The AP today looks at a new campaign by the Advertising Council aimed at fighting obesity. It cites critics who complain that the ads are "namby pamby" and "wimpy." But is "soft" always bad?
What the story fails to mention is that while the shocking and attention-getting advertisements it cites with approval
have a long history in anti-drug campaigns, they also have a long history of not only failure, but backfiring.
The Ad Council knows this well-- years ago, it found that while shocking pictures of car crashes and interviews with people who lost loved ones to drunk drivers won advertising awards, they didn't deter drunk drivers. What worked? Ads that gave partners humorous ways of getting the car keys away from drunks.
The Council is probably basing its new campaign on these findings-- while toughness may sound better, "wimpy" ads may work better at changing behavior. And isn't that what we want them to do?
Comments
Caged Nitro says:
Hey!
I have been reading your stuff for quite some time now on stats.org and other places. You are taking common sense approaches with complex
social, psychological, and medical issues, and I am sure you are enlightening and motivating many.
Please keep up the good work.
October 25, 2007 6:48 AM
Melinda Wenner
says:
Interesting post. I always assumed those "shocking" ads worked well, but I guess I was wrong! Thanks!
October 31, 2007 12:15 PM
Melinda Wenner
says:
Ok, I simply have to share this. I was at the gym today and an ad (clearly targeted at women) came on for Metamucil. The commercial's tag line was "So your heart never has a bad hair day."
Talk about soft....yikes.
November 1, 2007 2:44 PM
Add a comment