s polling methodology, I would say that his conclusion is pre-mature and lacks confirmation by other trusted sources. Moreover, the report appears dismissive of the substantial Latino support shown for Biden in the various other polls conducted recently and makes little effort to reconcile the contradictory findings. The Biden campaign has accumulated millions in their campaign fund which may be utilized to solidify his standing among Hispanic voters, especially in the battleground states. Indeed, there is room for optimism.

Going forward, I believe that we would be wise to place our confidence on the polling results provided by the more trusted sources in Latino polling with a proven track record such as Pew Research Center or Latino Decisions. 

 End Notes



[1] Kuffner, C. (2020, August). What is the level of Latino support for Trump in Texas?  Off the Kuff. Accessed at http://www.offthekuff.com/wp/?p=96928

[2] Ibid, Kuffner, C.

[3] Rincon, E.T. (2020, August).  The Culture of Research.  The Writer’s Marq LLC.

[4]  Latino Decisions (July 2020).  Latino Voter Engagement and Mobilization in Six States,  Accessed at: https://latinodecisions.com/polls-and-research/latino-voter-engagement-and-mobilization-in-six-states/

[6] Langer, G. (2020, Sept. 23).  Trust on the economy bolsters Trump in oh-so-close Florida and Arizona: POLL. ABC News, Accessed at: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trust-economy-bolsters-trump-close-florida-arizona-poll/story?id=73167150

[7] Ibid, Rincon, E.T.

[8] Ibid, Kuffner, C.

[9] Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation (2020, August 17). Texas Hispanics Prefer Biden: Trump Leads Overall in State. THPC website, Accessed at https://www.txhpf.org/2020/08/17/texas-hispanics-prefer-biden-trump-leads-overall-in-state/

Massive Census Under-Count Likely as Trump Forces Cut of 30 Days from Data Collection Schedule

As reported recently by National Public Radio on July 30, 2020, the Census Bureau announced that they have changed the end of data collection for Census 2020 from October 31 to September 30 – essentially cutting 30 days from the critical door knocking period used to reach hard-to-count communities. [1]  Under condition of anonymity, Census Bureau employees involved in overseeing local census offices voiced their concerns about this action:  “It’s going to be impossible to complete the count in time,” and “I’m very fearful we’re going to have a massive under-count.” 

The Democratic party is understandably very concerned with the Census Bureau’s decision. Why?  Because 40 percent of the American public has not completed the Census 2020[2]  and most of these non-respondents or “hard-to-count” persons include Hispanics, Blacks and immigrants that have historically voted for Democratic candidates.  This fact has not been lost on Republicans.

A substantial Census under-count would have serious political and economic consequences for many communities. Because the decennial census is used to determine a state’s legislative seats and Electoral College votes, an under-count could significantly change the political landscape to the advantage of the Republican party. In addition, the 2010 census counts were used for the distribution of $589.7 billion of federal tax dollars for Medicare, Medicaid, and other public services to 50 states and the District of Columbia – services that often support communities of color.  Importantly, a substantial under-count in any one state could lead to the diversion of funds away from that state to other states and uses. [3]  As explained more clearly by Andrew Reamer, Research Professor with the GW Institute of Public Policy: 

“For the large majority of programs, money lost due to an under-count doesn’t go back to the U.S. Treasury, it is spread around all other communities. For each program, Congress determines the size of the pie, the census data determine each community’s share of the pie. For each $1 Texas loses due to an under-count, California gets an extra 14 cents, more or less. My expectation is that Texas’s decision to not have a statewide complete count effort will annually add several millions of dollars to California’s treasury, courtesy of Texas taxpayers.” [4]

Steve Dillingham, the Census Bureau director and a Trump appointee, provided lawmakers little insight about the rationale for the recent timing change during recent testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Nonetheless, House member Gomez gave Mr. Dillingham a stern warning:

 

“It seems like there’s an obvious pattern that you’re not in control of the Census Bureau……your name will go down in history if this is the worst census ever conducted by the United States government.  You’re not going to runaway and say that this was only because of the Trump administration later on.  You will be responsible.” 

 

The change in the Census Bureau’s data collection schedule reflects the Trump administration’s growing desperation to control the outcome of the November election, and follows a series of other efforts to undermine the voting clout of groups that have typically supported the Democratic party, [5]such as attempting to include a citizenship question in the Census 2020 questionnaire, fabricating information about widespread voter fraud to discourage mail-in ballots, and delaying funding for the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service to undermine the efficient processing of mail-in ballots in the upcoming November election.

Given the high stakes consequences associated with a potential massive Census under-count, it is imperative that communities throughout the U.S. accelerate their efforts to increase response rates among hard-to-count communities.  With a current non-response rate of 40 percent, it is safe to assume that the strategies that have been employed thus far have not been very effective in engaging hard-to-count communities.  Therefore, following are some suggested strategies for providing hard-to-count communities an additional boost to complete the Census 2020 questionnaire over the next two months:

·       The messaging must personalize the consequences to families of not completing the Census questionnaire:  the loss of funds for school lunches, healthcare for mothers and children, food and nutrition programs for the poor and unemployed, immigrant support, etc. The message should also remind community members that a citizenship question is not included in the Census 2020 questionnaire.  The urgency of the messaging must be elevated and impactful. Old message concepts may not suffice at this point.

·       With a high penetration rate across varied demographic groups, wireless telephones should be used in communicating with hard-to-count communities and also include a link to the Census 2020 online questionnaire.

·       Hispanics must receive messaging in both English and Spanish since immigrant adults are more likely to communicate in Spanish, while children and non-immigrants are more likely to communicate in English. 

·       Retailers whose profitability depends on the economic viability of hard-to-count communities should also do their part to encourage customers to complete the Census questionnaire through store displays and paid advertisements.

·       High technology companies should allocate grants to expand the distribution of laptops and portable wi-fi devices to families during the next two months to facilitate the completion of the online Census questionnaire.

·       There are numerous non-profit and community organizations that serve hard-to-count communities and maintain frequent communication with their membership, such as churches, immigrant advocacy groups, soccer teams, baseball teams, football teams, basketball teams and others.  Such organizations should take advantage of the reach and trust that they have earned to promote completion of the Census 2020 questionnaire.

·       Trusted and recognized business and civic leaders from local communities of color should be included in all advertisements that promote completion of the Census 2020 questionnaire.

 

September 30, 2020 is the new deadline to complete the Census 2020, so there is little time left for communities to mobilize their outreach efforts.  A massive census under-count threatens the political and economic stability for all communities, regardless of political orientation, and needs to be taken seriously by everyone.

References


[1]Wang, H.L. (2020, July 30).  Census door knocking cut a month short amid pressure to finish count. NPR, access at https://www.npr.org/2020/07/30/896656747/when-does-census-counting-end-bureau-sends-alarming-mixed-signals

[2]Census Bureau Response Rates. Accessed at https://2020census.gov/en/response-rates.html

[3]Reamer, A.  (2018, March 19).  Counting for dollars: The role of the decennial census in the geographic distribution of federal funds. GW Institute of Public Policy, The George Washington University. Accessed at  https://gwipp.gwu.edu/counting-dollars-2020-role-decennial-census-geographic-distribution-federal-funds

[4]Reamer, A. (2020, February 26). Personal communication via email.

[5]Rincon, E.T. (2020, February 17). Undermining the 2020 Census: Trump’s Toxic Brew of Crime, Hysteria and Immigrant.  Accessed at  https://www.rinconassoc.com/undermining-the-2020-census-trumps-toxic-brew-of-crime-hysteria-and-immigrants