Twitter for Sh*tters? Really? Really?
July 29th, 2009 | 
Author: 
Some hired gun PR type emailed me a provocative and potty-mouthed pitch a few days back. I’m blogging about it so I guess he gets what he wants. You’ll probably post comments about this, so I’ll get what I want. But what about the client, a worthy-seeming charity that wants to improve sanitation in the developing world. Does this kind of environmental writing win people over to their cause? Here’s an …um… juicy excerpt:
Let’s talk shit. As a water blogger, you already know how important sanitation is to the world’s poorest places. But you also know that, with a plethora of worthy causes out there, it’s not easy to get people talking about this, well, nasty subject. That’s why we’re stepping in it.
The puns and potty humor keeps right on rolling for several paragraphs (click here to read the whole email). But the point of the whole thing is that TwitterforSh-tters.com is a grassroots social media campaign to raise awarenss and money for Wherever the Need.
As a message man, I’m not sure what to make of this. I do know that sometimes humorous environmental advertising and messages are well received out there. I’m certainly not offended myself — I appreciate what they’re trying to do. But, I see they’ve only raised $1250, and the PR firm probably cost a lot more than that.
There is basically nothing in my environmental poll, survey, and market research collection that speaks to whether humor generally or potty humor particularly is effective.
So what do you think? Is this effort daring and edgy? Or clumsy and tasteless?
Would you let somebody raise environmental awareness about your organization and its work with this kind of approach?
Posted in 
Using bad language is one thing and in the right circumstances can be funny. Writing bad language is off-putting and doesn’t pull in the audience, isn’t convincing and turns people against ideas in the message.
Maybe if you’re trying to reach the 16-30 male crowd about a new Will Ferrell movie or something, the “juicy” (gross!) language could work. But as a fairly prim and proper female I wouldn’t even consider donating to this cause, or even going to the website. As a side note, I came here right after reading the latest posts on the Bad Pitch Blog so I was excited to see a bad pitch: Water Words style!
I agree with fernberger. One requirement of good communication is that it reflects well on the organization. This must be secondary to the goal of getting the readers’ attention, which is the typical reason why some resort to profanity. This passes the Friday night test, but it does not pass the monday morning test.
I think a few oblique references now and then are OK, but should be limited.
City of Tacoma Public Works found a couple of sanitation workers who were kind of hams. They did some spots with these guys “trash talking” as a way to do communications around the recycling program. Trash talking meant talking about trash, of course. This is a good example. Note how mild it is.
I think the potential cleverness of this campaign is lost in the crudeness of the jargon chosen. In other words, the humor could have been amusing puns rather than the unimaginative “potty talk” that they used. Cleverness trumps crude every time.
We certainly appreciate the discourse and welcome any and all comments about the effort. Frankly, however, the campaign isn’t based on being crude – it’s based on talking directly about a huge problem.
Trying to sugarcoat the global sanitation issue hasn’t been effective (at all). Sanitation isn’t sexy. No doubt about it. Nobody wants to talk about it.
Together with Wherever the Need, the decision was made to be direct, bold and see if people would talk. They have. In blogs. Via tweets. And, in media coverage. Awareness is half the battle – not just funds. (All of which are critical, by the way: Whether its $1255 or $125.)
In Rose George’s important book, The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why it Matters, she quotes leading Nepali sanitation activist, Umesh Panday, “Just as HIV/AIDS cannot be discussed without talking frankly about sex, so the problem of sanitation cannot be discussed without talking frankly about shit.”
Is that crude? We certainly don’t think so. We’re going to move forward with our efforts to talk directly about this problem (which is basically the premise of Rose George’s book). We’re truly sorry that some people are offended, but that’s the nature of sanitation.
Finally, for the record – and to your point that “the PR agency probably costs a lot more (than the money raised),” the agency not only hasn’t taken any money from Wherever the Need, but (sorry to offend) because we believe in this sh-t, we’ve actually paid for these efforts out of our own pockets (and will continue to do so).
Again – we love the conversation and welcome it. ANY consideration of the global sanitation crisis is good. No organization can be all things to all people. And, there are zillions of worthy causes. We don’t expect everyone to jump on our bandwagon. Donate somewhere else. Just pay attention and donate somewhere.
“Stepping into it” may be the easy part…stepping out of it is a whole other adventure.
This message (& humor) probably works with Twitter savvy 20-somethings, but our one audience/constituent base of farm owners, well, they’ve probably had their fill of hands-on/hands-in/knee-deep potty humor today.
Come to think of it, I doubt many of our farm constituents tweet…or give a sheet…
Tara:
Great. Like I wrote – we can’t be all things to all people. You are exactly right – this effort is aimed directly at the savvy social media user, not your farm owner constituents. And, those constituents couldn’t care less about our efforts. Fair enough.
I’ll leave it at that…Tough to debate via blog comments. Good luck with ALL of your efforts. We’re all trying to do good things. That’s what should be celebrated.
Todd: Don’t get me wrong, your campaign’s candidness will work (with that audience) and is a refreshing approach to the age-old dilemma of talking sh*t. We (and our audiences/constituents) love a good play on words (we even considered naming our print newsletter Sticks & Dung but went with the more mainstream Watershed Farm & Forest). I’d be curious to hear about your campaign’s success and audiences’ reaction to it.
You’ve got your hands full with this topic (no pun intended); we face a similar educational and participatory dilemma in tackling benign water polluters…who can negotiate with a cow? how cruel is it to even suggest keeping them from stream water?
But addressing animal waste pollution at the source does improve water quality — in fact, that’s the primary reason our ogranization came to be (Watershed Agricultural Council). Keeping animals (and their back-end party favors) out of water courses impacts drinking water quality for the better (as does water run-off diversions, nutrient management plans, etc.) Fencing animals out seems like a weak stab at a larger problem, but it works. And in our case, offering to pay for the best practices set in place certainly allows the landowner to particpate at no cost…a huge plus in getting buy-in.
Getting people to understand the poop problem, accept responsibility for it and then engage/do something about it, that’s the trick. We’re not directly saving lives here, but really, we are saving lives…clean drinking water is a public health issue. Making the full circle connection — from the animal’s back end BACK AROUND to the direct benefit to the audience — is where we’re finding our PooPollution Solution.
Different messages connect with different audiences — creativity (and sick humor) work to get messages out across various audiences on squishy, uncomfortable topics like this.
Keep up your hard work and thanks for providing pro bono work. Nonprofits like us depend on PR guys like you…to cut through the bullsh*t and get to the point.
This topic/dialogue/blog has spiked my interest enough to visit your website and maybe even follow your blog — Now, isn’t that what all this sh*t is really about?