Can you shame a pregnant woman into quitting smoking?

It's a beautifully-executed ad, by Kelliher Samets Volk for the Vermont Department of Public Health (via Adrants).

It's also an approach that has been done before, by Different for the NHS:

Original or not, however, I don't think it will make a damn bit of difference.

All too often, public social marketing campaigns are based on the assumption that "if only those people knew that what they were doing is harmful, they'd stop."

I'll put it out there that most people who have a drug problem know it is harmful to them, and possibly to others. I doubt many smokers, problem drinkers, or street and prescription drug abusers are so deluded as to think they are doing no harm. But they are addicted, and addiction overrules self preservation. If it didn't we wouldn't have the problems we do.

This ad, as beautiful as it is, only serves to add to the public shaming of pregnant women who smoke by the general public. But shame is not a great motivator to change, especially when you have already made the shamed one an outcast.

The ads above are subtle, but it is part of a train of thought that includes these:

Via Wordpress

Via Wordpress

Via Google

Via DeviantArt

Via HazellCottrell

Via Coloribus

And then there's this:

I want to make it clear that I don't want women to smoke while pregnant. My problem with the prevailing attitude among social marketers is the insistence that you can shame and blame people with drug problems into behavioural change.

The other issue I have is how much these campaigns can take on the visual vocabulary of the anti-abortion movement:

Via World Health Organisation

With that approach comes the implicit message that a pregnant women's body does not belong to her, it belongs to society at large. And that is not okay.

Pregnant women who smoke need encouragement and help to quit, without being judged or frightened.   They need our support and understanding, not our looks of disdain. When is someone going to stop treating addicts like "rational consumers" of social policy, and actually take this issue on from a harm reduction point of view?

I'm ready whenever you are.

The real question is, did Han do shots first?

This little gem has been jumping around hyperspace for quite some time, but it was new to me.



It's a 1979 anti-DWI PSA for the US Dept of Transportation, done in collaboration with Lusasfilm:



Featuring the freaky aliens from the Cantina scene in Mos Eisley, it seems to show that even alien space pirates with the death sentence on twelve systems don't let friends drive drunk. Then we get a cheap shot of the Millennium Falcon and the one actual human star of the series, James Earl Jones, telling us,

"When friends drink too much, even in galaxies far far away, friends don't let friends drive drunk."

What's especially amusing about this PSA (in addition to its epic crappiness) is that it comes from a long time ago when the Star Wars brand was still in its experimental stage.

Flush with unexpected success from the first film, Lucas' early attempts to keep people interested until Empire Strikes Back was in theatres were often quite comic.

Let's not forget the monumentally regrettable Star Wars Holiday Special:



In context, using some of the lower-priced assets for social marketing purposes was downright virtuous.

Oh, and there is... another... awkward example of Star Wars social marketing...



Use the Force, folks, and stay safe and healthy this Christmas.

Them #@*% kids

When I was at Queen's University, the big issues in student activism were stamping out sexism and racism on campus, environmental damage, sexual violence, raising money for third world causes, censorship, suicide, drug abuse and binge drinking.

If only I had gone to Onondaga Community College, just across the lake in Syracuse, N.Y. Because if spitting, smoking, swearing, littering and double parking are the worst problems the students in this online PSA face, their lives are charmed indeed.



Okay, I'm being a smartass. As reported in USA Today, this "Create Change" campaign was developed by Onondaga's administration as a way to encourage students to take pride in their college and create an atmosphere of positive peer pressure against "habits that suck".



Creatively, the video is too long (5:15) and relies on a very hackneyed editing gimmick. But it was produced by the student drama club, so at least it's authentic peer-to-peer PSA messaging.

To me, it seems like an application of Broken Window Theory. Or it could just be an attempt to instill some old-fashioned manners in the young. Either way, I give it an "A" for good intentions, but I wouldn't bet money on the outcome.

Who is influencing whom?

On the CBC today:

"Children and teens spend about as much time with media as they do sleeping, and the overexposure could take a toll on their health, a new U.S. study suggests.

...

The study, reported in Monday's issue of the journal Pediatrics, showed Americans aged eight to 18 spend more than seven hours per day on average consuming both old media such as TV, movies and magazines as well as new media including internet, social networking sites, video and computer games and cell phones.

...

The study found exposure to the media can make children more prone to:

• Violence — the impact of media violence on real-life aggressive behavior is 0.31 times higher, compared with 0.39 times for the link between smoking and lung cancer.
• Early and unprotected sexual activity, particularly if exposed to pornography.
• Alcohol and tobacco consumption, with exposure to smoking in movies in Grades 5 to 8 predicting the likelihood of starting smoking within eight years.
• Obesity, with possible culprits including the marketing of junk food and fast food and the tendency to eat while watching media.
• Heavy television-viewing — that is, two to three hours a day in early childhood has been linked with attention-deficit disorder during the early school years, though experts disagree about the nature of the connection."

Okay, so I'm in the industry. Of course I'm going to question these findings. Not because they threaten my livelihood in any way (they don't) but rather because they ignore important research done over the past few decades into the science of human nature.

In that time, I've been keenly reading pop evolutionary psychology books by scientists like Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, Geoffrey Miller and others. And what they have taught me is that people are not simply vessels for culture. They're slaves to much greater forces.

Basically (if I recall correctly) your personality is mostly determined by your genes. Peer influence is what acculturates you and shapes your natural character. And parenting has a small but important influence — which can wreck havoc with the final product if it takes the form of abuse or neglect.

The effects of "Media" don't even enter these discussions. Why is that? Here's where my people come in.

As I mentioned in my blog about body image and advertising on Friday, advertisers give the people what they want. This can be expanded into all media. Movies, TV shows, games, social networks — they only succeed because people vote for them with their time and their wallets.

Today, especially, when consumers have a choice of endless media options with which to waste their time, they have more power than ever before. And it's this element of choice that makes me question these findings:

"The impact of media violence on real-life aggressive behavior is 0.31 times higher..."

Or, do naturally aggressive people like more violent entertainment?

"Early and unprotected sexual activity, particularly if exposed to pornography."

I don't know about you, but I was never "exposed" to pornography. In my day, getting your hands on a girlie mag was hard work! So some of the kids who look at dirty pictures are sexually precocious? Who knew! (I wasn't so lucky...)

"Alcohol and tobacco consumption, with exposure to smoking in movies..."

This one may have some merit, since old movies make smoking look so damn cool. But I still have to give credit to peer pressure here, and the fact that these "bad" kids are watching more adult media.

"Obesity, with possible culprits including the marketing of junk food and fast food and the tendency to eat while watching media."

...and the not exercising. But then, of course, we'd have to blame books too.

"Heavy television-viewing — that is, two to three hours a day in early childhood has been linked with attention-deficit disorder during the early school years, though experts disagree about the nature of the connection."

That one seems to cancel itself out. As far as I can see, today's movies and TV shows seem to be made by people with ADHD — not the other way around.

"And where's the parenting in all this?", you might ask. Kids who are spending too much time alone with electronic media are doing so because it's being allowed. Their parents either lack the time or the inclination to engage with their kids face-to-face, to get them out of the house and into activities, and to stop relying so much on an army of electronic babysitters.

This kind of correlation without causation research reporting reminds me of that bit in Freakonomics where a mayor looked at research showing that kids with books in their homes had higher literacy levels, so naturally set out to put books in every home. No question as to what sociological factors are at play. Just more books = more reading.

Media do not equal behaviours. At least, not unless you see people as sponges. I don't. I think it's the other way around.

PS: Welcome to new readers from the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University. It was great speaking to the Marketing class this morning.

Inhale fail

Having seen a similar creepy effect in the movie 1984, I really wanted to like this ad more, and I did — until the end.



Created by DDB Toronto for the Canadian Cancer Society, it appears to have everything going for it. I at first assumed it was part of the tough, street-level campaign I blogged about last fall. And I also assumed that the ad was going to try to persuade young adult female smokers to quit before their habit robbed them of their looks.



A sexist approach? Certainly. But one that might actually have a shot with the young.

After all, smoking really does age you prematurely. It's as bad as too much tanning. And it's scientific fact.

According to a 10-year-old Japanese study quoted on BBC, it was found that the compounds in cigarette smoke increases the enzymes responsible for breaking down healthy skin tissue, while reducing collagen production by up to 40%. The result? Early onset of wrinkly, leathery skin.

This process affects men as well as women, but this is where a very ancient double standard kicks in. Humphrey Bogart's signature smoking killed him tragically young, but by male standards he still had "rugged good looks" into his 50s. Men are allowed to age gracefully, it seems, and a little weather on the bark might actually improve one's looks.

Women get a raw deal on this one. Female beauty, evolutionarily tied to a shorter period of fertility, is all about youthfulness. Look — I didn't make up these "rules", but they are a pretty standard observation across human cultures.

Of course, our modern culture has taken the quest for youthfulness to expensive and even dangerous extremes, with surgical interventions and a loosely regulated beauty industry pitching all varieties of snake oils.

Cancer is truly the worst-case scenario for smoking, and it's obvious why the Canadian Cancer Society would choose reduced lifespan as a consequence. But this concept, on its own, could have been a great wake-up call to all those women in their 20s who are still smoking (so to speak). Even if it might be perceived by some as politically incorrect, it speaks to instinct. And instinct is more powerful than making people do math.



Long-term, you're gambling with your life. But the smart money is on the fact that you won't even leave a beautiful corpse.

Kid appeal

The British Department of Health is launching a new anti-smoking campaign that gets to the heart of the matter: kids who don't want their parents to die young.

According to The Bolton News, a local 10-year-old was recruited by a film crew who were collecting the stories of children of smokers.

Cole Lonsdale appears in ads that will appear on national TV during Coronation Street — presumably a smokey target audience — as well as transit posters:



Other children are featured in ads as well, and the family stories behind them are profiled in the Mirror.

What's interesting about this campaign is that it doesn't talk about secondhand smoke. Cole's mom says she never smokes in her house, or in front of the boy. Rather, it's a continuation of a campaign that tries to make parents aware that good parenting includes not harming yourself:



Will it work? If it were my own child, I'd be heartbroken. It remains to be seen if other British parents can put themselves and their kids in the place of the people they see in ads.

Take the pickle out

As a career social marketer, I really believe in what my clients are trying to accomplish. At the same time, I feel it's my duty to help them understand the realities of their target markets' world. For example, "preaching to the choir", or appealing to extreme activists while alienating the general public, can be a waste of good media money. Or even worse, a barrier to mainstream change.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the fine balance between educating the public and overplaying your message. Partly because I see this ad during every morning's transit commute:



Let me be clear that this is not a cheap shot at the worthy cause of preventing stroke, or even at the agency that created the campaign. I'm sure they're all very determined to help Canadians reduce the salt in their diet.

But "Sodium kills 30 Canadians each day"? That's kind of hard to swallow.

I checked out the web site, looking for the research behind the claim. In short, it's this:

* Excess sodium raises your blood pressure.

* Optimal blood pressure is less than 120/80 mmHg.

* A blood pressure of greater than 140/90 mmHg is the clinical definition of hypertension. One in four adults in Canada has hypertension.

* Reducing your blood pressure by just 10/5 mmHg by lifestyle change or medication reduces your risk of heart failure by 50 per cent, stroke by 30 per cent, heart attack by 15 per cent and premature death by 10 per cent.

I have to assume the 30 people killed are actually the reverse of the 30 people who will die of heart attack, stroke, and related premature death today who could have been saved by reducing sodium. But beyond downloading and reading the academic PDFs and doing math (I was told there would be no math!) as lazy consumer I remain unconvinced that salt will be directly responsible for 30 people dying today.

Of course, I also have to admit to myself that death stats on smoking may be derived much the same way. And that's a hard comparison to make as someone who has campaigned hard to reduce smoking rates. (Truth be told, my personal focus is on secondhand smoke around children and captive audiences, which also has to do with human rights.)

Of course, death statistics are rarely isolated to one cause. It's hard to control variables for heavy smokers, since their high-risk behaviour and socio-economic factors come into play. That doesn't mean that a decrease in smoking won't save lives. Quitting, cutting back, and keeping it out of other people's lungs will still have a powerful effect.

With salt, it could be that the highest consumers are also living off of fast food, which is also full of fat, sugar, and not-nutritious filler. Plus they may also be inactive, overworked, or just plain uninterested in their own health.

For example, the linked article on "salt and obesity" cites a study with this conclusion:

The authors conclude that the increased intake of salt, through its effect on thirst, has lead to an increased intake of high-energy beverages, which has in turn remarkably contributed to the increase of obesity in the United States.

...which is the sugar problem once again.

I guess lifestyle issues will always be complicated. And just as with any health issue, the dangers of salt has its detractors.

So why does this campaign bother me? Is it because the health issue about salt is not yet on my radar? Because salty foods (homemade and artisinal, mostly) are a lifestyle sin that I'm just not willing to give up? Am I a hypocritical skeptician?

Maybe it's just the mainstream social marketer in me that feels uneasy with the broad claims of the campaign. I'm not advising anyone to eat more salt. But I'm just not sure telling people that pickles, pizza and pasta (all based on God-knows-what recipe) are deadly poison is really the right approach to changing behaviour. Nor is the deceit some other unrelated campaigners in the U.K. have practised. I always believed that mainstream campaigns should be forthright, credible, and asking for achievable action.

I'm just not ready to take the pickle out of my diet yet. I might even eat poutine again. I'll just do it all in moderation, keep exercising, and try not to panic.