A campaign designed to make children strong or to break them down?

1. A campaign designed to make children strong or to break them down?

2. Background Information

3. CHOA & S4L:

4. Reason for the campaign: Many predict that this will be the first generation of children who may not outlive their parents. Our childhood obesity rate is the2nd highest in the country with nearly40% of Georgia's kids being overweight or obese. 75% of Georgia's parents do not recognize the problem. Thus, the campaign was implemented in 2012 to open their eyes to the causes and consequences of this epidemic! The Strong4Life Movement, however, continues.

5. The Campaign: "Stop Sugarcoating It, Georgia."

7. About the Videos: What the audience sees: The video spots varied between 0:17 and 1:41 in length. The videos are either in black and white or have a dark wash effect. The children are the 'models,' however the parents are the desired audience. - Overweight children and/or overweight adults - Children/Adults that are sad andstruggling because of their weight Facts about childhood obesity typically tie the images together and solidify the spot's message. Where the videos were seen: The videos were broadcasted on Georgia television and on YouTube The videos' messages: The purposes of the videos were to open parents' eyes to severity of childhood obesity and consequences of the diseases it can cause.

8. About the Print & OOH Ads: What the audience sees: The ads are all in black and white with red text and graphics. The children are the 'models,' however the parents are the desired audience. - Overweight, unhappy children Where the ads were seen: The videos were seen on billboards along major Georgia highways. The ads were also on display in the CHOA facilities The ads' messages: "Being fat takes the fun out of being a kid." "It's hard being a little girl if you're not." "Chubby isn't cute if it leads to diabetes." "Fat kids become fat adults." "He has his father's eyes, his laugh, and maybe even his diabetes." "Big bones didn't make me this way, nig meals did."

9. The Responses

10. Negative Critiques of the Campaign: Huffington Post "[Straightforward campaign] tactics have rarely proven effective when it comes to weight; we need to fight obesity, not obese people." - Marsha Davis, Childhood Obesity Prevention Researcher Los Angeles Times "Horrible! As a 42-year-old woman who struggled with anorexia as a teen and now a mother of a 6-year-old girl who is taller and thicker than the average children her age and gets picked on by all ages including adults with inappropriate comments, you have no idea obviously of the damage this will do with the ad. You will hurt more than you help. Self esteem is built with smiles and no pointing." -Anonymous

11. Analysis of Critics: Marsha Davis, Childhood Obesity PreventionResearcher(Huffington Post) • Critic's Credentials -Davis is anassociate professorat the University of Georgia College of Public Health's department of health promotion and behavior • Recency of Criticism -article written January 3, 2012; right afterthe campaign began • Type of Harm -danger tohealth of children • Objective Reasoning -education,testsandfacts, rather than emotion or opinion • Critic's View of the Role of the Consumer -children as resourceful consumers who can make personal decisions • Usefulness of the Criticism -helpful; if the campaign isn't in the right state of mind for consumers, it needs to be reevaluated and fixed appropriately Anonymous commenteron Los Angeles Times article • Critic's Credentials -mother who is emotionally affected by the campaign due to personal experiences; no education in health field • Recency of Criticism -article written January 3, 2012; right afterthe campaign began • Type of Harm -danger tohealth and self esteem of children • Objective Reasoning -emotionally driven; personal experiences references; no factual information cited • Critic's View of the Role of the Consumer -children as people needing to be protectedmore and differently than adult consumers • Usefulness of the Criticism -insightful, but not fact-based; difficult to use as a source when reevaluating campaign

12. Positive Responses to the Campaign: CNN inside the Strong4Life Campaign "I knew that it would be a good opportunity Wake up. This is a problem." "Along the way of the whole process I think that I became more educated about making better choices, and food choices, and fitness choices as well." -Maya, an actress in the S4L Campaign Huffington Post "We felt like we needed a very arresting, abrupt campaign that said: Hey Georgia! Wake up. This is a problem." -Linda Matzigkeit, a senior VP at Children's Healthcare

13. Analysis of Those in Favor: Maya, actressof Campaign • Critic's Credentials -no higher level education other than from her 'character in the campaign • Recency of Criticism -interview February 7, 2012; approximately a month after the campaign began • Type of Harm -danger to health of children(not a real threat from the campaign) • Objective Reasoning -personal experience; facts from campaign to reinforce opinion • Critic's View of the Role of the Consumer -children are capable, and can make their own healthy and informed decisions • Usefulness of the Criticism -considerably useful to know actress believes in idea and techniques of campaign Linda Matzigkeit, a Senior Vice President at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta • Critic's Credentials -educated and knowledgeable in the children health field; medical professional • Recency of Criticism -article written January 3, 2012; right after the campaign began • Type of Harm -immediate danger to health ofchildren coming from ignoring obesity • Objective Reasoning -educated by facts and research the field; no emotions or personal experience expressed • Critic's View of the Role of the Consumer -children as people who can make personal, healthy, and responsible decisions; lack of nutritional facts and education to do so appropriately • Usefulness of the Criticism -factual and easy to refer to and reflect upon to reevaluate campaign

14. The Results of the Campaign How did the campaign contribute to the image of the brand? Short term: * Confusion: CHOA is an institution who is strives to better children's health & well being, but this campaign can be seen as an attack or low blow. Long term: * Success: CHOA successful opened the eyes of Georgian's to the causes and consequences ofchildhood obesity * Opened Doors: The S4L "Stop Sugarcoating it Georgia" campaign got the needed attention for CHOA to implement healthy programs. What were the consequences for the public? for CHOA? Public: *Discomfort with the ads' messages *Self-esteem issue CHOA: *Many upset parents, other adults, and children...but no real damages to CHOA's equity What was the reaction of the regulatory bodies to the campaign? Forbidden? NO- just very upsetting to many What were the most controversial issues stirred by the campaign? Issue of ethics "...ads are a major source of images that young people use to pre-visualize their places in the world of sexual and status relationships. It can be argued that advertisers have an ethical responsibility to take these circumstance into account in fashioning the images they place before the public" -Visual Persuasions

15. An Issue of Ethics? "The obvious ethical incentives to combat the overweight epidemic do not necessarily override the potential ethical constraints" Question of Effectiveness: Most preventative programs aimed at the overweight/obese have yet to be proven effective or cost effective. Potential Negative Side Effects: Uncertainty and Fear - Could lead to excessive fear regarding weight. People who want to lose weight but don't succeed are often left with feelings of powerlessness and uncertainty Stigmatization and Discrimination "Not only may stigmatization and blaming messages contain subjective or even inadequate information, but also they are often extremely hurtful and show a lack of respect." - Being obese or overweight is already something viewed very negatively in our society.Overweight/obese children are routinely bullied and treated differently that average weight children. Blaming and Responsibility “Ethical objections arise if a program threatens the balance between individual and collective responsibility, or if we lose sight of the fact that the responsibility for the overweight epidemic cannot be attributed to one single party.” - This program clearly blames parents for their children's weight. However, responsibility can rarely be assigned to just one party. Many factors are at play. For example, education, socio-economic status, genetics, etc.

16. Conclusions

17. Ethical Unethical Do we think the ads are unethical? NO. WHY? CHOA's reasoning is logical and justified. The numbers are hard to ignore and the consequences of childhood obesity are deadly. Sugarcoating (literally & figuratively) is what caused this epidemic. This campaign was designed to get attention (which it did). Then they implemented programs to stir change. Do we think the ads are unethical? YES. WHY? There's potential to backfire and cause more bullying. The ads themselves don't say anything productive about what can be done to prevent obesity, they just point a finger at overweight kids. Parents may have been the intended audience, but children will see the ads. Children have very easily influenced self-esteem, and damaging a child's self-esteem is not going to help the problem. GROUP DIVIDED

18. Tell us whatYOU think!

19. Our Sources: http://www.strong4life.com/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/health/atlanta-child-obesity-ads http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/georgia-anti-obesity-ads-stop-sugarcoating_n_1182023.html#s585821&title=Bobby http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/03/news/la-heb-childhood-obesity-ads-20120103 http://www.thelunchtray.com/my-thoughts-on-the-controversial-georgia-anti-childhood-obesity-ad-campaign/ http://www.publichealth.uga.edu/hpb/news/spotlight/faculty/dr-marsha-davis ten Have, M., de Beaufort, I. D., Teixeira, P. J., Mackenbach, J. P., & van der Heide, A. (2011). Ethics and Prevention of Overweight and Obesity: An Inventory. Obesity Reviews. Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. London, England: Sage Publications