truth® campaign mike kendall catherine montoya james montoya carmelita parraz john sampson natalie...
TRANSCRIPT
truth® campaign
Mike KendallCatherine Montoya
James MontoyaCarmelita ParrazJohn Sampson
Natalie Skogerboe
Vintage Smoking Advertisements
1964 Surgeon General Report Focus on the link between smoking and lung
cancer 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
Required Surgeon General Warning label printed on cigarette packs
1967 – 70 Fairness Doctrine Act Required TV Networks to balance anti and pro
smoking ads 1984 Comprehensive Tobacco Education Act (Public
Law 98-474) Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health
1989 National Cancer Institute Use activists to impact public opinion on smoking CDC booklet entitled “Tips for Kids” stated
smokers were second class citizens 1994 Clinton takes on “kids smoking”
Post War History of Anti Smoking
truth® campaign was based on the Florida Truth campaign, which reduced youth smoking rates
In 1998 Florida Department of Health launched a tobacco prevention program that featured a mass media campaign known as “truth” ( Farrelly et al, 2005).
Florida Truth Campaign
A telephone survey of youths demonstrated that attitudes toward tobacco changed amongst Florida youth compared with youths in the rest of the United States after the first year.
Florida Youth Tobacco Survey 18% and 8% among middle-school and high-
school students after year one After year two 40% and 18%
Florida Truth Campaign
truth® campaign
Launched in 2000 by the American Legacy Foundation (Legacy)
1st year had a budget of more than $100 million
Market its message as a brand, like other youth brands (e.g., Nike, Sprite) Truth TV and print commercials feature what
experts call “edgy” youths, promotional items, street marketing, and a Web site (www.thetruth.com)(Farrelly, 2002).
Deliver stark facts about tobacco and tobacco industry marketing practices
Core Strategy of the truth® campaign
…“You won’t see statistics about the toll of tobacco,” Farrelly.
Emphasizing the long-term consequences of smoking is not as effective as addressing the more immediate problems, said Howard Willard, senior vice
president of youth smoking at Philip Morris (Grand Rapids Press, 2002).
In comparison to Philip Morris ads
Only national youth smoking prevention program in the U.S. not sponsored by the tobacco industry (Holden, D. & Zimmerman, M., 2009, p. 124)
Advertising spots in major metropolitan demographic market areas (DMAs)
truth® Campaign
In December 1999, Legacy Media Tracking Survey (LMTS) fielded - primary evaluation tool 2000-2003
In 2000, LMTS targeted specific racial and ethnic groups, 12-17 year olds
Continuous tracking-benefited media contractors, creative directors, and other stakeholders
2nd wave of LMTS 10 months after launch of Truth found 75% exposure
Telephone surveys
Exposure and recall Message reactions and receptivity Behavioral determinants (knowledge, attitudes,
and beliefs) Behavioral outcomes
Media EvaluationsMeasure 4 key process and outcome dimensions
(Holden, D. & Zimmerman, M., 2009, p. 125)
3 critical elements for successful youth tobacco prevention media
Teen focused “counter-marketing”Talk to teens on their level, i.e. do not talk down to teensHighlight tobacco industry’s failure to highlight addictiveness and health effects
(Columbia Marketing Panel, 1996; McKenna, Gutierrez, & McCall, 2000)
Process evaluations
Media Evaluations
Outcome evaluations
Assess if the teens heard the Truth Campaign
Determine effects on health behavior
Did children react favorably
Were children less likely to smoke?
Creates Formative Feedback
Expose youth to truth® messages and promote positive reactions to these messages
Change attitudes and beliefs towards tobacco use
Reduce tobacco use among youth
Three Main Objectives
Overall looking at marketing campaigns To promote or change consumer behavior
Health communication Affect consumer health behavior
Social Marketing Incorporating business and social objectives Influence social behavior To benefit target market & society as whole E.g. CDC or American Cancer Society
Media Evaluation
For Immediate Formative Feedback to enhance the campaign efforts
Process and Outcome data must happen simultaneously
Looking at 4 key areas:1. Exposure & recall2. Message reactions & receptivity3. Behavioral determinants4. Behavioral outcomes
Why Need to Evaluate?
Relationship between evaluators, advertisers, and marketers
Evaluation design and measurement Environmental factors external to campaign Difficulty to isolate and assess effects of
Truth
Challenges in Evaluation
1) Expose youth to Truth & get positive reactions
2) Change attitudes & beliefs towards tobacco use & companies
3) Reduce tobacco use among youth
3 Primary Objectives of truth®
For Objectives 1 & 2 (telephone): LMTS (Legacy Media Tracking Survey)
For Objective 3 (in-school survey): ELM (Elaborate Likelihood Model) NYTS (National Youth Tobacco Survey) MTF (Monitoring the Future)
Types of Evaluations Used
No control or comparison market - implemented nationally rather quickly Therefore rely on quasi experimental
comparison (dose of Truth) Many states built own campaigns Tobacco control in prices & taxes Philip Morris campaign - tobacco industry Evolving campaign & multiple stakeholders
More Challenges
Pre- truth® vs. During truth®
% Change from Baseline to 10-Month Surveys
Tobacco more prominent in minds of youth
“truth®” campaign resonates more with youth than “Think. Don’t Smoke.” even though that campaign aired more than 12 months prior to “truth® ”
Findings
Did the truth® reach its Objectives?
OBJECTIVE 1Expose youth to truth® and get positive reactions
- Exposure and Recall- Message Reactions and Receptivity- 75% of 12-17yr old survey respondents recalled the ads
YES!
Did the truth® reach its Objectives?
OBJECTIVE 2Change Attitudes and Beliefs
Toward tobacco use AND tobacco companies
- Behavioral Determinants- Significant changes in knowledge, attitudes and beliefs
related to truth® messages
YES!
Did the truth® reach its Objectives?
OBJECTIVE 3Reduce tobacco use among
youth- Behavioral outcomes- How can these be attributed to the truth® campaign?
YES!?
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%28.0%
26.8% 25.3%22.6%
20.3%18.0%
23.7%22.0%
19.6%
Decline in Adolescent Smoking Attributable to truth®
Trend in actual smoking Predicted trend if truth® did not exist
SOURCE: Figure 6.2 in Holden & Zimmerman (2009) A Practical Guide to Program Evaluation Planning
Evaluators were able to survey a large number of youth because of the high levels of exposure to the campaign No opportunity for experimental control
Campaign messages and evaluation tools changed over time Could impact time series Requires decisions along the way as to which
variables should stay and go Evaluators came up with creative ways to analyze
dose-response relationships
Conclusions
More discussion around what populations were of primary concern (i.e. geographic locations or ethnic groups with higher prevalence rates etc.)
Also, how the messages were adapted to address those populations
Cost savings resulting from the reductions in youth smoking
Truth ads should expand its target groups to include: existing smokers, age groups (18-24), and youth who reside in non-urban locations.
Group Reflections
Anti Smoking Ads
Anti Smoking Ad Survey