Ad agency stirs controversy for using homeless people as wireless hotspots at SXSW
By EJ DicksonMarch 12th, 2012, 9:15 pmComments (10)
This year at SXSW in Austin, you may happen to come across a bedraggled, middle-aged homeless man wearing a T-shirt that said, "I'm _______, a 4G hotspot." If your first inclination was to give this poor soul a bagel or a coupla bucks rather than texting the number on his belly for wireless service, then you, sir, are a bleeding-heart liberal/self-righteous do-gooder. That's because the men were recruited as part of "Homeless Hotspots," a campaign spearheaded by marketing firm BBH that has already caught more flak from SXSW hipsters than the latest She & Him release.
According to Buzzfeed, Homeless Hotspots was the brainchild of Saneel Radia, head of innovation at the New York-based marketing firm, which partnered with Austin homeless-advocacy group Front Steps on the project. Although Radia stresses that the money donated for wireless access goes directly to the homeless hotspots themselves (ick, I can't even type that without feeling squeamish), he says that he understands why people might be uncomfortable with the campaign. "The worry is that people are suddenly just hardware," he says, "but frankly I wouldn't have done this if I didn't believe otherwise. We're very open to the criticism," he added.
Well, that's good that you're open to the criticism, Saneel, because over the next few days, you guys will be getting it from all ends. While I don't doubt that your intentions were good (or, at least, as good as the intentions of a marketing firm can possibly be), if the concern over being perceived as using homeless people as "hardware" crosses your mind just once during the brainstorming process, it's probably best to take your ideas in a different direction. On the other hand, Melvin, one of the homeless individuals recruited by BBH, told Buzzfeed the following about his own experience with the campaign, so at least there's a silver lining to this PR nightmare cloud:
"I would say that these people are trying to help the homeless, and increase awareness. They're trying not to put us in a situation where we're stereotyped. That's a good side of it, too — we get to talk to people. Maybe give them a different perception of what homeless is like."
Commentarium (10 Comments)
How dare they give homeless people jobs?
This doesn't strike me as exploitation, but I guess that's because I don't have the arrogance of a hipster who cares more about his/her credibility than the issue at hand.
Got to agree with both mp and pixie - and Melvin, who has a pretty clear idea what he's doing.
How is this more demeaning than "hi, I'm **** and I'll be your server this evening" or any job that involves a boss and a name tag.
My issue with this is that it further de-humanizes homeless people. It presents them as things to be used for your own benefit, in exchange for a fee. They only pay them $20 for the day of work. I wonder how much money they are making on this initiative.
Doesn't that describe the entire service industry in one form or another?
very much agree with mp, pixie and Gazbo. KP, you must be one those hipsters that pixie speaks of. They make $20 PLUS whatever the users donate to them through paypal, so it's actually a JOB for one of these homeless people. i know that i won't just give a homeless person money on the street if they just have their hand out asking, but if they are providing a service (like a WiFi hotspot), then i will gladly give them money in exchange for the service provided.
hell, if i was at SXSW it would be an easily documented business expense that i'd be able to write off (Uncle Sam's minions at the IRS don't buy the "but i gave hundreds of dollars in cash to the homeless guys on the street last year" if you try to claim that as a donation).
Bully for the agencies and for the homeless guys themselves!
The homeless people clearly agreed to do this and they're profiting. Anybody that has a problem with this is somebody that is looking for a fight but too lazy to actually do something productive or thoughtful.
I had to take a job in grad school as a sign holder for extra cash to pay the bills. I even had to dress up like the statue of liberty. It was lame and, at times, embarrassing, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't something that would make people feel "squeamish" (I hope - I wasn't the most attractive statue of liberty, having a beard and all). Personally, I think this "controversy" and this article are more insulting to people that have to work shit jobs, these people that are able to take an opportunity presented to them and make the most of it.
Clearly, such a job is below you, but that isn't the case for everybody. The idea/concern that "people are hardware" is an interesting one though, but I think that's being very, very dramatic. It'd be much more productive, and reasonable, to watch how this transpires and see what sort of effect it has raising aware of the homeless in a positive light.
Lots of people will do awful shit when they're having a hard time -- selling an organ, donating dangerous amounts of blood, prostituting themselves. Child labour, sweatshop labour. It does not mean that we have to condone it. And there is a huge huge margin between "embarrassing" and "dehumanizing," which the language of the shirts/campaign ("I am a WiFi hotspot") was doing.
On the other hand, I think that the majority of the reason why people feel "squeamish" about this is because it caused people to have to acknowledge and pay attention to homeless people. In other words, I think this campaign was pretty clever and successful and I think it's a lot easier to declare it offensive and dehumanizing because it allows you to skirt the real issue: The way we, as a society, treat the homeless is offensive and dehumanizing.
@ nope--I agree with you on everything BUT the "prostituting themselves" part. That's pretty demeaning, and expresses the biased, uninformed views of much of society about sex workers. People who do sex work are nothing but rock stars, yo.
Sorry, I know a few ex-prostitutes, and it was not a "rock star" period of their life for them. They were exposed to tremendous amounts of violence at the hands of police, customers, and pimps; they were completely dehumanized and treated awfully. They were also very poor and addicts, all, and working in places where prostitution is illegal, so I can't speak to the people who work in Amsterdam or who work in legal avenues of sex work, or even high-end escorting. But I know that for most people who are turning to prostitution because they are desperately poor and see no way out -- it is an incredibly dangerous, dehumanizing line of work.
Now you say something