Archive for Public Service Ads
September 11: A Day to Remember or a Day to Market
Posted by: | CommentsSeptember 11 represents a day that forever changed the American psyche. It seemed for a small moment in time that people willingly took a break from their everyday lives of consumerism and capitalism and stood together to support those in need. And now we will come together again this Sunday to commemorate the 10 year anniversary of that momentous day.
From a marketing perspective, we expect an aura of deference and caution to surround such a somber event. And for the past 9 years we have been afforded that. But something is different this year. It seems that 10 is the point at which advertisers consciously or unconsciously decided that it was no longer “too soon”. As a recent article in the New York Times explains, “marketers, media companies and advertising agencies are changing course, involving themselves with sponsorships, screenings, fund-raisers, programming and other highly visible activities”.
There seem to be two trends converging here. One is the growing trend of advertisers trying to bring awareness of social issues by integrating them into their campaigns. One well-known example is Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty”, which spoke out against the advertising industry’s love affair with idealized body image by depicting images of women that more closely resembled the average American woman. Because they bring to light social issues and help us to deal with them, it’s not hard to argue that this type of advertising is laudable (even if the bottom line is still ultimately about positioning products in a way that will best grow the brand name).
However, the other side of the issue is advertisers’ seemingly insatiable need to inundate consumers with every type of advertising possible. Spurred on by changes in technology (such as the conception of DVR) that have made consumers less of a captive audience, advertisers are searching for more creative ways to imprint their messages upon society. This has often manifested itself in the form of sponsorships and promotional activities. The bottom line of advertising deals with selling, so we can’t entirely fault companies for these activities. But do the ends justify the means? Is 9/11 a day too sacred to sponsor?
We can’t automatically argue in the affirmative to such a question. Some of the advertiser activities surrounding 9/11 are easily praiseworthy. For instance, the Advertising Council is coordinating a PSA campaign that encourages people to visit the 9/11 memorial. PSAs provide consumers with important information and bring social issues to the surface (much like the Dove campaign mentioned earlier). Unlike normal advertising methods, PSAs are unconcerned with profits. Messages like these make people think about something bigger than just the product itself. They encourage people to reflect on the attacks and to preserve their monumental impact in American history.
However some advertisers take ideas like these to the extreme. The Lieb Family Cellars winery, for example, is marking September 11 with a bottle of Merlot that commemorates the opening of the national memorial. Is this the company’s heartfelt way to honor such a historic occasion, or a marketing ploy designed to play off of the psychological aspects of consumer behavior in order to boost sales. People often want the objects that they buy to act as symbols, to represent who they are as people. Perhaps some people may buy into the idea of 9/11 wine in an attempt to persuade themselves that they are compassionate, generous, and genuine. This masks the consumers actual need for the product and makes them reliant on their purchases rather than their true values. The issue is further muddled by the fact that the winery is promising to donate up to 10% of sales proceeds to the memorial. Can we condone their marketing as tasteless or applaud them for helping to raise funds?
Because we live in such a consumer-driven culture, we had to expect that inevitably companies would attempt to somehow market an event that captures so much of America’s attention. Perhaps the real issue then is where we draw the line. We want to encourage PSAs that keep the impact of September 11 in the collective consciousness, but we also want to encourage consumers to draw a distinction between acts of respect that help the human good and acts of marketing that help one company’s bottom line. Just because a PSA and wine promotion both deal with fundraising for the 9/11 memorial does not mean that consumers should view them in the same light. The PSA works because it is relevant to the actual day and it resonates with the true emotions of the people watching it. The wine promotion focuses more on the company and perhaps even encourages us to buy the product for the wrong reasons. The public should be spurred to action, but it should be the right kind of action. For the sake of 9/11 and the reputation of advertising as a whole, we should actively encourage people to be cognizant of the differences between a message that keeps the history of the day alive in our culture and one that mainly serves to help a company’s profits.
In Search of the Next Fried Egg: Are Today’s PSAs Memorable?
Posted by: | CommentsIf you visit the Ad Council’s website you know what to expect; a page explaining the mission of the organization, information on how you can get involved with their programs, educational resources that can be helpful for both parents and teachers, and the prerequisite “Make a Donation” page that you’ll see on every non-profit website. What you don’t expect is a trip back to you childhood and adolescence.
Within the Ad Council’s Campaigns section, there is a page of historic public service campaigns that those of us living in the US during the 1980s and 1990s will never forget. In looking through these campaigns the thing that struck me was how each of them not only delivered a message, but also how vividly those messages reside in our memories. The campaign examples listed below were so powerful in their execution that a mere image can recall not only actual commercials, but also the message they conveyed. You will most likely recognize the campaigns before playing the video:
We remember seeing these ads as children. Sure, we may not remember exactly where we were the first time we saw them, but they made such an impact that the images and messages are branded in our memories. They reside in our autobiographical memory as part of our past experiences and ourselves. Even if we cannot relate these campaigns to a specific episode in our lives, they still reside in our long-term memory. This is significant because of the millions of ad messages the original audience for these campaigns has seen since then, there are few that we can recall quite as easily. What’s even more significant is that these ads weren’t meant to sell a product or service. They were produced for free in hopes of having a positive effect on society. These messages not only achieved their goals of public awareness and action, but also have had continued influence beyond their years.
So what was the key behind these ads’ success? What made them became embedded in the culture of America? With Vince and Larry, the Crash Test Dummies, the campaign walked a fine line. On one hand it started to evoke an emotional response from seeing the results of not wearing a seatbelt, but at the same time, it was artificial and humorous enough to still appeal to children. The humorous dialogue between Vince and Larry and the play on words used as taglines, “You could learn a lot from a dummy. Buckle your safety belt,” and “Don’t be a dummy. Buckle your safety belt,” helped to offset the negative response some consumers have to ads that evoke too much fear or discomfort. Additionally, the use of an actual crash test dummy, paired with the taglines acted as a redundant cue to reinforce the message of the ad. With the “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” and “This is your brain on drugs” campaigns, the imagery as analogies (of glasses crashing as cars might and the frying egg symbolizing the effects drugs have on your brain) used in both campaigns created such an impact in the minds of the viewers that at the height of these campaigns, few could crack an egg or make a toast without being reminded of the ad messages. In these cases the imagery used to convey the messages became a retrieval cue for the memory to recall the messages.
In looking at these campaigns I wanted to see how today’s PSAs stand up to yesterday’s standards. It’s not often today that you hear discussion about anti-drug campaigns even when working in the advertising business. This is likely because many of today’s PSAs take a much different approach to relay their message. We’ve already seen discussions on this blog about how some PSAs have gotten lazy in their creative and turn to violence and shock value in an attempt to get consumers’ attention. Many of today’s PSAs, especially with regard to the anti-drug campaigns, are using such shock ads featuring excessive violence or graphic images in an attempt to garner attention. See example below:
While this ad definitely evokes a strong emotional response, it’s certainly not an image that we as viewers want to retain in our memory. In this instance, the images may be so disturbing that the viewers retain them in their short term memory, but are so appalled, that they avoid rehearsing this image in order for it not to embed in their long term memory. Some argue that today’s messages use such strong images to break through the clutter of the thousands of messages to which today’s consumers are exposed. Conversely, how effective can a message really be when the viewers not only can’t, but don’t want to recall the message. In my opinion, this makes for an ineffective campaign. If put into a situation of being offered cocaine (the drug used in the ad), a young person is not likely to recall this message when considering his or her choice.
Others PSAs are using dramatic portrayals in “slice of life” style ads to illustrate the dangerous effects of drug use. These are designed to incite a strong emotional response from viewers, but without the ill effects of graphic images shown in the ad above. I think that these can be effective. Because they make the viewer consider what their lives may be like if they were to allow themselves into those situations, however, nothing particularly memorable struck me in watching any of these PSAs. Perhaps the most successful, in terms of memory and message retention, that I viewed is an anti-heroin ad that was released four years ago:
This message is effective for multiple reasons. First and foremost, it uses an egg to represent your brain and a frying pan to illustrate the effects that drugs have on your brain. This acts as a retrieval cue for those viewers who have been exposed to the 1980s anti-drug campaign. The original campaign was so effective that it lead to strong trace strength in our semantic network from the egg and frying pan to an anti-drug message. However this ad takes those images to a new level, illustrating not only the effects of drugs (represented by the frying pan) on your brain, but also on various aspects of your life, including friends, family, job, etc. This ad illustrates very effective use of memory and retrieval, but builds to add other associations in our memories to increase the effectiveness of the original campaign. In taking a technique that had proven effective, this ad was able to build on an existing memory and strengthen its message. It’s not to say that I believe that today’s PSAs are ineffective, but in terms of the messages achieving their goals of public awareness and action, and continued influence beyond their years, it may serve today’s creative’s well to take a cue from the past.
Driving the Message Home Safely: An Ad Standing Out Against the Trend of Violent PSAs
Posted by: | CommentsPublic Service Announcements. We have been seeing them for decades and many of them have famously educated us on important information about safety, health and societal concerns: if you lock your doors at night you’ll take a bite out of crime; Mr. Yuck means poison; by ten o’clock at night you should know where your children are; this is your brain on drugs… and it’s fried.
However, a new trend seems to be emerging in the PSA genre. Gone are the days of Smokey-the-Bear-type “safety mascots” and crying Native Americans on the side of littered highways. Instead, these somewhat conscientious and prudent methods of distributing information to the public seem to be taking a backseat to more realistic, graphic, no holds barred approaches. The previous appeal to subtlety and implied undesirable consequences has dissipated. And now, more than ever, it has become acceptable to portray violent behavior and physical trauma as a suitable means to drive home a point.
As one might expect, some of these more gritty Public Service Announcements have garnered media attention for their arguably flagrant use of violence. One such television spot that made waves in the social media community and graced the headlines of CNN, FOX News and TODAY was a PSA released in 2009 titled “COW – The Film That Will Stop You Texting and Driving.” Produced by the police department of Gwent, Wales, the short film realistically depicts an intense traffic collision, graphic injury to children, and death. Yet another was a PSA for Women’s Aid called “Cut Movie” where actress Keira Knightly was shown being brutally beaten to spread awareness of domestic violence against women. (The PSAs can be viewed through these links. WARNING: graphic images of violence and abuse. Please view at your own discretion.
So, herein lies the problem. Is it ethical feed into the media machine of realistic violence on television just to reach the public? Have the values and behaviors of society been altered to the point where a PSA requires tragedy and gore to obtain the attention necessary to educate? Or is it just easy?
Despite the appearance that shocking images and scare tactics are the new standard for disseminating public awareness, a PSA released by the Sussex Safer Road Partnership in early 2010 has done much to combat that notion. The announcement, titled “Embrace Life” tackles the serious issue of seatbelt safety. Interestingly enough, though, the ad is not filmed in a car, but rather at a child-sized table and chair in a living room. This setting gives the spot elements of whimsy and abstraction, but when the message is delivered, it is received powerfully and clearly.
The “Embrace Life” campaign assumes a component of responsibility lacking in the aforementioned graphic ads. It does not alienate a part of the market by being potentially disturbing for children to view, or too intense for people who abhor violence. Nor does it make the viewer want to tune out, which researcher are discovering is happening in ads using scare tactics. Recent studies suggest violent PSA are not effective and even counterproductive because they cause some viewers to take on feelings of defensiveness instead of receptiveness. While other ads are throwing physical pain, personal anguish and damnation in the face of the viewer, the “Embrace Life” PSA influences the greater public by suggesting that loved-ones care. They want you to be safe and will suffer if you are gone, which is much more impactful and positively received.
Overall, it is refreshing to know that responsible advertising can still carry some clout in regards to information dissemination. And, with this emerging information about the potential damage and ineffectiveness of fear-centric “shockvertising,” it is a wonder if advertisers will regress and pursue a different, more appropriate creative avenue. Or will they continue their current path of trauma as means of reinforcement because society claims it’s necessary in order to make a lasting impression? All I know is, we’ve come a long way from Vince and Larry the crash test dummies, folks.
Hulu Conducts Virtuous Advertising (Research)
Posted by: | Comments
I was just at Hulu looking for something to watch and up pops an offer.
Can you help make Hulu’s advertising service better? In return you’ll be able to introduce 250 Hulu users to one of seven charities. Sounded interesting so I clicked through.
For answering “no more than 24 questions” about the advertising, Hulu let me choose to promote either UNCF, Big Brothers Big Sisters, EarthShare, The Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinsons Research, Americans for the Arts, DonorsChoose, or Kiva.
I have not seen the specific ads Hulu is showing, so I did a little research. I searched Hulu and the Hulu community for more information, but found nothing. The only info I could find was a July 2009 post on ecorazzi, a blog on green gossip.
I wonder why Hulu is not promotiing their effort to support and promote charities. They are benefiting from the research participation, but it almost seems as if they are demonstrating altruism. If you see the ads, let me know and I will post them.
Secondhand Smoke PSA
Posted by: | CommentsCreated by Denver, Colorado-based agency Cactus, this anti secondhand smoke campaign was created for the State Tobacco Education & Prevention Partnership (STEPP). The aim of this spot was to send a clear message to parents about the potentially dangerous affects that secondhand smoke can have on children.
This spot beautifully illustrates how poisonous secondhand smoke penetrates all those that get in its path. Using a novel concept of ravens to portray the pathogens released into the air is sure to grab the attention of many. The spot also uses a fear appeal to make sure the message hits home with parents.
Check it out:
I’d like to hear what y’all have to say about this spot. Typically, I don’t think fear appeals work, but in this case I think the use is very effective.
BEEr-ing Responsible
Posted by: | CommentsWe all see those friendly reminders at the end of alcohol commercial that remind consumers to “Drink Responsibly.” It is easy to tag that line at the end of your brands message, but Anheuser-Busch has gone above and beyond to inform and voice to consumers the importance of responsible drinking.
Anheuser-Busch, the largest brewing company in the United States, has launched a website defining their corporate social responsibility the website focuses on Underage Drinking, Drunk Driving, College Drinking,and Responsible Drinking.
www.beeresponsible.com
Each section of the website details Anheuser-Busch’s stance on the respective issues. The website also has alcohol related statistics and studies that have been previously conducted that can be used as an education tool for consumers.
Additionally, there is a tab on the website entitled Advertising that includes all of Anheuser-Busch’s advertisements that promote responsibility while consuming alcohol. Besides the advertisements the advertising section also includes the companies advertising policy. Anheuser- Busch makes a very firm statement on their website regarding their intentions through their advertisements.
“Our commitment to responsible advertising shows in the marketing messages and vehicles we create, the thorough review process in the development of brand advertising and the careful attention we pay to selecting appropriate programming for our commercials. In each case, we are committed to focusing on our consumers – adults of legal drinking age who choose to drink.”
This statement is followed by a code of standards that discusses the companies stance on advertising through each medium including college campuses, advertising and marketing, and television.
It is very impressive that a alcoholic beverage giant like Anheuser- Busch makes such a large effort to make their responsible consumptions desire visible to the public.
Should this type of information be required by all alcohol companies? If so do you think that Anheuser- Busch should make a greater effort in promoting this website.
Daddy Dearest
Posted by: | CommentsThis is one of a series of media ads that encourages fathers to be a part of their children’s’ lives. Sponsored by the Advertising Council, the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of Family Assistance, and the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, these ads were launched coinciding with Father’s Day. The reason this campaign was launched is because millions of children live without their biological fathers and are more likely to be poor, use drugs, experience educational, heath, emotional, and behavioral problems, among other things.
The series of television spots created through this campaign applies to people through humor and depicting a diverse range of family types. I found this ad to be my favorite because the ad depicts a father helping his daughter in ways not many fathers would. The other spots can be seen at http://www.fatherhood.gov/media/tv/index.cfm.
The series shows a diverse range of relationships between father and daughter or father and son. With the popular belief that money equals happiness, this campaign serves to portray the value that family is happiness. The variety of the roles depicted through these television spots also serves to reverse gender stereotypes where the father practices cheerleading with his daughter (commonly believed to strictly be a girls’ activity) or the father makes lunch for his son (believed to be the mother’s job).
One of the main reasons I believe this campaign to be socially responsible is because it wants to fight community evils like theft, drug abuse, educational issues, and much more by showing how father child relationships can make people happier. Yes this campaign mainly endorses father children relationships, but it also serves to encourage healthy marriages. Culture, background, and life experiences all influence consumer behavior and buying decisions. The campaign for responsible fatherhood serves to promote the health and happiness of consumers and their life experiences.
The Children ARE Watching
Posted by: | CommentsI saw this ad in church while listening to a sermon on parenting. I am still watching my behavior…
Where are these ads in the US and why is the US government not more active in promoting social values?
Advertising done well makes poeple think, change their attitudes, and can ultimately affect behavior. What did you show a child today?
