I'm posting this in honor of February which is Black History month.
Mar. 4, 2017 "No simple fix to racial bias in the sharing economy": Today I found this article by Leah Eichler in the Globe and Mail:
There is debate over how much information on user profiles is effective in combatting discrimination
One of the underlying flaws of any workplace is the assumption that the cream rises to the top, meaning that the best people get promoted and are given opportunities to shine.
While it’s tempting to be lulled into believing in a meritocracy, years of research on women and minorities in the work force demonstrate this is rarely the case. Fortunately, in most corporate settings, protocols exist to try to weed out discriminatory practices.
The same cannot necessarily be said for the sharing economy. While companies such as Uber and Airbnb boast transparency and even mutual reviews, they remain far from immune to discriminatory practices.
In 2014, Benjamin Edelman and Michael Luca, both associate professors of business administration at Harvard Business School, uncovered that non-black hosts can charge 12 per cent more than black hosts for a similar property. In this new economy, that simply means non-white hosts earn less for a similar service.
This sounds painfully familiar to those who continue to fight this battle in the corporate world – although in this case, it occurs without the watchful eye of a human-resources division.
In the corporate world, companies have moved from focusing on overt to subconscious bias, according to Mr. Edelman and Mr. Luca, but the nature of the bias in the sharing economy remains unclear.
It’s either statistical, meaning users infer that the property remains inferior based on the owner’s profile, or “taste-based,” suggesting the decision to rent comes down to user preference.
To curb discriminatory practices, the authors recommend concealing basic information, such as photos and names, until a transaction is complete, as on Craigslist.
Reached by e-mail this week, Mr. Edelman stands by that approach.
“Broadly, my instinct is to conceal information that might give rise to discrimination. If we think hosts might reject guests of [a] disfavoured race, let’s not tell hosts the race of a guest when they’re deciding whether to accept. If we think drivers might reject passengers of [a] disfavoured race, again, don’t reveal the race in advance,” he advised.
While Mr. Edelman feels those really bent on discrimination will continue to do so, other, more casual discriminators will realize it’s too costly.
An Uber driver who only notices a passenger’s race at the pickup point might think to himself he already has driven about five kilometres. If he cancels, not only will he be without a fare, but also Uber might notice and become suspicious, Mr. Edelman surmised.
Not everyone agrees that less information is the best route to take to combat discrimination in the sharing economy. In fact, more information may be the fix, according to recent research conducted by Ruomeng Cui, an assistant professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, Jun Li, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School of Business, and Dennis Zhang, an assistant professor at the John M. Olin Business School at Washington University in Saint Louis.
The trio of academics argues that rental decisions on platforms such as Airbnb are based on racial preferences only when not enough information is available.
When more information is shared, specifically through peer reviews, discriminatory practices are reduced or even eliminated.
“We recommend platforms take advantage of the online reputation system to fight discrimination. This includes creating and maintaining an easy-to-use online review system, as well as encouraging users to write reviews after transactions.
For example, sending multiple e-mail reminders or offering monetary incentives such as discounts or credits, especially for those relatively new users,” Dr. Li said.
“Eventually, sharing-economy platforms have to figure how to better signal user quality; nevertheless, whatever they do, concealing information will not help,” she added.
Still, others believe technology itself can offer a solution to the incidents of bias in the sharing economy, such as Copenhagen-based Sara Green Brodersen, founder and chief executive of Deemly, which launched last October.
The company’s mission is to build trust in the sharing economy through social ID verification and reputation software, which enables users to take their reputation with them across platforms.
For example, if a user has ratings on Airbnb, they can collate it with their reviews on Upwork.
“Recent studies in this area suggest that ratings and reviews are what creates most trust between peers. [For example] when a user on Airbnb looks at a host, they put the most emphasis on the previous reviews from other guests more than anything else on the profile.
Essentially, this means platforms could present anonymous profiles showing only the user’s reputation, but not gender, profile picture, ethnicity, name and age and, in this way, we can avoid the bias which has been presented,” Ms. Brodersen said.
Regardless of the solution, platforms and their users need to recognize that combatting discriminatory practices is their responsibility and the sharing economy, like the traditional work force, is no meritocracy.
“This issue is not going to be smaller on its own,” Ms. Brodersen warned.
Jun. 21, 2018 "Advertising needs help eradicating bias": Today I found this article by Tyler Turnbull in the Globe and Mail. I read and have some articles already about bias either on my blog or will be posted. I am reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell right now about bias:
Tyler Turnbull is CEO of FCB Canada.
A refusal to allow access to the washroom. A 911 call. Two black men in handcuffs who said they were just waiting for a friend. What happened at a Philadelphia Starbucks made headlines for its prejudiced profiling.
In response, Starbucks closed 8,000 U.S. stores two weeks ago for an afternoon of implicit bias training for staff. Last week, it did the same in more than 1,200 stores across Canada.
In an unprecedented move for a global brand, credit to Starbucks for engaging in a much-needed public conversation around implicit bias. The truth is, we all have implicit biases and confronting this issue takes commitment every afternoon.
Discrimination is often rooted in stereotypes, as Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin points out, and is hard to eradicate because bias is based on a lifetime of experiences, with the media and with real life.
Over my 12 years in advertising, I’ve considered how the industry perpetuates bias – and now, as a father of two young children growing up in a digital world, that is in sharp focus. My kids are exposed to preroll advertising before the YouTube clips they love to watch. I, like any other parent, want to make sure those ads imprint positive habits and support their imaginative, impressionable minds in healthy ways.
Advertising carries an enormous responsibility: active and passive exposure to everything from our chosen news sources and social-media feeds to transit ads and commercials before the next show or playlist can affect how we view the world.
Our industry must seize that responsibility. From newcomers to the business or veterans making executional decisions, it’s critical for everyone to be aware of their own implicit biases.
Biases sit at the root of advertising gone wrong, whose consequences extend past brand backlash to stalling a progressive dialogue in society.
Missteps happen with even the biggest brands, such as H&M’s callous ad featuring a black child wearing a sweatshirt with the slogan “coolest monkey in the jungle” or Pepsi’s entirely inauthentic spot depicting Kendall Jenner “making peace” at a civil-rights protest.
Yet, a common thread for ads that miss the mark is that no one would consciously produce something insensitive. Instead, internal perceptions – implicit biases – capsize the execution.
We right the ship only when we recognize that implicit bias exists as human nature. Ad agencies, corporations, governments, school boards, sidewalk chalkboard signs – we risk preserving bias on every corner. In the face of a pervasive issue, it takes a long-term, case-by-case approach to ensure that every message-within-a-message is dissected for clarity by those creating them.
Advertising has the power to ignite positive change by starting conversations, shaping perceptions and creating movements. It is imperative for those of us who work in the industry to produce meaningful ideas that impart positive societal change. Many meet that obligation.
Take P&G’s The Talk campaign, where African American parents speak openly and tenderly with their children about discrimination. It resonates strongly with viewers of all backgrounds creating universal empathy around the fact that society is unequal.
Or the Superhumans spot timed for the Rio Paralympic Games, a perfectly paced commercial that revels in the skills of physically disabled athletes, musicians, parents.
Those with more subtle messages also resonate, such as the Cheerios mixed-race family,
or a BMO commercial in which the woman talks banking and the man folds laundry. (Disclosure: this was an FCB-produced spot where I was struck by the number of positive comments we received just by flipping stereotypes.)
Every day, in my role as CEO of an agency, I am confronted by decisions on how marketing can positively shape perceptions. Often I imagine my three-year-old daughter watching a spot, and how she might be influenced. I’ve come to recognize that every decision matters, from who’s creating the messages, to how we ensure our work challenges implicit bias instead of reinforcing it.
At its core is diversity. Building diverse teams means seeking people who are unlike you – from race and gender to socioeconomic status, religion and nationality. Those team members must feel empowered to challenge any unrefined ideas that may be carrying implicit bias into public campaigns – in a boardroom or in a hallway. Dissenting opinions, frankly, are often the most useful in creating your best work. This requires active listening, radical transparency, and shedding the yes-man routines.
Team diversity means much more than management teams that aren’t all-white or mostly male. I would hazard to guess that in the boardrooms of Canada’s top 100 brands, executive teams tend to share similar backgrounds, residences and social groups. Any elements of bias can perpetuate monolithic thinking that may differ greatly from what the majority of the population thinks and feels.
As a white male in a powerful position in the advertising world, I am attuned to the irony here.
Still, I’ve learned that I (and those like me) play an important role in how we unravel a difficult subject. The world’s most powerful brands have always been about challenging the status quo and driving change, and in today’s world, that’s needed more than ever.
whengoodmendonothing: Behavioural psychology, marketing, and advertising are all related to propaganda. And fake news.
independentlypoor: "bias can perpetuate monolithic thinking that may differ greatly from what the majority of the population thinks and feels." Or confirm it. Isn't that the larger problem?
Will advertisers be more successful with "conversations" (hectoring and lecturing the non-diverse) than career identity politics purveyors have been? They'll need to make it smell clean and fresh.
Jon Ferry: Fine sentiments. But it's funny how, in our politically-correct world, lack of "diversity" is blamed for pretty well everything . . . or at least every thing that isn't already blamed on global warming.
Advertising, of course, isn't really about producing "meaningful ideas that impart positive societal change" . . . or challenging "implicit bias" and the "status quo." It's about flogging product. Period. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
independentlypoor: How ironic that "diversity" implies a variety of views, while the politically-correct would have us all sing from the same song sheet.
Advertising and propaganda both seek to sell something "good".
Combining product promotion and political advocacy has limits, though.
One message might compromise the impact of the other.
Jon Ferry: I agree. And hopefully it won't be too long before the current wave of sickening virtue-signalling is exposed for what it is, namely shameless huckstering.
Catou1403: Implicit bias=subconscious Explicit bias=conscious Personally I am far more worried about the latter from media, news sources and financial advice articles. It has reached levels unheard of 10 years ago....and in subtle ways it still permeates most advertising.
DieterHH: "Advertising" and the programs they support - for "free" - are in fact not. We pay by donating a portion of our brains to be rewired in the interest of the advertiser.
Me ? I had rather pay for any services myself, directly, in cold hard cash - and keep my brain and its critical capacities under my own personal control !
No comments:
Post a Comment