My first response is, WOW. I don't know if spending that kind of money on advertising "regulations" is a very use of money. If people complain about not having funding for education they need to look at these types of wasteful spending.

Thank you. We appreciate the feedback. Look for a story examining the issue in the next few days.

Isn't the outreach program designed to persuade people to change their habits and/or comply with the agency's regulations, thus helping to reduce pollution? Isn't that part of the agency's mission? We can question whether or not this is the most effective way to achieve the desired result, but I wouldn't just jump on the word "advertising" and assume that any such spending must be wasteful.

I totally agree with the need for the air district to spend money advertising. They need the ability to reach the general public about our serious air quality issues. Driving less and other life style changes are badly needed here in the valley. On the other hand, they have lost a lot of credibility by asking the public to change their ways and not requiring the same level of action from developers, oil, and agriculture.

How many of us would know about the regulations without outreach?

As far as using a "whopping" $850,000 for outreach, there are two things to understand. First of all, a huge (I mean HUGE) portion of the funding most public agencies receive for any given purpose is collected and distributed in earmarked pots with clearly designated eligible expenditures. Chances are that the money they are spending was derived from sources that CAN'T be spent elsewhere. It is a safety mechanism to insure that money goes where propositions and tax initiatives promised it would go.

Secondly, what else should they do with it? $850K is not much money in this context, and applied here it will probably have the biggest impact on the public.

First of all, shock over an $850,000 annual marketing budget for an organization like the San Joaquin Valley Air District just illustrates the lack of education and the distorted view of the actual cost and value of marketing and advertising in the Fresno area. This organization is so vital to the well being of our community it should be applauded, not criticized.

I count eighteen programs on the air district's website and several outreach events. Without proper marketing and advertising many of these programs and events wouldn’t even occur. And, although it’s our local paper that is writing this story, let us remember that the air district serves 3.5 million people and, from San Joaquin to Kern, spans eight counties. Wake up! In those terms, a little more than $100k per year, per county or less than twenty-five cents per person is a bargain.

This argument would hold true for any major organization or business, but for the San Joaquin Valley Air District it’s paramount. Fulfilling the mission and vision of this organization is so critical to combating the largest health threat Valley residents have ever faced—our deteriorating atmosphere. As a community we must reach a critical mass and, individually, each take immediate and decisive action. Unfortunately, too many people underestimate the seriousness of the problem, don’t believe the problem exists, or simply don’t care. Personally, I do my part to minimize my family’s effect on the Valley air, but I count on organizations like the air district to offset the ignorance and lack of environmental education.

The work of air district isn’t free. Yeah, we could demand a significantly lower marketing budget, but at what cost? What value do we place on the respiratory health of our elderly and children? What about the ability of our children to enjoy something as simple as playing outside? What value do you put on a blue sky? I mean BLUE—not blue-gray. What about a mountain view from the Valley floor? How does cooler summers and wetter winters sound?

So please, let’s not lose sight of the RETURN on our investment. Don’t kid yourself. The reality of the situation is resolutely grave. Without adequate funding, especially in the area of marketing (think public outreach and education), the air district’s effectiveness in preventing and reversing the damage to our Valley air would be sizably diminished.

And the cost of THAT is more than this Valley resident can bear.

Below are my thoughts on the issue...I originally posted these comments in response to a Letter to the Editor on May 16 (http://www.fresnobee.com/277/story/1408252.html?story_link=email_msg)

It is not uncommon for agencies such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to spend money on marketing. The biggest challenge facing healthy air is education & awareness. We hear about asthma rates & poor air quality, but knowing about the problem isn't the same as knowing what to do about the problem...specifically what "behavioral" changes we can all make to correct the problem?

Awareness is key. Not awareness of the problem as much as awareness of the solution. Solutions like trading in gas powered mowers for electric mowers. Solutions like the benefits of trip linking. Solutions like the benefits and accessibility of using public transportation. Now a lot of people will claim that these (and other) solutions are simply commonsense, but commonsense does not always translate into common-practice...(examples: drinking & driving, seat belts, smoking, wildfires, just say no, littering).

If you think awareness campaigns don't work, try one of the following:
1) Ride in the car with a kid and see if you can drive for 5 minutes without wearing your seat belt.
2) Give a child a plastic bottle and watch them "naturally" look for a blue garbage can.
3) Go to a dinner party with your adult friends, have a few too many beverages, and listen for the faint sound of someone saying, "Whoa, know when to say when, buddy."
4) Examine what goes through your mind as you watch your kids eat junk food and sit in front of the TV playing video games (you probably are thinking it's unhealthy and they should try to mix in at least 60 minutes of play time outside (the NFL would agree)).

These are all examples of cause campaigns that required serious financial resources to change behavior. The case can be made that it is the responsibility of parents and teachers, but really it is the responsibility of us all.

"Give a Hoot. Don't Pollute."

I agree, $850k is a ridiculous amount of money for that purpose. It should be double. Have you LOOKED outside lately?

While I agree with comments from Katrina, Travis and Bart, I'm bothered that we're still looking at the total expense, and not discussing what that actually means. If you spread that out over any substantial period and try to include media outlets like local TV and The Bee, it doesn't go very far. And while $850k is a larger budget than I will be able to manage anytime soon, it's really a drop in the bucket when trying to tackle something as large as air quality.

I think your question is skewed and demonstrates a lack of understanding of social change marketing. Sure, social change marketing uses some of the same channels and tactics that traditional advertising uses. But there are core differences:

Advertising:
-want to make money
-privately funded
-short-term behavioral goal
-benefits singular business or group

Social Marketing:
-want to do good
-funded by taxes and donations
-long-term behavioral goal
-benefits society as a whole

The air district isn't promoting themselves here. They are doing their job. They are impacting social change. Change that is needed to solve our complex air problems.

Their campaigns have changed my behavior. I no longer burn wood in my fireplace, and I group trips or opt not to drive on challenging air days.

Change doesn't happen by just wishing really hard. You need to change how people think. You need to make people aware that their actions have consequences. You need to reach out and remind people again and again. Social change doesn't happen overnight. Look how long it took for folks to change their thinking on smoking and wearing seatbelts. You need both the "carrot" and the "stick" to impact social change. The Air District does both.

We have serious air quality problems here. Let's not attack the solution. That's incredibly short-sighted. Social marketing is part of the solution. If you want to talk about air quality let's look at the core issues. Let's talk about the behaviors and policies that need to change.

A Sierra Research report funded with public funds in 2003 is reported to show large dysfunction in Smog Check.

An approval of a pilot study to see if a secret shopper audit would quantify justification for consideration of improved oversight to improve performance of DCA/BAR resulting in 1000 tons per day in pollution prevention.

http://calabc.org/calabc_smog.html

http://calabc.org/

Is it time for change?

Some folks think so

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Yahoo or Google search for: Charlie Peters ethanol