LET’S TALK ABOUT BELL LET’S TALK

Formal Research Paper

COMM 4304 AProfessor: Dr. Gina Grosenick

December 9, 2013Ilana Belfer, Julie Damaren, Ellen Donnelly, and Gary Shi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract...................................................................................................................................................1

Background/Rationale.............................................................................................................................1

Functional Framework: Cause Marketing................................................................................................3

Theoretical Framework: Foucault............................................................................................................5

Results and Findings................................................................................................................................8

Functional Analysis................................................................................................................................14

Critical Analysis.....................................................................................................................................20

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................24

References............................................................................................................................................26

1

ABSTRACT

This research paper examines the Bell Let’s Talk campaign through an in-depth

exploration of public relations strategies. It analyzes through a functional and critical

perspective how Bell is constructing its profile of corporate social responsibility, namely by

the strategic implementation of a cause marketing campaign seemingly aiming to raise

social awareness, and enhance the understanding of mental illness and its impact on

Canadians.

Findings are drawn from Bell’s application of PR in reference to the four pillars of

the campaign: anti-stigma, enhanced care and access, new research and workplace

leadership. Furthermore, our focus of the inquiry is split into theoretical analysis by

drawing upon Foucault’s conceptions of “power knowledge” and discourse; our functional

analysis is done through the lens of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign as cause marketing,

addressing the influence of cause marketing on the cause, on the brand, and overall,

whether Bell Let’s Talk was a successful cause marketing campaign. These two critical and

functional analyses have allowed us to understand to what extent the PR practices of the

campaign are aligned with said framework, and ideally, helped inform our understandings

of the role and practices of public relations in our society.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE

Bell, as a Canadian leading telecommunications enterprise, has been engaging itself

in the overall improvement of the society’s well-being through enabling economic growth,

connecting social communities and safeguarding the environment (Bell Canada Corporate

Responsibility Report [BCCRR], 2012). Arguably its most visible investment in this

societal well-being is the annual Bell Let’s Talk campaign. The Bell Let’s Talk campaign is

an unprecedented multi-year charitable program dedicated to the promotion and support of

mental health initiatives across Canada. The largest-ever corporate commitment in Canada

supports a wide range of programs to enhance awareness, understanding and treatment of

mental illness, as well as research and access to care across the country ([BCCRR], 2012).

In 2010, Bell announced that it would be contributing $50 million over five years to mental

health related initiatives through Bell Let’s Talk (Bell Canada, 2013c). The Bell Mental

Health initiative supports an extensive range of programs in Canada, including academic

research on mental health in the workplace, community access and care, and anti-stigma in

the discourse surrounding mental health, as it is often perceived as an invisible but

pervasive health issue with profound lasting consequences ([BCCRR], 2012; Bell Canada,

2013d). This campaign is a perfect example of corporate public relations practice, as it

exemplifies Bell’s attempt at promoting themselves while competing amongst a complex

corporate and political culture for our attention, interest, and actions towards a matter of

public interest which is in this case, represented by public awareness of mental health. It is

fair to say that we live in a “promotional age”, and that it is crucial for us to understand the

relations of power within said promotional culture to understand the impact the actors

within it have on the public with regards to matters of public interest. Through the in-depth

exploration of the PR strategies executed as part of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign, our

interest lies in a critical analysis of how BCE is constructing its profile of corporate social

responsibility through the strategic implementation of a cause marketing campaign

seemingly aiming to raise the social awareness and enhance the understanding of mental

illness and its impact on Canadian life.

The scope of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign is massive, in part due to Bell’s powerful

standing within the Canadian telecommunications landscape. As such, the reach of the

campaign annually brings discourse surrounding mental health to the forefront of public

interest discussion. Although the Canadian public has acknowledged its philanthropic

contribution to the Canadian society in a seemingly positive way, the practice of the

campaign itself is still, in essence, out of an apparent commercial motivation. From a

critical communications perspective, this begs the question of whether or not corporate

philanthropic practice surrounding a social phenomenon in general, benefits any political,

social, and/or cultural interests in our society? Based on this general interest in the purview

of the campaign, our rationale for this research project will be to focus on uncovering the

corporate reasoning behind Bell’s apparent philanthropic practice through a strategic

analysis of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign. We will question whether or not the campaign (as

a means) actually structured or influenced our societal knowledge and perceptions on issues

surrounding mental health, as well as on the Bell corporation itself, and if so, to what end.

Our focus of the inquiry will be split into theoretical analysis by drawing upon

Foucault’s conceptions of “power knowledge” and discourse, and our functional analysis

will be done through the lens of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign as cause marketing. These

two critical and functional analyses will allow us to understand to what extent the PR

practices of the campaign are aligned with said framework, and ideally, will help inform

our understandings of the role and practices of public relations in our society. The questions

that will guide us in our research follow the trend of understanding the balance between

corporate philanthropic activity and bottom line corporate interests, and so we will first ask

what the interests of Bell were in deploying this campaign: how much was truly corporate

philanthropic activity and how much was commercial promotion/ reputation management

of the Bell corporate brand? Furthermore, how did the Bell Let’s Talk campaign structure

itself to influence our societal knowledge, and which societal knowledge (aka surrounding

issues of mental health or BCE itself)? Our guiding research question is an integration of all

of the above: Did the Bell Let’s Talk campaign leverage cause marketing specific public

relations practices by stimulating discourse surrounding mental health, an issue of public

interest, for the primary purpose of improving its brand and ultimately, satisfying its private

corporate interests? We expect to prove this hypothesis to be correct, as well as discover

that whether or not it was intended, the PR practice of cause marketing in the “Bell Let’s

Talk” campaign had a positive impact on the discourse surrounding mental health.

FUNCTIONAL FRAMEWORK: CAUSE MARKETING

In an era of consumerism that covets corporate social responsibility, the

practice of associating a corporate brand with a cause has become increasingly

prevalent. As a subcategory of corporate social responsibility, cause marketing (CM)

can be defined as “the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities

that are characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a

designated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy

organizational and individual objectives’’ (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988 p. 60). This

section will analyze cause marketing as a PR tool through three separate lenses: the

influence of CM on the cause, the influence of CM on the corporate brand, and more

generically, what makes a successful CM campaign.

CAUSE MARKETING AND VALUE FOR THE CAUSE

When conceptualizing a CM relationship, there are two ways in which we can

analyze how it was valuable to the cause: increased fundraising and support, and

increased ability to change individual behaviors and perceptions in a manner

consistent with the goals of the cause (Gourville and Rangan, 2004). Successful CM

campaigns provide tremendous amounts of visibility, credibility, and awareness to a

cause, and by default, often create more support for the specific cause as well.

Likewise, a successful CM campaign will also change consumer behaviors or

perceptions surrounding the cause or the issue. However, it is important to always

consider that this cause promotion is being done via an already existing for-profit

brand: as such, we must ask ourselves how successful CM campaigns are for the

cause in relation to the potential opportunities for successful brand promotion.

CAUSE MARKETING AND BRAND PERCEPTION

It has been historically accepted that providing evidence of good corporate

citizenship can help establish trust and confidence in a brand (Anand, 2002). The

strategic operationalization of cause marketing seeks to form more concrete bonds

with consumers (both current and potential), with employees and investors, and with

the general public by differentiating a specific brand from the rest, seeking ultimately

to culminate in its’ long-term market positioning (Davidson, 1997; Gourville and

Rangan, 2004). Critics of modern capitalism would argue that corporations would not

engage in CM if it did not provide some sort of benefit to the brand or give them some

sort of competitive advantage in the market. The underlying question then, is does

cause marketing increase positive brand perception? A study done by Lafferty and

Goldsmith (2005) found that cause-brand alliances improve overall appraisal of a

brand, and that this “confirms the validity of using this strategic marketing tool [cause

marketing] to enhance brand image” (p. 428). Similarly, Myers and Kwon (2012)

applied McCracken’s meaning transfer as a theoretical framework in attempting to

explain the influence of cause marketing on post-brand attitudes, applying the

presupposition that “if individuals experience two objects simultaneously, the objects

may become associated in the individual’s mind and the meaning of one object can

transfer to the other object” (p. 76). What they found was that where there is a

positive experience of a CM campaign, there will be a transfer of positive experiences

directly to the brand doing the execution, ultimately strengthening brand perceptions.

The significant point then, is that CM campaigns must be strategically executed in

order to maximize effectiveness of the campaign itself and to successfully reinforce

positive brand recognition. The following section will identify strategic methods

employed in cause marketing that stimulate success.

WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL CAUSE MARKETING CAMPAIGN?

The expectation is that successful CM campaigns will achieve two distinct

goals: the first being the improvement of firm performance, the second is supporting a

social cause (Robinson et. al., 2012). Oddly enough, this is also the way consumers

perceive CM campaigns: according to Myers and Kwon (2012), consumers either

perceive corporate motivations in CM as altruistic (with the brand trying to help the

cause), or as profit-motivated (simply to increase profits). They assert that consumers

perceiving corporate CM campaigns as altruistic increases positive attitudes towards

the campaign and the brand, and thus “demonstrates the importance of creating

conditions that persuade consumers to favorably view the alliance for maximizing the

effectiveness of a cause–brand alliance marketing activity in strengthening the brand”

(p. 85). Similarly, “individuals hold more favorable campaign attitudes when

messages [are] positively framed… this effect of framing on attitudes is mediated by

their belief that the firm is acting in a socially responsible manner” (Landreth and

Garretson, 2007 p. 28). This is consistent with research suggesting that social causes

elicit emotional responses in consumers, and that they think more positively about a

brand if it is perceived to be socially responsible (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 2005).

Another way a brand can generate success through a CM campaign is to associate

itself with a cause that has low-familiarity: CM can improve evaluations of both a

brand and a cause when a positive brand takes on a cause that is not familiar, because

the brand becomes the anchor for the unknown cause and facilitates an upward

movement in attitudes and perceptions (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 2005).

All of the above will be considered when analyzing the success of the Bell

Let’s Talk campaign as a cause marketing campaign, a subcomponent of corporate

social responsibility.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: FOUCAULT

DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS

The following section will establish the theoretical framework through which

we will later analyze the Bell Let’s Talk campaign: French philosopher Michel

Foucault’s theories of discourse and power/knowledge. In accordance with Foucault’s

wish that his work act as a “toolbox which others can rummage through to find a tool

which they can use however they wish in their own area” (1974, p. 523-4), Judy

Motion and Shirley Leitch (2009) affirm that Foucault’s tools make for valuable

additions to the public relations tool belt. In their chapter of Public Relations and

Social Theory, they argue that by applying Foucault’s theories to the field of PR, one

can come to understand the practice of PR as a discourse technology, power effect,

and knowledge system (p. 92).

In a Foucauldian context, discourses can be defined as “systems of thoughts

composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that

systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak” (Lessa,

2006, p. 285), as well as how the subjects understand those worlds. These thought

systems are constituted and governed by analyzable rules (Foucault, 1972, p. 211) that

determine who can speak, what can be said, and the interests, stakes and institutions

that get represented. They are also subject to transformation (Motion and Leitch,

2009, p. 88). Discourse, then, is basically a non-static social boundary, or framework,

through which social actors (otherwise known as humans) think, communicate, and

organize society, as well as their lives within it.

Foucault was concerned with determining the factors that set those social

boundaries. Using problematization, a technique that poses questions to challenge the

uncontested assumptions and commonplace “modes of thought and practices”

(Foucault, 1988, p.154), his research method involved mapping out the production

and transformation of discourses to find the points from which they stemmed or

changed. Power and knowledge were at the centre of these investigations because

Foucault saw power as “underly[ing] all aspects of human existence” (Motion and

Leitch, 2009, p. 87).

For Foucault (1998), “power is everywhere” (p. 63). As he puts is, “Power is

not something that is acquired, seized, or shared, something that one holds on to or

allows to slip away; power is exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of

nonegalitarian and mobile relations." (1978, p. 94). In other words, power is not an

independent entity that one can possess or acquire. Rather it is an action, and is the

name for a set of dynamic and unequal relations. Power, therefore, is not top-down

from one, central, all-powerful individual. It can be employed at all levels and forms.

At the same time, one has more power than another at any given moment and

therefore power is hierarchized in that sense, making it “a more or less organized,

hierarchical, co-coordinated cluster of relations” (Gordon, 1980, p.198). Foucault

used the term “capillary” to describe power (Gordon, 1980, p. 39). Metaphorically

speaking, those capillaries filled with power would be distributed throughout the

social fabric for use, with some accessing them more easily than others. As an

analogy, there are capillaries filled with blood that run through our bodies, but our

veins only rise up when we incite them to. It is important to note that for Foucault,

“power is not just a negative, coercive or repressive thing that forces us to do things

against our wishes. It can also be a necessary, productive and positive force in

society,” (Gaventa, 2003, p. 2).

Foremost, however, Foucault saw power as inseparable from knowledge. As

Motion and Leitch (2009) explain it, he saw knowledge as a creator and creation of

power and power as a creator and creation of knowledge (p. 87). For that reason, he

coined the term power/knowledge. Another way to view it is that those who hold

power are the ones who can lead discourse in their preferred direction therefore

shaping knowledge and truth. Since they decide what knowledge is, they can then

claim to be the most knowledgeable (Fillingham, 1993). For example, the medical

systems we’ve built in society determines that people with certain knowledge get

classified as doctors, which puts those people in the position where they can exercise

power upon others and shape medical or health-related discourses. We accept what

they say as truth, and they are then the most knowledgeable on those truths, which

reinforces their power.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISCOURSE AND POWER/KNOWLEDGE

To sum up the relationship between power/knowledge and discourse,

discourse is the vehicle or medium through which power/knowledge circulates. If

power/knowledge is the capillaries, then discourse is the body through which they

flow.

When discourses are so pervasive they are perceived as common sense, that’s

referred to as hegemony. On a macro level, hegemony is formed by societal

configurations of power/knowledge relationships. On a micro level, power/knowledge

relations operate through the production and acceptance of particular “truths” (Motion

and Letich, 2009, p. 88). Each society, on a macro-level, according to Foucault

(1991), has its own “regimes of truth,” otherwise known as hegemonic discourses (p.

207). On a micro-level, “games of truth” is the subjectification of those truths and

how individuals come to see them as applying to themselves (Motion and Leitch,

2009, p. 88).

RELATION TO PR

PR is a discursive process, meaning it seeks to “influence the concepts and

systems of thought that shape how we think about and understand the world” (Motion

and Leitch, 2009, p. 93).

PR practitioners are central discourse actors using PR as a discursive strategy

to influence and shape discourses. If discourse is the vehicle for power/knowledge,

discourse strategies, or operations of power, are essentially “the means by which the

relations of power/knowledge are created, maintained, resisted and transformed”

(Motion and Leitch, 2009, p. 88). This deliberate attempt to “engineer sociocultural

change” is what Norman Fairclough (1992) called “the technologization of discourse”

(p. 8).

It is important to note that discourses are created and transformed by the

“aggregation of actions and statements of many individuals and many organizations”

(Hardy, 1998, p. 1) within that web, or net, of power relations over time, and

individuals who are not PR practitioners are also part of that make-up.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

As previously outlined, to date the Bell Let’s Talk campaign (promoting

positive conversation around mental health across Canada, increasing support for

community care, research and workplace best practices) has committed

$62,043,289.30 (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate Responsibility Report, p.2). They

incorporated multiple public relations strategies into their campaign; the following

section will analyze the results derived from these specific tactics to better determine

the connections to cause marketing and corporate brand management. The results will

focus on the 2012-2013 year of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign timeline.

The company’s overall strategy can be broken down into what they refer to as

their four pillars: anti-stigma, enhanced care and access, new research and workplace

leadership (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate Responsibility Report, p.18). Each pillar has

employed certain public relations strategies, and each has produced separate results,

all of which will be outlined below.

PR STRATEGY 1: USE OF CELEBRITY SPOKESPERSON (CLARA HUGHES) TO PROMOTE

“NATIONAL CONVERSATION” ON BELL LET’S TALK DAY. (PILLAR 1: ANTI-STIGMA)

To begin, Bell highlighted anti-stigma as a main pillar with the goal of joining

Canadians coast to coast in a national conversation about mental illness. To

accomplish this goal, they employed the public relations tactic of using a celebrity

spokesperson: Clara Hughes. Clara acted as a national ambassador and was

accompanied by other spokespeople including Michel Mpambara, Stefie Shock, and

Seamus O’Regan, to invite people in communities across Canada to join in on the

mental health discussion (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate Responsibility Report, p.19).

As a result, the anti-stigma platform of driving positive, long-term change in

the way Canadians perceive mental illness saw Clara Hughes lead millions in talking

about mental illness to end the stigma (Bell Canada, 2013a). More numerically,

96,266,266 calls and texts by Bell and Bell Aliant customers, tweets using

#BellLetsTalk, and Facebook shares of the Bell Let’s Talk Day image were generated

by Canadians on the Bell Let's Talk Day; this allotted to an additional $4,813,313.30

for mental health programs (Bell Canada, 2013a). This offered a 23% increase over

last year’s Bell Let’s Talk Day total (Bell Canada, 2013a).

What’s more, the campaign was largely popular on Twitter in the 2013

campaign. Twitter generated 1,562,485 tweets and retweets; Bell Let’s Talk along

with #BellLetsTalk were top trends in both Canada and the United States (Bell

Canada, 2013a). It garnered attention from other public Canadian figures such as

Governor General David Johnston, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, federal members

of Parliament, provincial premiers and ministers, the Canadian Armed Forces, sports

teams and players, and Canadian entertainers including Justin Bieber and William

Shatner (Bell Canada, 2013a). Justin Bieber’s tweet was re-tweeted over 34 million

times alone (J. Michelis, personal communication, November 14, 2013).

In our interview with Bell Media Relations’ Jacqueline Michelis, Clara was

outlined as “not just the face you see in the pictures, she’s actually out there doing a

lot of stuff and talking to a lot of people and getting the conversation going, which is

what this is all about – getting people talking.” When we asked more specifically if

Bell has analyzed the success of her involvement, in terms of a marketing strategy

success for the campaign, Jacqueline summed it up with awareness growth, amount of

money contributed, and the results issued on February 13th:

“I think you just need to take a look at the results year over year, from going

into our fourth one in January… it has gone from what started as a $50 million

campaign where we’re already at over $62 million in over three years. So awareness

growth, amount of money, and the results issued on February 13th; over 96 million

calls, texts, tweets, and Facebook shares on Bell Let’s Talk day. A lot of that is the

onus that’s been created by her. So when you ask about analyzing, we look at the

results of the whole campaign but she’s the spokesperson and she’s the face of the

campaign.”

It is important to note that Bell measures awareness by looking at the amount

of calls, texts, tweets, and Facebook shares that are generated, and by analyzing their

media coverage; for instance every interview, story, print story, and broadcast

interview is collected and analyzed each campaign to determine how the awareness

has grown, and in what part of the country it has grown in. Bell has a substantial

platform to leverage and disseminate the campaign, therefore they also acknowledge

how much media is being generated by Bell properties as well as non-Bell media;

however, “a lot of it is Bell Media, for sure” (J. Michelis, personal communication,

November 14, 2013). Jacqueline provided us with un-publicized figures from their

media analysis from between December 1, 2012 and February 18, 2013. She disclosed

that Bell reached a total audience of 833 million from all sources including print,

broadcast, and online; they generated $8.5 million in ad value from their PR campaign

($4.5 million on Bell Let’s Talk Day); what’s more, 92% of media coverage was

broadcast (TV and radio), and their top ten broadcast outlets came from CTV stations

(which are owned by Bell) (J. Michelis, personal communication, November 15,

2013).

Referencing back to Clara’s involvement, she, accompanied by Bell Let’s

Talk, announced a new initiative in early 2013 to continue Canadians engaging in

conversation about mental health: Clara’s Big Ride for Bell Let’s Talk is described as

an epic journey around the country by bike, scheduled to begin in March of 2014 and

will span over 100 days, covering 12,000 km; Clara will visit hundreds of

communities to engage and connect Canadians to build awareness, fight the stigma

and drive fundraising for local mental health programs (Bell Canada 2012 Corporate

Responsibility Report, p.19). In our interview with Jacqueline, she confirmed that it

was strategically scheduled to conclude on Canada Day with Clara finishing her ride

in Ottawa (personal communication, November 14, 2013). By designing the ride this

way, it not only aligns the Bell Let’s Talk campaign, but the Bell brand with the

Canadian brand and patriotism associated with Canada Day. Furthermore, there has

been much debate over the wireless spectrum bid with Verizon trying to enter the

Canadian market. This strategic finale offers the notion of identifying Bell as

‘Canada’s Communications Company.’

PR STRATEGY 2: INITIATING MENTAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIP WITH GRASSROOTS

AGENCIES, LOCAL HOSPITALS, AND TREATMENT FACILITIES. (PILLAR 2: CARE AND

ACCESS)

Care and access were highlighted as the second pillar with aspirations of

increasing Canadians’ access to mental health care. Bell’s public relations strategy for

adhering to this pillar included initiating mental health partnerships with grassroots

agencies, local hospitals, and treatment facilities.

Prior to the 2013 Bell Let’s Talk campaign Bell announced three new mental

health partnerships: (1) La Fondation du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec

(CHUQ), (2) Concordia University's Department of Psychology, and (3) Brain

Canada (Bell Canada, 2013a). As such, Bell contributed $500,000 to CHUQ to

upgrade its acute psychiatric care unit, and another $500,000 to Concordia

University's Department of Psychology to subsidize therapy and assessment at the

university's Applied Psychology Centre and Centre for Clinical Research in Health

(Bell Canada, 2013a). Brain Canada received a $500,000 gift from Bell to help fund

the $1 million Bell Mental Health Research Training Awards supporting talented

young Canadian mental health researchers (Bell Canada, 2013a).

Other contributions were made to the Royal Ottawa Hospital, the Douglas

Mental Health University Institute, Hôpital Louis-H Lafontaine, the Centre for

Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Queen's University, the University of British

Columbia and other leading institutions and organizations (Bell Canada, 2013a).

More specific to their grassroots engagement, Bell Let’s Talk contributed to

60 mental health organizations in communities across the country in 2012 distributing

grants ranging from $5,000 to $50,000; in 2013, Bell announced its extension of

supporting grassroots agencies with the 2013 Bell Let’s Talk Community Fund, a $1

million annual fund that supports grassroots mental health organizations throughout

Canada (Bell Canada, 2013a).

Jacqueline concluded that the Bell Let’s Talk $1 million Community Fund “is

an amazing part of the program where we get tons of visibility in smaller communities

through these partnerships… [with] coverage at the local level… Giving us a good

balance between supporting big organizations in the large cities and supporting what’s

going on in the smaller communities.” Bell was able to leverage their donations in the

distribution of these funds, further raising awareness and maintaining top-of-mind

with the public. These grants will result in an event in the community, announcements

and presentations that are all relatively easy to organize and garner coverage

throughout the year. This has resulted in a larger reach and scope for the Bell brand,

and can perhaps even be considered as taking place on a more local and personal

level.

PR STRATEGY 3: LEADING BY EXAMPLE, BELL IS COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH

CORPORATE CANADA AND THE HEALTH CARE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP AND

ADOPT MENTAL HEALTH BEST PRACTICES IN THE WORKPLACE. (PILLAR 3:

WORKPLACE BEST PRACTICE)

Bell has undoubtedly led by example in accomplishing the third pillar:

workplace best practice. The company has strategically positioned itself as committed

to working with corporate Canada and the health care community; their aim always

being to develop and adopt mental health best practices in the workplace. These are

all public relations strategies that Bell has employed to succeed at workplace best

practice.

Resulting from the latter commitments, Bell has implemented programs

throughout the three years of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign. The programs have been

designed to help foster a mentally healthy work environment, build awareness about

the stigma of mental illness and equip team leaders with proper tools and resources to

support employees (Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report, 2012). As a result,

Bell has been presented with a Canada Award for Excellence for outstanding

performance in Mental Health at Work; suggestively perceptual for brand image. Bell

was presented with the Silver Award for Mental Health at Work, described by Bell as

“the highest ever awarded by Excellence Canada,” (Bell Press Release, 28 Oct 2013)

In a press release about the company’s acceptance of the award, Mary Deacon,

Chair of Bell Let’s Talk said, “Bell is honoured by this national recognition of our

efforts to improve mental health at work… The workplace plays an essential role in

maintaining positive mental health. As part of our Bell Let's Talk commitment, Bell is

partnering with corporate Canada to develop workplace mental health best practices

and implementing them across our organization” (Bell Canada, 2013b).

In other strategic moves, Bell supported the development of a national

standard for mental health in the workplace (Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility

Report, 2012). This further fuses the company image with mental health

improvements and acting on best practices. This development is being integrated into

its existing health and safety framework as a long-term commitment for psychological

health and safety in the workplace.

Overall the public relations strategies employed for this pillar have

strengthened public awareness and brand image for Bell. Making the public aware

that all Bell senior leaders and managers are taking part in new training and

information programs further syndicates the company and workplace best practices

(Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report, 2012). Leading by example, and

fostering an overall culture of mental health support across the Canadian business

landscape leads to corporate social entrepreneurialism; however, it does not hinder

corporate brand reputation management.

They internally engage their own employees in positive mental health

practices. As such they won the Excellence award for their actions and efforts in

improving workforce standards. In regards to public relations, this ultimately benefits

their brand management because good public relations within an organization projects

positive overall image and brand support.

PR STRATEGY 4: ADEQUATE FUNDING INTO THE GROUND-BREAKING RESEARCH

(PILLAR 4: RESEARCH)

Lastly, Bell has publicized that it is supporting research for understanding and

treating mental health. Supporting the fourth pillar, Bell has strategically chosen

where to donate funding for groundbreaking research. They strive to select what is

described as “best-in-class research programs at hospitals, universities and other

institutions across Canada; in addition to supporting the best researchers with funding

of new chairs, fellowships and project grants” (Supporting best in class, 2013).

Some of the public relations results include Bell’s donation of $1 million to

the University of British Columbia to establish the Bell Youth Mental Health Impact

Project; this will provide UBC researchers with funds to conduct mental health

outreach to youth in need across BC (Support best in class, 2013). What’s more, Bell

is donating $2 million to the Douglas Mental Health University Institute in Montréal

for research activities associated with the Douglas-Bell Canadian Brain Bank, a

world-class brain centre unique in Canada. Notably, both research funds have been

titled to include ‘Bell’ making it conscious that Bell has been involved and made the

research possible.

When asked how Bell ensures these endeavors are tied to Bell Jacqueline said,

“We certainly try to get the Bell name into the actually official name of whatever the

project is to make sure that’s captured. You do your best to make sure the name and

Bell brand is highlighted in the name of the project,” (personal communication,

November 14, 2013).

Lastly, Bell Canada and Queen's University announced the establishment of a

new $1 million research initiative to help fight the stigma associated with mental

illness; linking the first and fourth pillars through the means of a public relations

strategy (Supporting best in class, 2013). The official name is the Bell Canada Mental

Health and Anti-Stigma Research Chair.

As a result, all of the research funding is publicly tied to Bell and the public is

made aware of that through name recognition in titles or news coverage, in which it is

clearly noted that the research has been made possible by Bell. Again, it is socially

stimulating but comes back to supporting corporate brand management.

Lastly, although Bell publicized that they’ve committed $62 million, they’re

not transparent in their corporate annual report or their campaign data on the total

amount raised, as well as total spending for the campaign. Because it’s a cause

marketing campaign, it’s important to know how much they’re committing, but

arguably it’s strategic in keeping the marketing costs undisclosed and using the words

“committed” rather than “amount raised” because it would take away from the social

good tied to the campaign.

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Through the following functional analysis, we seek to analyze the use of cause

marketing as a strategic PR tool to determine how much influence the Bell Let’s Talk

campaign had on the cause, on the corporate brand, and overall, what makes a

successful cause marketing campaign.

INFLUENCE OF CAUSE MARKETING ON THE CAUSE

As has been previously identified in the functional framework, there are

generally two ways to determine the influences of cause marketing on the cause: the

first being to analyze if there is any increased fundraising and support for the cause,

and the second being to analyze if there is any change in individual behaviors and

perceptions in a manner consistent with the goals of the cause (the latter being

determined by augmented visibility and awareness to a cause as well as the

establishment of credibility to the campaign.)

Every year on Bell Let’s Talk day, Bell donates 5 cents to various mental

health initiatives for every text message sent and long distance call placed on the Bell

network, for every tweet using the official campaign hashtag (#BellLetsTalk), as well

as for every Facebook share of the Bell Let’s Talk image (BCCRR, 2010). In its first

year (2011), the Bell Let’s Talk campaign raised $3.3 million of additional funding to

complement the $50 million Bell had already committed to its’ five-year mental

health initiative (BCCRR, 2010). On the second annual Bell Let’s Talk day,

Canadians participated with 78,520,284 texts, long-distance calls and retweets - a

19% increase over the first Bell Let’s Talk day in 2011.With Bell donating 5 cents for

each method of participation, the 2012 campaign raised $3.9 million, a 0.6 million

increase in donations and funds to the cause (BCCRR, 2011). This past year (2013)

Canadians participated more than 96 million times, resulting in an additional $4.8 million

added to the Bell Let’s Talk commitment (BCCR, 2012). Participation thus increased

another 22%, while funding increased by over 1 million dollars from 2012. The total

amount committed now stands at $62 million ($62,043,289.30), which is $12 million more

than Bell’s original commitment (BCCRR, 2012).

All of the above statistics not only demonstrate an annual increase in donation and

engagement rates for the Bell Let’s Talk campaign, but also perhaps most significantly,

illustrates that the cause (Mental Health initiatives in Canada) is receiving increased

fundraising and support.

In terms of change in behaviors and attitudes consistent with the goals of

cause, the background section delineated that the Bell Let’s Talk campaign aims to

eliminate discrimination and stereotype surrounding mental illness through

partnerships with various mental health initiatives nationwide, including the Canadian

Mental Health Association (CMHA). The CMHA annually launches multiple mental

health recovery campaigns striving to eliminate stigma and reduce discrimination

experienced by people with mental illness (CMHA, 2013). These campaigns, in part

funded by Bell, encourage people to “start the conversation” about mental health with

friends, family and co-workers, which significantly helps break down the stigma

associated with mental health, as well as allay the prejudice and discrimination towards

those people who are suffering from it (CMHA, 2013).

By partnering with and funding various initiatives such as the CMHA

recovery program, it is fair to say that Bell Let’s Talk initiative also contributes to

increasing change in individual behaviors and perceptions in a manner consistent with

the goals of the cause, as these partnerships facilitate the elimination of stereotypes

surrounding mental illness and raising awareness of mental health at a micro-level

(within the communities the initiatives reside). Although the overarching Bell Let’s

Talk campaign indeed changes behaviors on a macro-scale (stimulating the discussion

about mental health), arguably the pervasiveness of local and targeted initiatives have

more of a direct impact on behavior and attitude change consistent with the goals of

the cause.

The visibility and awareness of the cause catalyzed by Bell Let’ Talk

campaign is undeniable: according to Bell media relations spokesperson Jacqueline

Michelis (as was mentioned earlier), the total audience reach of the Bell Let’s Talk

campaign is 833 million (from all sources, including print, broadcast and online). 92%

of media coverage was broadcast either on TV or radio. Interestingly (and arguably

predictably) enough, the top ten broadcast outlets were CTV stations (all owned by

Bell Media). The official campaign hashtag #BellLetsTalk was the top trending topic

in Canada and US on Bell Let’s Talk day in 2012. (J. Michelis, personal

communication: November 14, 2013). As illustrated by this short summary of the

results section, the reach and scope of this campaign was massive, and by default, the

cause gained much visibility and awareness.

With regards to the credibility of the campaign, we can validly assert that Bell

is considered a reputable and credible brand, given its long-standing history in the

Canadian telecommunications market (Winseck, 2012). With regards to the campaign

however, Bell employed various PR strategies to enhance its’ credibility: as

mentioned, the use of a pure, whole, natural and nationalistic spokesperson in Clara

Hughes, the announcement of its’ commitment amounts and partnerships with leading

research and medical institutions, among others. The campaign also gained massive

amounts of credibility by being honored with a Canada Award for Excellence in

recognition of its Workplace Mental Health program. The Silver Award for Mental

Health at Work is the highest ever awarded by Excellence Canada following a

rigorous evaluation process to finally recognize Bell’s exemplary commitment to

workplace mental health (Bell Canada, 2013e). As the campaign has only recently

received this award, it will be interesting to see how it is integrated into future PR

efforts of the campaign.

INFLUENCE OF CAUSE MARKETING ON THE BRAND

Moving to the second facet of the cause marketing functional framework,

there are generally three crucial factors determining the influence the cause marketing

campaign might have on brand perception: firstly, successful brand promotion is

determined by whether or not the corporation can provide evidence of good corporate

citizenship to establish (or further) trust and confidence in its’ brand. Bell’s annual

Corporate Social Responsibility Reports from 2010-2012 emphasize that Bell has

maintained a good historical record of corporate citizenship by fulfilling their social

commitments to Canadian society through various efforts, ranging from their past

campaigns supporting Northern communities, to their partnership with “Kid’s Help

Phone”, as well as their role as sponsor of the “Canadian Centre for Child Protection”

(BCCRR, 2010-2012). Bell’s history of responsible community involvement has

helped to build consumer trust and confidence in it’s brand, and its’ most recent

efforts through the Bell Let’s Talk campaign are no exception. Bell’s annual release

of their Commitment amount to mental health initiatives is an exemplification of its

good corporate citizenship to consumers. It is important to note however, that many

other corporations engage in corporate social responsibility, so we must ask ourselves

what was different about the Bell Let’s Talk campaign that could have possibly aided

in improving its brand perception.

This brings us to the second crucial factor that can add significant positive

value to the perception of the corporate brand: whether or not the strategic execution

of the cause-marketing campaign gains competitive market advantage in

differentiating the corporate brand from competitors. We know from the Bell annual

Corporate Social Responsibility Reports that the Bell Let’s Talk mental health initiative

is characterized by some unique features, including “an unprecedented multi-year charitable

program”, “the largest-ever corporate commitment in Canada”, and “supporting an

extensively wide range of programs to enhance awareness, understanding and treatment of

mental illness as well as research and access to care across the country” (BCCRR, 2010-

2012). Yes this is “new” and “unprecedented”, but how is that conveyed to

consumers? We can exemplify the differentiation by comparing Bell and Rogers’

Corporate Social Responsibility Reports in 2012: in terms of investing in community,

Rogers’ contribution to Canadian charities and non-profit organization is characterized by a

one-time in total $16 million cash donation and $53 million individual in-kind donations.

(Rogers Corporate Social Responsibility Report [RCSRR], 2012). This is a total of $69

million annually to various charitable institutions. From a financial standpoint, it would

seem as though Rogers is giving more to the community. In Rogers Corporate Social

Responsibility Report however, there is no mention of any strategic public relations efforts

to accompany their financial contributions. In comparison, Bell’s calculated corporate

charitable is strategically designed with multi-faceted PR and communication plans. This

gives more competitive advantage to Bell in distinguish its brand image from others

because the Bell Let’s Talk campaign is operating on a much larger scale across a longer

time frame which makes the campaign itself more difficult to be copied or emulated by

other competitors. It is also highly visible to consumers, whereas Rogers’ activities mostly

happen behind the scenes.

The third key factor involved in improving the appraisal of a brand through

cause marketing refers back to the idea of “meaning transfer”, which was previously

defined in the functional framework section. Its implications are that if consumers

have positively experienced the Bell Let’s Talk cause marketing campaign, there will

be a transfer of these positive experiences directly to the brand doing the execution

(Bell), ultimately strengthening brand perceptions. Our media analysis of multiple

interviews both during and after the campaign illustrated how Bell has become

inextricably linked with the “cause” of mental illness. For example: Ken Wong, a

marketing professor at the Queen’s School of Business in Kingston has said that if

you mention mental health issues for the average Canadian, Bell would come to their

mind sooner or later because “they simply had the wisdom to go big, and they are all

over this, it would be very hard for someone else to stake a claim on mental health”

(Powell, 2013, para.7). The campaign has helped distinguish Bell as a company that cares

when competing for customers in a telecommunications sector with little players and very

little differentiations. “The customer still has to make a choice and if they have no

functional basis on which to make that choice and if prices are more or less equivalent, they

give the business to a friend.” (Powell, 2013, para. 29). And Bell all in all, could be that

“friend”, as it has aligned customers’ personal experiences of the Bell Let’s Talk mental

health initiatives with a positive recognition of Bell as a commercial brand in hopes to sell

its telecommunication commodities.

WAS BELL LET’S TALK A SUCCESSFUL CAUSE MARKETING CAMPAIGN?

Finally, let us now analyze the Bell Let’s Talk campaign through the third

facet of the cause marketing functional framework: overall, what makes a successful

cause marketing campaign? First there is an improvement of firm performance. Table

1 illustrates Bell Canada’s revenue and number of subscribers since 2008. It is

important to keep in mind that the Bell Let’s Talk campaign started in 2010.

Table 1.

Year Revenue (in billions)Total Growth Services

(millions of subscribers)

2008 17.7 11.3

2009 17.7 11.8

2010 18.1 12.4

2011 19.5 12.7

2012 19.8 13.1

Source: BCE Corporate Annual Reports, 2008-2012

Arguably, the above table could be used as evidence to Bell’s increased firm

performance: the years prior to the Bell Let’s Talk campaign saw a stagnation in

revenue, and a minor increase in number of subscribers. However in the campaign’s

first year, both revenue and subscriber numbers increased fairly significantly, and

have been on the rise ever since. Although it is impetuous to argue that there is a

direct causal relationship between campaign and increased firm performance, it would

be tenable to assert that the Bell Let’s Talk campaign was definitely a factor in the

corporation’s overarching inflation, as we have outlined how it increased firm

visibility and brand perceptions which ultimately help the bottom-line. The

constraints of this paper do not allow for it, but a thorough financial breakdown of

revenue by sector, spikes in timing, types of services bought, comprehensive financial

and marketing data from the campaign etc. would indubitably shed light on how much

of an influence the Bell Let’s Talk campaign had on Bell’s overall firm performance.

Secondly, with regards to supporting a social cause, the evidence is irrefutable.

Research has proven that mental health is a very protuberant societal issue that has

been remarkably under recognized and under supported. The wide success of the Bell

Let’s Talk campaign cannot be denied as the epitome of “supporting a social cause”,

however this begs the question of whether or not this support was altruistic or

corporately motivated. As the functional analyses of cause marketing as a calculated

PR tactic has already asserted, cause marketing is a profit driven strategy. The success

of the CM campaign however, is determined by whether or not it is perceived as

altruistic. Although the Bell Let’s Talk campaign avidly publicizes its “commitment”

amounts (to various research programs, institutions, etc.), which can be seen as

altruistic in and of itself, that is not enough to elicit the emotional response required

for consumers to believe they are engaging in the campaign activities for the right

reasons. As mentioned above, Bell’s strategic use of Clara Hughes as a spokesperson

for the campaign not only aided in establishing trust and confidence, but was also an

effective method of eliciting an emotional response from consumers and thus

solidifying beliefs that Bell’s campaign is altruistic: as an Olympic athlete, Clara as a

symbol already evokes strong emotions of national pride and unity. Having her tell

her personal stories, and believing in Bell’s ability to improve conditions for

Canadians just like her compels Canadians to believe in the benevolent nature of the

campaign. Finally, as mentioned, cause-marketing campaigns can increase their

potential for success by associating with an unfamiliar cause. In 2006, there was a

Senate Standing Committee on “Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental

Illness and Addiction Services in Canada.” It was one of the first reports on mental

health, mental illness, and addiction in Canada, and recognized mental health as being

an issue of growing prominence and concern in Canadian society (The Senate, 2006).

The report was a federal recognition of mental illness as a stigmatized issue, and one

that “hits Canada hard in the pocketbook. We lose close to $33 billion in industrial

production each year due to mental illness.” (Quirion, 2006). The Mental Health

Committee of Canada (MHCC) was formed as a result of this report, with the goal of

undertaking a major national campaign to reduce and combat stigma, with the

foundational understanding that “only by making it completely acceptable to discuss

issues relating to mental illness in public can we ever hope to fully eradicate the

scourge of stigma” (Kirby, 2008). It is important to note here that many of the

initiatives of the MHCC have been funded and sponsored through the Bell Let’s Talk

campaign, and that although the MHCC may play a role in combating the stigma

surrounding mental health, arguably its’ efforts have not had the same impact or

overall magnitude as the Bell Let’s Talk cause marketing efforts have. Although the

issue was federally recognized in 2006, mental health awareness stayed out of the

corporate social responsibility realm in Canada until the Bell Let’s Talk campaign

began in 2010. As mentioned in the earlier functional framework, CM can improve

evaluations of both a brand and a cause when a positive brand takes on a cause that is

not familiar, because the brand becomes the anchor for the unknown cause and

facilitates and upward movement in attitudes and perceptions. Because this was

initially the task of a federal committee, it is important to ask ourselves the following:

given that Bell funds many of the MHCC’s initiatives, can we argue that they are

providing the federal organization with the leverage it needs to truly be heard

(finances, reach of scope, etc.)? This leads into the critical theoretical perspectives on

discourse, as it raises an important question: do we need PR efforts by large, powerful

corporations to initiate the discourses society needs to move forward? The following

section will analyze the Bell Let’s Talk through a Foucauldian lens.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The following section will critically analyze the Bell Let’s Talk campaign

using the theoretical framework of Michel Foucault, as outlined in the critical

perspective section. In our functional analysis, we determined that the Bell Let’s Talk

campaign was likely a factor that contributed to improving Bell’s bottom line.

However, when we analyze the campaign critically, through a Foucauldian lens, we

shift our focus from seeing PR as within the “discourse domain of business where it is

understood as a commercial practice” to a more political discourse domain where it is

understood as a “power effect that produces and circulates certain kinds of truth”

(Motion and Leitch, 2009, p. 99).

POSITION WITHIN POWER/KNOWLEDGE AND DISCOURSE

Power relations, as discussed earlier, are everywhere. Within those relations,

however there is a hierarchy. Within the discourses of our capitalist society, Bell, as a

big and wealthy corporation, is on the higher end of that hierarchy, and is in the

position to exercise power. It is one of Canada’s “big three” telecommunications

companies, which together make up 90% of the nation’s mobile market. In addition to

dominating the cell phone sector, Bell provides services in two other major areas

Canadians use to send and receive information: television and Internet. It is also part

of the conglomerate that owns Bell Media, which in itself operates several media

outlets. As such, it has thousands of “likes” on its Facebook page, and thousands of

Twitter followers. This means it can easily reach a large amount of Canadians (more

so than the average Canadian) in a short amount of time, and that Canadians look to

Bell and rely on Bell for important services and information.

In an interview with the journal History of the Present, Foucault explains, “In

most societies, organizations are created to freeze the relations of power, hold those

relations in a state of asymmetry, so that a certain number of persons get an

advantage, socially, economically, politically, institutionally, etc.” (Bess, 1988, p. 1).

Bell can be considered one of those organizations.

Therefore, in keeping with the introduction to this section, if Bell is in a

position of power, its PR efforts through the Bell Let’s Talk campaign are an effect of

that power, producing and circulating certain kinds of truth. Bell’s Media Relations

representative, Jacqueline Michelis, said herself that this is true: the Bell CEO held a

meeting and sat down with some employees to decide how they would use their

money, time and resources (in other words, implement their power) to impact a

particular cause (in other words, to “technologize” a discourse) (J. Michelis, personal

communication, November 14, 2013).

TRUTH CIRCULATION

Since Bell’s PR practitioners acted as discourse actors employing discursive

strategies to circulate truths, this begs the question: what truths were they circulating?

We can determine that Bell aimed to circulate two main truths: (1) the de-

stigmatization of mental illness and raised awareness for mental health, as explained

further in the findings section, and (2) an association between the Bell brand and an

image of philanthropy, and social benevolence, as well as being distinctly and

identifiably Canadian, as explained later on in this section.

While we cannot claim that these truths reached a hegemonic status, Bell

managed to successfully bring their attempted truths into the public discourse as

knowledge, which individuals could then accept or reject as truth. We also cannot

claim that there was an A to B cause and effect relationship between the Bell

campaign and the acceptance of these two truths. However, we have found that within

a broader context and working alongside a multitude of other factors, this campaign

likely contributed to improved public perception of Bell’s brand, and also, at the very

least, sparked a positive discussion on mental health.

GIVING INDIVIDUALS POWER

It is interesting to note that Bell did not attempt to circulate these truths on its

own. As opposed to utilizing its power/knowledge via, say, a campaign based solely

in television commercials, radio advertisements, flyers or billboards, Bell instead

chose an interactive model based mainly in social media which effectively placed the

power in the hands of individuals to contribute to shaping the discourse by way of

their social media accounts (for example, by tweeting). Essentially, Bell initiated and

facilitated the power/knowledge of individuals, who wouldn’t normally have enough

“sway” on an individual level to make an impact on the discourse, but who might on a

collective level.

The question then becomes how does the role of new media fit into the

Foucauldian dynamic? If, as the maxim goes, “it’s not what is said, but who is heard

that counts,” does new media level the playing field and allow everyone equal

opportunity to be heard — an individual as much as a corporation like Bell? This

would certainly clash with Foucault’s theory because a power struggle would not have

been at the forefront of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign.

As we understand it, the answer is the following: at the end of the day,

individuals could participate but only within the framework Bell had preconceived for

them. It created a sort-of discourse within a discourse, if you will. If someone wanted

to join the conversation, they had to follow a certain protocol: the discussion took

place on only one specific day of the year, it had to be on Bell’s network, or, if not,

the individual had to tweet or share Bells “official” message in order to get their

donation received. Facebook and Twitter, in particular, had to be used as opposed to

any other websites, and the donation rate, set by Bell, was five cents — no more and

no less. If one wanted his or her tweet to be seen, one had to use the campaign and

brand specific hashtag. Ultimately, it was still Bell controlling the conversation to

Bell’s end and, therefore, it was Bell’s truth that was being circulated. New media

may be a new medium on which discourses can take place, but, even on new media,

there are still Foucauldian power relations at play.

IMPLICATIONS / VOICES SILENCED

While the fact that a discussion surrounding mental health arose out of this

campaign can be considered positive consequence of the campaign, it is not the only

implication. Having Bell at the helm of this mental health discourse also means that

certain voices get silenced.

Firstly, not everyone can participate in this particular conversation because

some people do not know how to use social media; for example, a large portion of the

senior demographic, and some people cannot easily access a computer or the Internet,

as evidenced by an ongoing digital divide in Canada based on income disparity

(Statistics Canada, 2012).

Secondly, as Mason Hanrahan (2013), (who is recovering from depression),

points out on his blog, the TV commercials promoting the February 2013 Bell Let’s

Talk day, featured white, middle class people, like much of their other promotional

materials:

Bell has hinted at how the discussion should be framed with two TV spots …

Both commercials seek to dispel stigma and myths about mental illness. It is

interesting that in order to do so, the examples depict white, middle-class

dwellers of (seemingly) suburban homes … Are we to think that it’s okay to

be mentally ill so long as you can hold down a job, fit in, and be just like

everyone else? What about the mentally ill who line our sidewalks? Our

prisons?

Consider that mentally ill people who are homeless or in prison are not likely

to be Bell’s existing or ideal customers. Also consider what this says about the

hegemonic societal truths that are engrained in the Canadian discourse at large: it’s no

secret Bell has always strived to link their brand to Canadian identity, their old TV

commercials featured beavers as the main characters! With the recent possibility of

American company Verizon entering the Canadian market, the theme of linking their

brand to the Canadian identity was arguably expanded further: this perhaps

demonstrated by Clara Hughes’ Terry Fox-esque “Big Ride” engaging Canadians

nation wide and culminating in the Capital on Canada Day. Is this notion of a white,

middle-class person portrayed as the average Canadian emblematic of greater

Canadian stereotypes or a prevalent trend in Canadian advertising? While this

question is certainly one that should be evaluated further, for all intents and purposes

of this paper, it is important simply to recognize the PR strategy used by Bell through

it’s campaigning, and acknowledge that it is a silencing of voices.

Lastly, according to Ms. Michelis, mental health as a cause was selected

because it “affected people in the workforce,” because it was “unprecedented,” and,

arguably, because it could be best leveraged as a cause-marketing tool to benefit

Bell’s corporate interests. This means that it was not selected based on merit or

because it was the cause that needs the highest immediate priority in society.

Although this campaign means there is one more discourse surrounding mental health,

it is also means there is one less corporate discourse surrounding cancer research, the

United Way, saving the polar bears, or any other cause Bell chose to ignore.

ROLE OF CORPORATE PR PRACTITIONERS

This brings us to the question raised at the end of the functional analysis: Do

we need the PR of big power structures, such as Bell, to initiate the discourses society

needs moving forward? If these companies didn’t practice corporate responsibility or

cause marketing, would the issues we need talk about get talked about? As mentioned

earlier, the Mental Health Committee of Canada (MHCC) tried to do many of the

things Bell is doing for mental health in terms of decreasing stigma and raising

awareness, but the MHCC was arguably not nearly as successful as Bell because they

did not have access to the necessary funds. In our society’s discourse at large and the

power/knowledge structures at play, corporations like Bell do have the resources to

operate power/knowledge to shape what gets talked about — or, in other words, to

influence discourse.

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

It would not be possible for us to know with complete certainty Bell’s

intentions behind the implementation of the Bell Let’s Talk campaign. However, we

can draw several conclusions from our analysis of the campaign. Regardless of

whether the campaign was corporately motivated, socially motivated, or both, it was

indeed beneficial to Bell’s bottom line, as suggested in our functional analysis. But,

when examined through a Foucauldian lens, we see that in addition to this, the

campaign was a power effect that empowered individuals to circulate certain truths.

While one of those truths was related to Bell’s brand, the other was the sparking of a

public discourse surrounding mental health — something that might not have

happened had Bell, as a corporation, not taken up the cause. This discourse was

largely positive in the sense that the cause received massive amounts of awareness,

visibility, fundraising and increased support. This positive impact on society’s mental

health discourse by Bell stands true no matter how much corporate gain was involved,

or how many other voices were silenced in the process.

CONCLUSION

As proven through the results, and the functional and critical analyses, the Bell

Let’s Talk campaign was a strategic and successful corporate execution of a cause

marketing public relations strategy. It was effective in both improving the bottom line and

altering discourses surrounding an issue of public interest: mental health. Functionally, it

was effective in both aiding the Bell brand and the cause of mental health awareness/de-

stigmatization. This was because of its’ effective execution of the public relations practices

of cause marketing and its’ ability to leverage pre-existing structures (its own vast and

diverse media network resources, emotions towards nationalism and the Olympics, an

already established consumer confidence in the brand, social media platforms, etc.) It has

also been successful in altering the discourses surrounding a stigmatized issue, by using its’

resources as a dominant player in the Canadian telecommunications landscape to foster and

stimulate independent discourses within the context of its’ branded campaign. We have

proven that although this campaign is corporately motivated, it has in fact done much good

for the cause, both financially and societally. Although our functional analysis proved it to

be an excellent execution of a cause marketing campaign, the critical analysis raised

important questions about the sincerity of cause marketing awareness “discourse”, in the

sense that whilst it is improving visibility of the cause, it is doing so within the corporately

framed discourse, and ultimately, improving positive visibility of the brand. The question

then, is can cause marketing public relations practice still be a positive thing if it is (for lack

of better terms) killing two birds with one stone and acting doubly as a corporate

promotions activity? We have proven that one cannot be independent of the other, but will

conclude by asserting that bringing awareness to both a cause and a brand is better than

having no awareness for an issue that has been scientifically proven to impact the lives of

numerous Canadians. Although corporate cause marketing may not be altruistic, the

initiatives it supports often are. As such, the validity of Bell’s successful execution of this

public relations strategy cannot be denied.

REFERENCES

Anand V. (2002) Building blocks of corporate reputation, social responsibility

initiatives. Corp Reputation Revolution 5 (1), 71-74.

Bell Canada. (2013a). A record-setting Bell Let's Talk Day - an unprecedented

national conversation about mental health [Press Release]. Retrieved from

http://www.bce.ca/news-and-media/releases/show/a-record-setting-bell-

lets-talk-day-an-unprecedented-national-conversation-about-mental-health

Bell Canada. (2013b). Bell receives Canada Award for Excellence for outstanding

performance in Mental Health at Work [Press Release]. Retrieved from

http://www.bce.ca/news-and-media/releases/show/bell-receives-canada-

award-for-excellence-for-outstanding-performance-in-mental-health-at-

work?page=2&perpage=10&year=&month=&keyword=

Bell Canada. (2013c). Overview. Retrieved from

http://www.bce.ca/aboutbce/bceoverview/

Bell Canada. (2013d). Bell Initiatives. Retrieved from

http://letstalk.bell.ca/en/initiatives/

Bell Canada. (2013e). Bell receives Canada Award for Excellence for outstanding

performance in Mental Health. [Press Release]. Retrieved from

http://letstalk.bell.ca/pdf/press/2013/10-28-2013.pdf

Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report. 2010. Retrieved November 29, 2013

from

http://www.bce.ca/assets/Uploads/Documents/archivesCRReports/Bell_201

0_CR_Report_en.pdf

Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report. 2011. Retrieved November 28, 2013

from

http://www.bce.ca/assets/widgets/Responsibility/EN/Bell_2011_CR_Repor

t_en.pdf

Bell Canada Corporate Responsibility Report. 2012. Retrieved November 10, 2013

from http://www.bce.ca/responsibility/corporateresponsibility/

Bess, M. (Interviewer) & Foucault, M. (Interviewee). (1988). Power, Moral Vlaues,

and the Intellectual. History of the Present, 1-2, (11-13). Retrieved from

http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/historydept/michaelbess/Foucault

%20Interview

Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). 2013. CMHA encourages all

Canadians to increase the volume and frequency of conversations about

mental health in communities across the country on Bell’s Let’s Talk Day

[Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.cmha.ca/news/bell-lets-talk-

day/#.UovdQXxRdC

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Fillingham, L. (1993). Foucault for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers

Publishing, Inc.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.).

London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1974). Prisons et asiles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir [Prisons and

refuges in the mechanism of power] (C. O’Farrell, Trans.). Dits et Ecrits, 2,

523–524.

Foucault, M. (1978) [1976], The History of Sexuality, 1. An Introduction.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-

1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall,, J. Mepham, & K. Soper Trans.). New York:

Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton

(Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (16-48).

Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Foucault, M. (1998) The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. London:

Penguin (R. Hurley, Trans.).

Gaventa, J. (2003). Power after Lukes: An overview of theories of power since Lukes

and their application to development. Brighton: Institute of Development

Studies. Retrieved from

http://www.powercube.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/power_after_lukes.

pdf

Gourville, J. T., & Rangan, V. (2004). Valuing the Cause Marketing Relationship.

California Management Review, 47(1), 38-57.

Hanrahan, M. (2013). Let’s Talk About Bell. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from

http://masonhanrahan.blogspot.ca/

Hardy, C. (1998). Discourse as a Strategic Resource. Department of Management.

Melborne: The University of Melborne. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.195.7738&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Kirby, M. (2008, Jun 28). CANADA'S MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. The Globe and

Mail (1936-Current). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1371253525?accountid=9894

Lafferty, A., Goldsmith, R. (2005). Cause–brand alliances: does the cause help the

brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of business research,

58(4), 423-429.

Landreth, S., Garretson Folse, J. A. (2007) Cause-Related Marketing (CRM): The

Influence of Donation Proximity and Message-Framing Cues on the Less-

Involved Consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36 (4), 19-33.  

Lessa, I. (2006). “Discursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen

motherhood.” British Journal of Social Work, 36 (2), 283-298. doi:

10.1093/bjsw/bch256

Moosmayer, D. C. (2010) Consumer perceptions of cause related marketing

campaigns. The Journal of consumer marketing 27, (6), 543-549.

Motion, J., & Leitch, S. (2009). On Foucault: A Toolbox for Public Relations. In O.

Ihlen, B. van Ruler & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public Relations and Social

Theory: Key Figures and Concepts (83-102). New York: Routledge.

Myers, B., Kwon, W. S. (2013) A model of antecedents of consumers' post brand

attitude upon exposure to a cause–brand alliance. International Journal of

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(2), 73-89.

Powell, C. (2013, February 13). A look at Bell’s Let’s Talk Program.

Marketingmag.ca. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from

http://www.marketingmag.ca/news/marketer-news/a-look-at-bells-lets-talk-

program-71865

Quirion, R. (2006, Nov 02). Canada must overcome stigma of mental health. Star –

Phoenix. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/348863780?

accountid=9894

Robinson, S., Irmak, C., & Jayachandran, S. (2012). Choice of Cause in Cause

Related Marketing. Journal Of Marketing, 76(4), 126-139.

Rogers Communication Inc. Corporate Social Responsibility Report. 2012. Retrieved

November 28, 2013 from

http://about.rogers.com/Libraries/CSR_Reports/2012_Rogers_CSR_Report.

sflb.ashx

Statistics Canada. (2012). Table358-0154 - Canadian Internet use survey, Internet

use, by location of use, household income and age group for Canada and

regions, occasional (percent),  CANSIM (database). (accessed: 2013-12-

01) 

Supporting best in class. (2013). Bell Let's Talk. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from

http://letstalk.bell.ca/en/initiatives

The Senate. (2006). Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Illness and

Addiction Services in Canada – Final Report. Ottawa. Available at

http://books1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.library.carleton.ca/viewdoc.html?

id=/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_cppc/2009-12-01/4/204232#tabview=tab1

Varadarajan R. P., Menon, A. (1988) Cause-related marketing: a co-alignment of

marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. J Mark, 52(3), 58–74.