Dear Fellow ODA Members,
At the last General Council meeting in November 2024, Marcus Stavis, the executive ODA staff member in charge of communications, addressed the Council after questions were raised about the efficacy of the $850,000 advertising campaign.
The ad campaign was an insult to both the general public of Ontario and all dentists. The objective was apparently to “educate” the public regarding the caveats of the CDCP (Canada Dental Care Plan). If you have not seen an example of this ad campaign, I urge you to take the time to have a look.
1. Misuse of Membership Funds
Firstly, why is the ODA spending membership money “educating” the public about the CDCP? This should be the responsibility of the government, not Ontario dentists.
2. Tone-Deaf Advertisements
Secondly, the advertisements are completely tone-deaf. Does the creator of these ads really believe that people with perfect white teeth would leave their homes with lipstick on their teeth or salad greens stuck between them? Do they truly think that the people of Ontario who need access to this dental plan have perfect white teeth?
Many of these ads are placed on the backs of moving buses. Does the creator believe that the small print on these posters is readable on a moving vehicle?
3. Accountability and Transparency
Who is the company the ODA selected for this ad campaign? How were they vetted? Has this company been working with the ODA for some time? Was there a proper tendering process in which multiple companies presented their proposals, or has a long-standing relationship led to complacency?
In short, many of our members view this campaign as a poor use of funds coming from the pockets of Ontario dentists.
4. Dismissive Response to Feedback
Furthermore, when questioned about the ad campaign during the November General Council meeting, Marcus Stavis addressed the Council and had the audacity to imply that “dentists are not the experts with respect to advertising,” essentially dismissing any feedback from the membership and attempting to shut down open discussion regarding the merits or deficiencies of the campaign.
5. Lack of Member Input
As not all of the $850,000 had been spent at that point, one councillor asked if the advertising message could be altered and vetted by the membership. Mr. Stavis replied that while it could be modified at a cost, there was no mechanism for the general membership to vet the message. He further attempted to shift the blame for the poorly received campaign onto the ODA dentists on the Membership Committee, rather than taking responsibility himself or with his operational staff team.
Conclusion
Is this the kind of leadership we want at the ODA, working for us?
One Response
We need to look at kick backs because no one in their right mind would pay for an Ad. like that. The ODA needs to investigate the rumours that there is a connection between the ODA staff member responsible for the Ad. and the company who got the $ 850,000.