Category: Social Marketing

19/07/2012

Visual Branding is not effective (suggests the Tobacco Industry)

JTI, the company behind cigarette brands such as Camel, Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut has taken out full page adverts in the British press to inform readers that the potential move to enforce plain packaging for cigarettes is not backed by evidence - suggesting that plain packs will only increase illicit trade.

Could they be right? Well, apart from the obvious circumstantial question to ask (i.e. “Why do these companies spend millions on building their brand if really the visual representation on the pack is not important? Are they suggesting they are wasting money?”), what evidence is there that the claims by the JTI are true?

Firstly let‘s look at the idea that plain packs are easier to fake, and therefore could result in more illicit trade. While, on the surface, this argument may seem true, it does assume that the packs do not contain any other security elements. For example, a tax seal which may include (and does include in some countries) holograms etc to ensure it is the “real thing” (aka the tax has been paid). Of course, a plain pack itself is a little easier to fake than printing a more colourful one, but, given that there are no real banknote type security elements on the “main” packages now, I seriously doubt that even with full on branding these packs are exceedingly difficult to fake.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, JTI makes the implicit assumption that visual brand representation is irrelevant – at least when it comes to purchasing the product (i.e. changing the “on pack” visual identity has no effect). Proving or disproving this is, of course, a bit more tricky. JTI’s argument seems to suggest that consumers do not care how the brand looks – as long as the product is good. This seems inherently logical (especially for those people that think advertising and branding never ever influences them even one bit), but as Walsh, Mitterich and Mittal (2010, 2011) showed in two studies, consumers are remarkably “attached” to the logos of the brands they consume. Even relatively small changes to the visual identity of a brand can create negative brand assumptions. Of course, importantly, it is not just grown-ups who “attach” to the visual brand identity. Children, even before they can read or write, learn to recognise brands by their logo (Kinsky & Bichard, 2011). Of course, there are plenty more studies who confirm the importance of logos and visual identity. In other words, the evidence suggest that visual identity is essential – and there is categorically no evidence available to support the implicit claim by JTI that “removing branding” would have no or only a very small effect.

So what is the evidence in terms of cigarettes? Well, there is plenty of evidence available, much more than “would fit on a back of a cigarette pack“, as the advert claims …unless you put it on minuscule microfiches! Take, for example, this study by Wakefield, Germain and Durkin (2008). It shows “cigarette packs that displayed progressively fewer branding design elements were perceived increasingly unfavourably in terms of smokers‘ appraisals of the packs, the smokers who might smoke such packs, and the inferred experience of smoking a cigarette from these packs.” It concludes “Plain packaging policies that remove most brand design elements are likely to be most successful in removing cigarette brand image associations.” – which would be quite the opposite of what JTI seems to suggest. Moreover, this effect is especially strong for “young smokers” – as this study by Moodie, Mackintosh, Hastings and Ford (2011) shows. All of these studies have added to the evidence base that was presented in 2008 – although the advert claims there is no new evidence. Of course, the evidence can not be based on actual sales figures in “the real word“, as plain packaging is not yet reality. Thus, it relies on experiments and consumer surveys – something that actually most marketing research, including research by commercial companies, relies on. In fact, prelaunch research can never be anything else but surveys, focus groups and experiments – as the product simply does not exist in the general market. Does that mean the evidence from such studies is always right? Well, no. But let‘s face it, those methods are the gold standard to estimate what will happen if something “goes live“.

So what can we say about the advert: I think it is a tremendous shame that JTI has made this advert. It claims that there is little evidence to suggest that plain packaging will negatively impact brand attitudes and by extension behavioural intentions, when there is plenty of high quality evidence. More over, while the advert claims this “non existing“ evidence is a reason not the introduce plain packing, the advert actually fails to present any evidence that plain packaging would not work. Of course, plain packing is not going to make every smoker stop smoking overnight. But the evidence seems to suggest that it certainly would have some (negative) effect on brand attitude and intention to smoke.

9/07/2012

Push Me and I’ll Resist: Reactance Theory

Reactance Theory is a powerful theory to show just how valuable understanding theoretical concepts in everyday marketing activity is. The theory is heavily used in Social Marketing and also applicable to other marketing situations, for example, sales encounters. The basic idea is that if a perceived behavioural freedom is removed (for example by government legislation, warning signs or pushy sales tactics), the result is that the person who is being pushed will react by adopting or strengthening an opposing view or attitude. An example: I recently tried to cancel my mobile phone subscription with and get a code to move my number to a different provider. I’m out of contract, and cancelling it and moving the number was my right – or behavioural freedom. To do this, I had to chat to an advisor, who constantly refused to give me the code and instead came back with different offers to keep me with the company. In other words, the advisor was removing my behavioural freedom. This “ping pong game” lasted for over an hour – with the advisor constantly refusing to give me the code. At the beginning, I did not have any strong feelings towards the company, and would have stayed quite happily if the advisor offered a reasonable deal. However, after the refusal to give me the code I started to no longer care what the deal was; all I wanted was to cancel all contracts with this company. In other words, I was in a state of reactance, i.e. even if the advisor would have offered me a mobile phone free for life, I would have refused (i.e. single-mindedly asserting my freedom to move my number).

Is this effect powerful? Well, yes: For example, reactance has been linked to people starting smoking (Miller et al, 2006) – or indeed acting contrary to health warnings (Stewart & Martin, 1994). But also in commercial marketing there is plenty of evidence of reactance: For example, people avoid websites and develop negative brand attitudes towards brands using pop-up advertisements (Edwards, Li & Lee, 2002) – or even simply persuasive advertisements (Koslow, 2000). In other words, disregarding the possibility of reactance, even giving possibly logical and sensible advise or making persuasion attempts can lead to a boomerang effect.

So how can marketers prevent reactance? Well, the answer is remarkably straightforward: Do not remove the freedom. For example, in my “sales” encounter with the mobile phone company, the advisor could have given me the code first, and then talked about a deal to keep me. Similarly, for example, Allen Carr’s Easyway to Stop Smoking uses anti-reactance measures (yes, they can even occur when the reader actually wants to quit smoking!). In the Easyway method, Carr “forces” smoking onto the reader – thus eliminating the focus on remaining a smoker, while engaging the reader in a dialogue about how harmful smoking is. So simply ensuring that the person has the freedom to resist, or continue the behaviour, etc is usually enough to ensure that the receiver‘s focus is no longer on the behavioural limitation – and the receiver can engage rationally in making reasoned choices.

11/06/2012

Could we be a little more exciting, please?

OK, I have been whining about (some) social marketing programmes being lacklustre rather than exciting – especially comparing them to their “commercial” counterparts. So far I was under the impression that Change4Life, the UK national healthier living campaign, was not exactly very dull (though hardly exciting) – but then I saw their new Fun Generator app…
The app creates “personalised” recommendations of activities for kids. So far, so good, though hardly something that exactly generates fun. You select how many kids will play, indoor or outdoors – and the app creates a list of possible activities (for a rainy day like today, it suggested such “exciting” activities as smoothie making and making instruments for me!). But seriously, the way the information is presented felt boring to me – and I’m fairly certain that I have a better attention span than a six year old trying to figure out what to do.
I get that the app isn’t primarily targeted at children – which may well be a wasted opportunity, as most children happily play with iPhones (especially commercial advergames!). Maybe I’m just being very harsh – but if I compare Fun Generator to some of the better (or even mediocre) advergames for sweets outthere, then I’m hard pressed to find a more boring app. Moreover, I’m wondering how ethical it is to ask for the users email address in order to access the app. The app isn’t personalised really – and no account is created. Yet, you need to enter an email address, which will be passed on to the Change4Life team, to even access the suggested activities!
As so often, I wonder if this app is based on behavioural insights – or just a funky idea. If the behavioural outcome is activity for kids, then why are kids not targeted directly? If it is for parents: why so boring? Why do some, but not all texts address children, others adults?
I really wish Change4Life all the best, and that it manages to convert couch potatoes into active kids – but, I’m sorry to say, with this sort of app I have very serious doubts anyone will go and start growing their own veggies soon (another activity for today)!

7/04/2011

65+ and Active: Headline findings

Society is getting older – and also less active. With 2012 being the European Year of Active Aging, the importance of remaining active in later life is becoming more at the forefront of policy making – and not a year too soon: In England only 17% of males and 13% of women aged 65-74 are physically active. And inactivity is responsible for an estimated 5-8% of premature deaths in the UK – and costing the NHS an estimated £1,8 billion.

What can be done to increase the activity levels? We recently obtained funding from the British Academy for the Active Plus project looking at this topic from a social marketing perspective. And after the first few focus groups, here are the headline findings I’ll be presenting at the IRSPM in Dublin next week:

Perception Problems

There are major misconceptions about good levels of physical activity – actually not only amongst people who are over 65 – but also amongst care providers. While regular physical activity is particularly important for this age group – many people think that if they haven’t been active all their life there would be little or no benefit in starting in later life.

Relevance of Messages

Many of the messages directed at increasing physical activity are not considered relevant by people over 65. This includes social marketing messages who often emphasize other benefits then health benefits. The problem that emerged during the focus groups was that many people in the target group were actually more responsive to health centric messages – and that current messages tended to be perceived as for the “younger”. As the health benefits of exercise are not well understood, clarifying these is a major priority going forward.

Perception of Exercise Itself

Physical symptoms of exercise, i.e. being out of breath or muscle soreness were seen as negative signs – and interpreted as a sign to go slow or stop exercising. This is quite the opposite of many younger people – and again reinforces the need to raise awareness of the health benefits of exercise – and also demonstrate that physical symptoms like being out of breath are not a negative – but rather show that exercise is working.

Media Channels

Advertising was seen as the least effective way to promote messages – and current advertisements were noted – but not found to be relevant or interesting. Better channels included health practitioners raising the topic pro-actively. Amongst media channels, radio programs were seen as effective, especially serials and talk-shows. Several participants also mentioned that there was little depiction of characters in later life engaging in exercise in any of the popular shows in the UK – so there were no real role models.

Branding

Pretty much all participants also pointed out that they were not “old” – and therefore felt that many of the activity programs run by local authorities were not for them – as they frequently branded themselves “for seniors” etc. (a label that was seen by some as even offensive). Many participants felt the positioning should be more subtle – emphasizing well being and staying young – rather than being old.

These findings are based on only a few groups – but so far, from a social marketing perspective, a really interesting story emerges: the preference for health-emphasizing messages rather than promoting other benefits is interesting (and different to many other target groups). Equally, the various barriers and (often wrong) perceptions will be a challenge to overcome.

23/03/2011

Some good news? Beer and Cigarette Duty up.

The Chancellor presented his budget for the next year today. Of course, not all of the exact figures are in the final document (which can be found here), but here are some first observations:

The budget raises the duty on alcohol and tobacco – something that isn’t actually an invention of the current government, but a tax which had been introduced by the previous government. The budget also introduces a new tax on “high strength” beer, in order to discourage their production and consumption. In other words the government tries to encourage the production of more low strength beer, rather than highly alcoholic beer. While this is sensible, as the evidence is overwhelming that pricing does directly influence consumption of alcohol (see this article for a review of the evidence), it is sad to see that other alcoholic drinks, especially those with higher alcohol content don’t get more taxed.

The government also increases duties for cigarettes (as in every budget), and puts an additional 10% duty on hand-rolled tobacco. Similar to alcohol, a rise in prices is probably a good incentive to persuade people to give up.

Unfortunately though, the government does not seem to think that making unhealthy foods more expensive is a good idea. This remains a major problem area: In many cases healthy alternatives remain more expensive than unhealthier choices. And the current budget does nothing to correct this – or indeed to incentivize healthier food choices – a major public health concern. This would have been a courageous choice to make, and showing that the government is not just talking the talk when it comes to public health – especially after the withdrawal of the various health groups from the widely touted government campaign.

A different area, where the government could have made some progress from previous budgets would have been a further cut in VAT on condoms. He is happy enough (and probably short sighted enough!) to cut the funding for sexual health interventions (a staggering 43% of the Pan London HIV Prevention Programme, for example) – but this cut is not compensated by a further cut on VAT for condoms from the current 5% – introduced by Gordon Brown in 2006. Probably a recipe for more infections and more long-term costs to the health system.

The budget is, of course, very price focused, and often focuses on specific items. So how other health spending will pan out in the long run remains to be seen. With the COI disappearing, one has to wonder how the government plans to use the other “Ps” of the marketing mix to achieve health objectives.

Overall then, the budget had some cautious points in the right direction, in terms of taxing high-strengths beer and cigarettes – but some opportunities are not used. Let’s hope in future budgets the government is more courageous!

22/03/2011

Why are some Social Marketing ads so boring?

Of course, there are some really great health-promoting advertisements around. Some are well designed, snazzy, well target – but unfortunately, more often than not, adverts promoting healthy behaviours are beyond lacklustre. Go to your local GP surgery, and you’ll probably be amazed at the amount of flyers you can pick up that seem to have been designed by one of the admin staff on their coffee break (even if that is probably not the case). Compare that to most commercial advertising, emphasising how much better one can live after buying product X, and directly speaking to the target audience. On a recent trip to my GP (family practitioner for those who are not in the UK), I picked up a leaflet about physical activity – as far as I can see produced by the local NHS trust. When I read in it that “physical activity is scientifically proven to decrease the chances of heart desease” – my first thought was that it almost read like one of those health warnings on tobacco packs a few years ago. I was starting to wonder if they were trying to make physical activity attractive - or turn me off it completely? Digging a bit more deeply I found out that the SMOG index for the leaflet was 12 – meaning it was at the level of an A-level student. Quite high really, especially for an inner-city borough of London.

Just how much could the effectiveness of these flyers and adverts be improved by just a bit more work on them? Maybe making them a bit more interesting, easier to read – and above all emphasising more “glamorous” outcomes – rather than reading like a health warning! Particularly, marketers know that people with lower educational levels respond particularly well to a range of visceral clues in advertising: using visual priming (such as before and after pictures), vivid displays of rewards (such as testimonials) and focusing on the proximity of rewards, by making specific time claims. Unfortunately, none of the leaflets I could locate used these – at all. Even the much touted Change4Life posters, while much more colourful, and generally appealing – read a little more like a serious newspaper. But if they are addressing a tabloid oriented audience – will broadsheet language and style really work?