Developing a Mass Media Antismoking Campaign

1. Developing a Mass Media Antismoking Campaign Greg Connolly, DMD, MPH Harvard School of Public Health

2. First Form Note: a PDF version of this form (as well as the form on the next slide) is available to you now. Click the paperclip button, below, to access the file.

3. Second Form

4. Video 1: Camel

5. Camel Ad • Campaign to prevent youth from smoking • Made fun of the Camel brand • Not effective for youth • Avoid humor or use humor very judiciously • Provide new information Source: Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. (2000).

6. Video 2: Artery

7. Artery Ad • About the ad • Empathetic • Graphically showed consequences of smoking • Providing new information • Emotionally strong • Highly effective • Increased quit-line calls and quit attempts • Immediate consequences of smoking Source: Quit Victoria. (1992).

8. Video 3: Baby Monitor Video

9. Baby Monitor Ad • Focuses on secondhand smoke • Extremely powerful • No blame on smoker • Easily adaptable Source: Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. (2000).

10. Video 4: Ronaldo

11. Ronaldo Ad • Extremely powerful • Real face, real person • Strong empathy • Negative health consequences of smoking • Graphically shows damage Source: Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. (2000).

12. Summary: Four Videos • Be careful with humor • Use hard-hitting messages that talk about negative health consequences • Do not use fear—use reality • Tag ad with a quit-line phone number or Web site to seek help • Don’t blame or antagonize smokers • Make sure smoker gets message • Think about how many actors are in ads so that you can save money • Make ads easily adaptable

13. Analytic Model

14. Evaluation Approaches • Select subset of ads for theoretical/conceptual purpose • Assesses aided recall and perceived effectiveness • Use unaided recall • Assess perceived effectiveness

15. Population Surveys: Recall • Aided • “One series of ads features a man talking about his wife who died. Have you seen any of those ads?” • (If yes): “Would you please tell me more about the ad, for example who appeared . . . what was said?” • Unaided • “Could you please describe the anti-smoking television ad that you have seen recently”

16. Population Surveys: Perceived Effectiveness • “How would you rate it on a scale from zero to ten—where zero means it is not a good anti-smoking ad at all, and ten means it is a very good ad?”

17. Results: Population Surveys • Adult longitudinal study (1993–1996) • Assessed perceived effectiveness of nine television advertisements in 1996 • Results for three groups • Quitters (n=135) • Continuing smokers (n=650) • Nonsmokers (n=759)

18. How Good an Ad Is by Emotional Level (Adults) Source: Adapted by CTLT from Biener, L. et al. (2000).

19. Results • Ads perceived as most effective by all subgroups were those high in negative emotion • These depicted illness due to tobacco use • Humorous ads were seen as least effective • Continuing smokers rated emotional ads with “tips on how to quit” as highly effective

20. Survey of Recent Quitters (n=700) • “Did any television commercials about cigarettes contribute to your quitting smoking?” • (If yes): “Could you describe one such commercial?”

21. Advertising as a Cessation Aid Source: Adapted by CTLT from Biener, L. et al. (2006).

22. Categorization of Open-Ended Descriptions of TV Ads

23. Television Ads Contributing to Quitting Source: Adapted by CTLT from Biener, L. et al. (2006).

24. Controlled Exposure Studies • Controlled exposure study • Show advertisements to a panel of young people • Ask them a series of questions about the advertisements, looking at changes in intermediary behavior • Teenage Research Unlimited (1999) • Pechmann et al. (2003) • Terry-McElrath et al. (in press)

25. Naturalistic Exposure Studies • Naturalistic exposure study • Expose a large group of people in a community to a set of ads • Take a baseline survey • Conduct a follow-up • Farrelly et al. (2002) • Biener et al. (2000) • Biener et al. (2002) • Biener et al. (2004) • Donovan et al. (2003) • Carol and Rock (2003)

26. Summary of Findings • In all studies except one (Pechmann et al., 2003), the ads that performed the best were the most highly arousing • Normative messages were judged less effective • Humorous messages were judged least effective Source: Lang et. al. (1997).

27. Information Processing Mechanisms Source: Adapted by CTLT from Lang et. al. (1997).

28. Information Processing • Ifequated for arousal, positive messages recalled better than negative ones • Use the negative message to get people into a window of change: contemplation and action • Use positive messages to give quit tips

29. Consideration in Adapting Existing Advertisements • Actors’ fees (baby monitor has no actors’ fees) • Use ads that have been proven effective by existing research (Australia) • Conduct local qualitative research • Create a local link to policy campaigns • Be ready for ad placement costs • Use ads strategically

30. Summary: Things to NOT Do • Do not say “no” • Avoid politicians, athletes, role models, or paid actors in ads • Avoid humor • Don’t go over the top (fear)

31. Summary: Things to DO • Integrate media with campaign: “Air Cover for the Grand Trophy” • Stick to your strategy and be consistent • Maximize bonus weight and public relations ($1 paid= $3 free) • Use real people and real stories • Focus on negative health consequences • Introduce new facts on health effects • Frame television messages into radio, print, and billboard