Steve
Hypocrisy Aside, Bell’s ‘Let’s Talk’ Campaign Is Deeply Harmful
By Scott Martin
Read the story online
Over the course of the pandemic, the mental health of Canadians
has plummeted due in part to a broad range of systemic factors.
Yet Bell, one of the most profitable corporations in the country,
claims to want to help out.
Every year in late January, people across Canada are subjected to
Bell’s “Let’s Talk” campaign, where the corporation promises to
donate 5 cents toward mental health organizations for “every
applicable text, local or long distance call, tweet or TikTok
video using #BellLetsTalk, every Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn,
Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube view of the Bell Let’s Talk
Day video, and every use of the Bell Let’s Talk Facebook frame or
Snapchat lens.”
The PR campaign and the inevitable pushback to it have become a
staple in the discourse surrounding Canadian mental health. Bell
pushes the narrative that they assist in destigmatizing and
supporting mental health, and others counter by claiming the
company actually doesn’t care. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Critics of Bell often point to allegations that they fired a radio
host after she presented mental health leave orders from her
doctor, and pushed sales staff so hard that one even puked blood,
as proof of their claims. As someone who was in radio for three
years, I’ve become well-acquainted with these sorts of stories
from people who worked at Bell stations. Bell also charges
prisoners for phone calls made from provincial jails, and Bell
Media laying off staff right before the holidays has become a
sadly predictable phenomenon.
Bell’s hypocrisy is something that surely needs to be pointed out.
However, even if all of these stories were false, Bell’s campaign
still wouldn’t be a force for good.
To start, the campaign only highlights certain mental health
conditions, such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress
injuries and obsessive compulsive disorder. Meanwhile, other
conditions that are even more stigmatized at this point, such as
borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia, are mentioned
much less. At most, the campaign’s Facebook page may feature
people with these conditions, but TV spots and the bulk of other
messaging don’t address them at all.
This isn’t to say depression or anxiety have been destigmatized,
but rather that there’s a clear priority in what mental illnesses
Bell feels are worth shining a light on. The people who suffer
from more ostracized conditions are, ironically, too taboo for
Bell’s campaign.
The campaign has also failed to adequately account for the unique
mental health challenges racialized people face due to systemic
racism.
A 2021 study found that the majority of Black people in Canada
suffer from “severe depressive symptoms” as a result of systemic
racism. Indigenous people are far more likely than other residents
in British Columbia to die from opioid overdoses. In fact, toxic
drug deaths in First Nations doubled in 2020.
The impact racism has on mental and physical health is dramatic,
with experts saying symptoms of depression and PTSD can be
directly caused by repeated and continuous racist interactions.
Despite this, it took more than 10 years for Bell’s campaign to
commit to something significant directly focusing on this
intersection of mental illness, systemic racism and Canada’s
genocidal programs. In October 2021, they launched a podcast with
racialized hosts to “explore mental health issues affecting
culturally diverse communities throughout Canada.” They also
promised more funds directly to organizations that help these
communities.
And while Bell has donated money to Indigenous programs in the
past, they haven’t properly addressed systemic issues in Canada’s
healthcare services. But they have certainly evaluated how their
campaign benefits corporations.
In her 2019 master’s thesis, Jasmine Vido wrote about how the
“Let’s Talk” campaign benefits companies that profit in
data-mining, as people who engage with it are targeted by
advertisers. Vido writes, “Anti-anxiety blankets, antidepressant
vitamins and self-help books are just a few examples of goods that
would […]‘treat’ people who admit they are struggling.” Bell’s
campaign gives companies who sell these products more chances at
profits. But the products are ineffective, and tackling mental
illness properly requires meaningful access to mental health
services and resources over a dedicated, long-term period.
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Bell has also used the positive attention it has received from
prominent politicians, which grants them institutional
legitimization, to excuse alleged abuses. For example, when Bell
denied allegations that they pushed their sales people to the
brink of mental collapse, a spokesperson said, “Bell has taken a
leadership position in workplace mental health. It’s part of the
way we work at every level. That’s been recognized by our team,
the healthcare community, federal and other levels of government,
other corporations across Canada and internationally.”
How dare you criticize Bell’s approach to mental health? Authority
figures and institutions have approved of their work, why can’t
you?
The campaign has helped change the national discourse toward
mental health, but the new approach is also rife with issues. The
language of the campaign often focuses on the impact mental health
has on the ability of Canadians to work, and this sort of
discourse spreads.
For example, a 2016 study from the Conference Board of Canada
framed mental health support as a profitable investment, finding
that depression and anxiety alone cost the Canadian economy about
$50 billion per year. This reduces mental health to a line on a
ledger, meaning there’s a good chance support funding will be cut
as soon as it’s deemed financially responsible to do so.
Bell’s campaign has also received approval from our political
elite. Premiers such as Dennis King, Jason Kenney, Brian
Pallister, Doug Ford and Scott Moe have all sent messages of
encouragement. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau supports the
initiative as well, and even the Canadian Armed Forces joins in.
The fact is, however, that these leaders are in a far better
position to fund mental health efforts than a private corporation
ever could.
Premiers like Kenney praise the efforts of corporations assisting
in destigmatizing mental health while cutting funding for health
care in their province. Ford will tweet supportive messages, and
then stubbornly refuse to implement permanent paid sick days.
While the federal government doesn’t have direct control over
healthcare, they’ve certainly shown their unwillingness to help.
The focus on Bell’s messaging at the expense of government
policies ends up shifting responsibility for the issue onto
private entities, who then put the onus on public engagement to
raise money and provide free advertising.
Bell is certainly not the company that should be leading the
charge in destigmatizing or funding mental health. But the issue
goes deeper than a dissonance in actions and words from one
corporation.
The issue isn’t specifically Bell, as the dynamics discussed here
apply to all corporate charity campaigns. And the only reason Bell
has this role is because our governments handed them the torch,
ignoring their duties and abandoning Canadians.
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Enjoyed this article? As a reader-funded, non-profit publication,
our ability to publish articles like this depends on support from
readers like you. We don't accept corporate money or ads, and we
never will.
If you support independent media and want to see more stories like
this, become a member today.
Become a member
Passage offers left-wing perspectives on politics, economics, and
culture from Canadian writers and thinkers.
We are funded 100% by individual subscribers. We are a registered
non-profit, which means all revenue is re-invested in Passage to
pay writers and grow the publication.