Posted by Tom Megginson
| 24-06-2014 15:08 | Category:
Yesterday morning, when I blogged about this government anti-speeding PSA from Northern Ireland at The Ethical Adman, I thought it was just another obscure and ill-conceived shock PSA. But the real shock has been the >1.5 million views it has earned on YouTube.
The big question is, are people watching because it’s powerful, or are they engaging in some “Friday”-like social media Schadenfreude?
The ad itself is, in my opinion, awful. Not because it shows a bunch of children getting killed, but because it does so with overwrought pathos, really unnecessary and awkward foreshadowing (the toy car? really?) and special effects that are more laughable than tragic.
Think I’m overly-cynical? I’m a parent of a child that age, and I rail against drivers who speed — especially around schools. But this approach will have zero impact on offenders.
These ads preach to the choir. Sensitive parents and angry advocates will feel validated by a sense of outrage. But what they won’t understand is that PSAs tend to fail when they exaggerate or try to provoke feelings of guilt in offenders. Viewers within ths supposed target audience tend to either deal with the emotional approach by denying that they are that bad, or that it could happen to them (because everyone thinks they’re a better driver than everyone else). The other defence is laughter. Because come on, that scene of the children getting flattened is so unrealistic, it looks like an intentionally-bad scene from an old TV comedy.
There are two other factors, however, that are probably helping take the ad viral. One is the magic word “banned” (it’s not really, but it’s not allowed to be shown on TV before 9 p.m.) The other is the sombre cover of “Sweet Child o’ Mine.”
Department of the Environment (UK)
The Ethical Adman
- road safety
- shock advertising
- uk. bad ads
Who produces it? Is it another Lyle Baillie International?
Posted by Arthur Wilhite | 24-06-2014 17:23
Posted by Mrtijn Oostra | 24-06-2014 21:28
A similar (mistaken) approach. Agreed.
Posted by Tom Megginson | 24-06-2014 22:36
Great piece Tom, cracking analysis (as always).
You are spot on with your ‘preaching to the choir’ line, and this is typical of much RS work which relies on obvious sentimentality and spoon-feeding an audience rather than engaging them at a cognitive level (which you and I know helps behaviour to stick).
Yes, this is Lyle Bailey and yes, the Northern Irish (particularly) are convinced that their shock/awe approach is the right one. When BBC NI interviewed me during Embrace Life’s ascendency, both the agency and the road safety agency were given the opportunity to engage in a pre-recorded debate over the efficacy of shock/gore or emotional/cognitive behaviour change methodologies. Strangely, they didn’t engage with the BBC’s offer of a professional debate, instead pre-filming a defensive segment that aired during the news item.
The approach is, I think, basically an updated one from a similar ad with a single child in a garden, from the late 1990s. Annoyingly, I can’t find it right now, but I will look.
My view as a behavioural marketer is that this sort of work just isn’t efficient or effective. There are so many studies about the comparative impact duration of shock/gore v emotional/cognitive that I’m amazed that this work still exists.
Of course, I could be really controversial and suggest that the most damning thing about this whole genre is its failure to change behaviour, acknowledged by the fact that people still make this type of work.
Because if it worked, you wouldn’t need to keep making it, keep doing essentially the same thing.
If it was effective, you could spend your creative energies on the next issue (like drink, drugs, mobile phones etc).
So the fact that they are being made constantly proves they’re not effective.
Time more a new approach?
Or stick with the old one which makes the entrenched feel better about the work that they’re delivering at a minimum of efficacy and efficiency.
Posted by Neil Hopkins | 25-06-2014 21:14
Posted by Tom Megginson | 26-06-2014 00:50