Recently Australia joined a long list of other countries in showing graphic images of possible side effects of smoking on cigarette packs. As a non-smoker this just means staring, while trying to eat my breakfast, at a very unappetising photo of a rotten foot on a pack left lying around by flatmates.
Here some images from different countries ›
Cigarette packs
In New York this guy is everywhere ›
Smokers and ex-smokers I've spoken to seem to think that the tactics don't work. A friend told me that they often just buy a cigarette case, to hide the package. Her opinion was that unless people are learning something they do not know from a campaign, it will have no effect. Smokers already know that they can die from puffing away, and therefore ignore the images.
This question made me curious Are there any smokers out there who have stopped because of this? Are there any statistics?
When it comes down to it public health campaigns will always be a case of government authorities (or NGOs) strongly advising us how we should behave for the better good of society. No matter how right they are (I would love a world without smoke and car accidents) there will often be something in us as individuals which wants to rebel against this authoritarian voice. Therefore, though we need to be informed, being scared or disgusted might more readily awaken this something that makes us want to rebel.
But perhaps we need to distinguish between ads aimed at addictive behaviour, and ones aimed at changing risk behaviour. The behaviours which cause harm to ourselves, or the ones which possible cause harm to others.
We also know the scare campaign from other health issues such as drink driving/speeding, and HIV/AIDS.
For example the Grim Reaper campaign from the late 1980's in Australia, scared a whole generation of kids into thinking doomsday was near, and sex would kill them.
One thing that can be said is that the campaigns stick in our minds. We remember them if they shock us. However, remembering and changing attitude are two different things. It would be interesting to find out whether people driving 40 miles an hour down an inhabited road will see a child, remember the commercial shown below, and then reduce the speed. Perhaps people who are already aware of driving safely will, while others who have complete faith in their driving skills will be impossible to reach, even with the most horrific imagery.
Here is a video with people on the street telling which campaigns made an impact on them. Below is one of the campaigns they frequently mention.
BrandRepublic
Examples of other typical and hard hitting speeding commercials ›
This recent Australian anti-speeding ad shows that there are other ways, for example humour. A friend of mine already used the little finger, when she was having an argument with an arrogant driver overtaking her on her bicycle. There was no smart comeback from his side!
There are many people who argue that the public needs a wakeup call, and that scaring them into awareness is the only way. Others believe scare tactics have the wrong effect, and just turn away the people they are aimed at reaching.
As the following New York Times article points out, the important thing is to find a balance, direct the campaign at the right audience, and most importantly give a clear, simple answer to what people can do to avoid the situation depicted in the ad.
Fear, Itself; The Right Dose of Scare Tactics
---
1 comment:
Louise,
I thought your visual analysis of photos and campaign advertisements very interesting.
When we think about advertisements representing cultural identities such as neo-male masculitnit repackaged as "new ladism" or driving fast as cool, counter advertising is unsuccessful because they are not challenging the social-cultural identity or providing a sustained re-evaluation of this supposed fixed identity in the public sphere.
I believe counter advertising such as non-smoking campaign have shown themselves to be effective because of sustained legislation in non-smoking cafes, constant re-packaging of the culture of cigarette skoking in media advertisements, from cool (in film culture) to something which is represented in the social and media scapes as an activity ranked lower on the social hierarachy scale.
Also there was clear "scientific" risks supporting the demise of ones health from smoking. I believe this empirical based evidence strengthened advertisers and made their urgings visible to the public through empirical evidence.
Where as interracial couples have very little empirical evidence in the media to support or validate a possible non-deviant or successful interracial couple. I believe many people who have dated interracial when younger would have continued if not for the stigmatization of mostly white/black couplings as consistenly deviant and creating a constant playback in ones mind that society thinks this is bad!
The sociological implications of media representations in the media cannot be discounted as mere myth. Especially since our news media depicts so much of our world vision today through print, tv, news and magazine content. To discount the socialization of the media on society through representations and their interactions with others in simulated spaces (Baudrillard) would be discounting the likelihood that a second generation west african born in France, reading news in France, watches Tv in France will most likely speak French and adopt many of the cultural ideas of the indoctrination of the print, and visual media which he or she is exposed to!
In conclusion visual content has a subtle affect on us all and must be probed and engaged to ensure that ideologues aren't using media as a conduit for ideology but seeks to maintain sound democratic values without limiting artistic integrity and creative license!
Kemuel Benyehudah
Post a Comment