Britain's anti-smoking ads

I am a non-smoker. Always have been, but I always question these types of marketing campaigns. Sure they shock and offend, but do they actually get people to quit smoking? In a way they are so over-the-top, they can easily be dismissed.

Not that I'm advocating that people shouldn't try any tactic possible to warn everyone of the dangers of drugs and tobacco. But the reality is the majority of people know of the dangers and do them anyway. There's gotta be another way of reaching out to people to tap into something that does matter to them. Of course, I'm sure these campaign have huge marketing & research divisions, so obviously they must have some evidence that the ads work. Personally, though, they don't effectively persuade (especially the U.S.'s anti-drug ads...so lame).

I meant the ads' claims can be dismissed. The US used to have anti-marijuana movies that showed kids turning into sex-crazed monsters after only one toke. Those types of messages are so over-the-top, kids just ignore them because they are so far from reality. While it's not completely analogous (because kids can get "hooked" on tobacco), the anti-smoking shock ads seem so "out there" that I don't think most kids really identify themselves with that campaign. Ads are persuasive when you think they are talking about you.

And while I mentioned before, the advertisers wouldn't do such a campaign if they didn't think it worked. But I wonder if their criteria for "working" is just the amount of buzz. Sure people know about the ads, as evidenced by number of complaints, and even the number of hits in web searches. But do they really have hard numbers on people who saw the ads and decided to quit? Granted this would be hard to find out, but certainly even tentative numbers like asking people who join anti-smoking groups if the ads persuaded them in any way to seek help would be interesting to know.

Persuasion tatics work best when the the person being targeted can readily identify that the message is applicable to him or herself and when the content of the messages is clear (i.e., to inform, educate, motivate, etc.). The "Get Unhooked" ad implies to me that they are specifically targeting people who are already smokers and that the goal is to get them to stop by informing them that the average smoker needs over 5,000 per (year?). I question if this ad is effective at accomplishing that goal. Most smokers already know that they are addicted, so giving them hard numbers doesn't seem very persuasive. But maybe the photo of a smoker being literally hooked might.

I've acknowledged that someone must think they are effective and probably have marketing research that support their reason why. But using the fact that the ads exist as evidence that they are effective doesn't fly with me. Nor does the buzz factor. I'm genuinely curious if there is a public website with actual statistics that show that these types of campiagns work.

My experience -- and of course its anecdotal -- is that people are aware of these types of campaigns, but laugh them off as crazy. For example, the anti-tobacco "Truth" campiagn in the US does all sorts of stunts, like having 100,000 bodybags strewn in the streets outside of tobacco execs corporate offices to represent the number of people who die from smoking related illness each year. Sure it makes a statement and gets people buzzing, but I'm not sure of the actual impact it has on motivating people to quit (if inded that's their goal). Their whole campign seems more about educating the public, so in that respect I think it does work, although I do feel they are telling people information they already know.

In any case, as I said earlier I'm not arguing that advocates should stop trying to reach out to the public in any way they can. I don't mind the ads at all and am glad that they are getting people talking about them. I'm just really curious if this type of marketing campign is effective at their goal, and if so, effective for whom. As Brendon suggests, it's could be that these ads are more effective at getting people from starting smoking than stopping.

BobClark summarizes in one sentence what I can't get across in several paragraphs. Figures.

Seabass: Well, for starters I say enough with campaigns that are just about education. Kids know smoking is bad. Future campaigns should be focusing on making smoking seem uncool. But of course, by doing that, they are making it cool to kids who love to go against authority (pretty all kids). So it seems sort of no win.

Honestly, I think the current trend of increased legislation is key. Since NYC banned smoking in public restaurants and bars, over a half dozen of my friends quit smoking because there just wasn't any place to do it unless they sat at home all day. But since they only smoked as a social thing, smoking at home would hinder their ability to hang out with friends in bars and restaurants. At least for adults, the ban was successful in getting people to quit. In terms of kids starting, getting rid of loosies in bodegas and raising the prices of packs of cigs to unreasonable prices (their like $8/pack in NYC) has helped curb kids who would try it just out of boredom.

If it were up to me I'd ban smoking altogether, but the tobacco and health insurance companies have too much invested in people getting hooked and getting sick due to tobacco related illnesses. Not to mention how angry I get when my coworkers all go outside to smoke together at least 10 minutes of every hour. My ass would get fired if I just decided to go for a walk for the same duration of time as they took to smoke. Bullshit, I say.

In any case, I don't think we'll get any real answers out of this thread, but I'm always curious about what people think about these anti-smoking campaigns whenever they come out.