Untitled

[seabreeze16-blog1]

Audience, Part Two, Research Activity #1, PH 663

The twitter feed “Lead the Break” segments its audience by socio-demographic, behavioral and psychographic characteristics.  The audience are college students who choose to have fun during spring break by participating in fun and safe activities.  Students are encouraged to post pictures and comments having fun, and safe spring break.  

Social media can be utilized to drive this audience segmentation.  Facebook can segment the college students by interest in participating in meaningful activities during Spring Break.  Social media tools can also create groups to share common interest with those students that want to volunteer and have a safe break. 

[sd619abc-blog]

I agree that “Lead the Break” uses audience segmentation to target college students. However, I think it was a poor attempt without enough formative research to target college students who would not already engage in these activities. Furthermore, because the social media channel used is public, and the message was not clear at the initial Twitter post, it became disrupted by students posting non-charity activities. It would have really helped to circulate the message using language and outlining objectives that a college audience who do not usually engage in charity work during Spring Break could relate to. I think the use of social media was a necessary channel to use for targeting college students, but tools that track students looking for typical vacation or party spots for spring break could have been used so they could have been targeting directly with the message to consider charity work instead.

@globalcommunicationproject

[peopleprocreate-blog]

Audience, Part Four, Analysis Activity #2, PH663

The “This Free Life” campaign targets LGBT audiences. In particular, young LGBT individuals. This is because this audience segment is particularly targeted by the tobacco industry and as a result, they are more likely to smoke. The campaign also uses psychographic segmentation. The values they target are the sense of community that LGBT individuals often feel towards their gender identity. They target people in mostly in the stages of change of precontemplation, and contemplation. They are trying to increase importance of change in the minds of the tobacco users. There are a lot of discussions about how “loving your body” or “bettering myself” are important, so another example of psychographic segmentation in this campaign has to do with people who believe in the “value” of self-love and self-compassion. 

[sd619abc-blog]

I agree that “This Free Life” targets the psychographic issue of a sense of community within the LGBT audience. The campaign is able to do this through its use of language that refers to a group, like “we and “our”. While it does target people in the precontemplation and contemplation phases of the Transtheoretical Model, I would also argue that it targets audience members in the preparation, action, and maintenance phases. The campaign uses community leaders who display ideal confidence as central sources of the message, thereby calling these types of individuals in LGBT communities to lead others. These leaders and other LGBT individuals may be ready to take action (preparation), are already quitting smoking (action), or maintaining relapse of nicotine addiction.

I also like how you pointed out the campaign’s use of pschographic values like self-love and self-improvement. Unlike many other anti-tobacco campaigns, this is unique to “This Free Life”. It demonstrates an incredible understanding and extensive formative research to track the type of role models and language that will relate to the target LGBT community.

@globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

Audience, Part Four, Analysis Activity #2, PH663

https://thisfreelife.betobaccofree.hhs.gov/

What segments and sub-segments do they target? From your perspective, how did they arrive at these segments? Have they done so effectively with respect to the overall “destination” of the campaign? 

The main segment targeted by “This Free Life” campaign is the LGBT community. Based on the idea of freedom in relationship to being tobacco-free and being a part of the LGBT community, sub-segments targeted are people who openly identify with this group, and influential people within the community. Furthermore, the campaign targets segment members who are cautious, concerned, or alarmed of tobacco-use according to Maibach’s 6 psychographic segments. People who are disengaged, doubtful, or dismissive of either tobacco-use or the LGBT community are not appropriately targeted by the campaign. These audience members may be better targeted by emphasizing their individual selves instead of a community, or presenting the scientific facts without having to click through links as opposed to harming looks. However, because the campaign does well in targeting community leaders, these leaders are able to be secondary sources who may, in turn, reach these disengaged sub-segments.

I believe the campaign group did a great job at segmentation, particularly in the audience research steps and analysis of certain dimensions. The first part of audience research may have allowed investigators to find out that a majority of their target segment are concerned about the damage smoking causes to their physical features and wanting to be free of the control “Big Tobacco” has had in their community for decades. In the second part of their formative audience research, it seems they may have established message sources as drag queens and other role models within the LGBT community. There also seems to have been extensive research done in the psychographic dimensions of the attitudes and beliefs important to the LGBT community and benefits they see in being tobacco free. This may have led to the emphasis of looking out for each other in the LGBT community and benefits of living freely, without unhealthy physical and emotional features. I think they have segmented their campaign effectively with considering the overall LGBT community at high-risk of tobacco-use due to previous targeting of tobacco industries using smoking as a freedom (like they did with women) and the accessibility of tobacco in their social scenes. However, the campaign’s success is also dependent on leaders and role models to be secondary sources of the message to reach LGBT audience members who are not concerned with tobacco and are outliers in the popular ideas and beliefs within this community.   

    @globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

Audience, Part Two, Analysis Activity #1, PH663

https://twitter.com/hashtag/leadthebreak

I believe Responsibility.org’s “Lead the Break” Twitter campaign is a poor example of audience segmentation for communicating their message of doing a public service for Spring Break. The Twitter feed reflects an attempt of segmentation, but only with the first phase of Kotler’s theory based on demographic profiling of the audience. College students seem to be the only segment the campaign attempts to target. However, the message is not clarified until later posts of the type of leadership activities “Lead the Break” actually refers to. Before that, audience members were posting how they spent Spring Break, even when not engaging in leadership or community roles. 

In order to have better carried out their message and campaign, more audience analysis should have been conducted. Responsibility.org could then find how audience members respond to seeing others participate in community activity of Spring Break. This would have allowed for possible further segmentation of college students, and definitely improve and clarify their message at the start of the campaign. Instead, they had to respond with clarification of what “Lead the Break” actually meant through examples of photos.

@globalcommunicationproject       

[sd619abc-blog]

Help #PublicHealth students by donating on Tuesday, October 25. Any donation matters: sdsugreatgive.org #SDSUGreatGive

[sd619abc-blog]

Please donate on 10/25 to help keep @SDSU so wonderful! #SDSUGreatGive http://www.sdsugreatgive.org/

[sd619abc-blog]

Help other students become Aztecs by donating on October 25 to #SDSUGreatGive http://www.sdsugreatgive.org/

[sd619abc-blog]

http://www.sdsugreatgive.org/

[decadentsharkhideout-blog]

Messages, Part Two, Research Activity #2, PH663

@globalcommunicationproject 

When comparing these two messages in regards to fear and response efficacy, they clearly are both meant to invoke fear in the viewer.   

The first ad is a more artistic representation of human lungs comprised of cigarettes.  It’s completely colorless except for red, which depicts the burning damage to the lungs done by the cigarette smoke.  The purpose is clearly to scare smokers are those contemplating smoking by showing lung damage caused by cigarettes, but it does not offer any helpful resources or strategies to those who may need assistance quitting.  Therefore, it likely conjures low response efficacy, and is not very effective at changing people’s smoking behaviors.

The second ad is a shocking depiction of a young boy, with the left half of his face a skull, and the right half his sweet, complete face.  The skull represents what is likely to happen if someone speeds and hits him (Death), and the right half shows what is likely if people follow the speed limit (Life). This image certainly conjures fear in the sense that no driver wants to kill a small child due to speeding; however, it has a greater response efficacy than the smoking ad.  Rather than just advertising that speed kills, it shows the benefits of following the law, and provides information to root the message that merely speeding by 10mph can cause a great deal of damage.  Following the law could save a life, and speed cameras are placed not to simply “bust” a bad driver, but to remind people to slow down for safety.  This ad is more likely to change people’s driving behavior. 

[sd619abc-blog]

You make a good point that the anti-smoking ad does not actually provide any strategies to change behavior and stop smoking. It also does not provide any activating message in the ad, but rather, that there are bad effects to smoking (which also are not even depicted in a realistic way). While it may be meant to scare viewers, I believe there is no feeling of fear induced by this ad. It is not scary to see lungs created by cigarettes. Response efficacy cannot be established if activation is not first established by some means by the ad.

I agree with you that the second ad successfully establishes fear in viewers. Initially, I thought this fear may only be felt by parents or guardians of children. However, your idea is correct- that no one wants to be the cause of a child’s death due to going over the speed limit. Therefore, this ad reaches and provokes fear in even more viewer populations that I thought. Also, the message is clearly stated in the ad that tells viewers what to do. This is really important when other ads are competing for viewers’ attention. You need to state your message clearly in the hopes that it will be received in a short amount of viewing time. While I think the ad does a better job of behavior change than the anti-smoking ad, it would still need to be repeatedly viewed, or grouped with commercials that are part of the reduced-speed campaign for it to really be effective.

@globalcommunicationproject

[decadentsharkhideout-blog]

Messages, Part Four, Research Activity #4, PH663

This advertisement below uses a shocking photograph to call awareness to binge drinking by likening it to too many facial piercings. Regarding Kotler’s 4 Ps, this one clearly strikes on Price.  There is an obvious “price” one pays for binge drinking. In relation to McGuire’s model, this ad plays off the Activate element by prompting people to consider how many drinks they are drinking at once.

The next ad below also uses shock value or scare tactics to call awareness to the issue of secondhand smoke in the home. In relation to Kotler’s model, it focuses on the Product of a smoke-free home where children are not forced to inhale dangerous smoke. The price of smoking in the home is also implied in the harm it does to innocent children who live there.  As for McGuire’s model, it may be a combination of activate and advocate: it may prompt smokers to consider changing their behavior if they smoke with children in the home (though there is no resource or advice provided for those with an addiction), and it also advocates for children who are innocent and helpless when living in a home with smokers.

@globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

I agree that the first anti-binge drinking campaign ad strikes on “Price”. However, the analogy used that paying a price on your physical body from drinking and that from piercing is going to be dependent on the perception of body piercing to the viewer. The message of knowing when to stop may be lost on audiences who are more eccentric and open to body alterations because the analogy presented will not be relatable. I think the ad fits into more criterium under McGuire’s model, because, presented to perhaps a suburban population with mid to high SES, the ad not only activates people to consider how many drinks are enough, but also advocates against binge drinking in general.

The smoke-free home ad seems to be explained much better by Kotler’s model, as you eluded. While I agree there is a sense of activating for people to stop smoking in the home, there is no message that is clearly presented to be advocated. I think Kotler’s model in terms of “Price”, “Product”, and “Place” are better utilized here. I agree with you that by presenting a child, the price is inferred as her life, and the product being promoted is a smoke-free home. I think “Place” is also tapped here as this ad would be most successful placed in channels that parents use, like Facebook for social media, and magazines.

@globalcommunicationproject 

[gradschoolsnotbadschool]

Messages, Part One, Research Activity #1, PH663

Announce: 

An example of a campaign announcing a fitness class for pregnant women. There is also a link in the advertisement the audience can use to get more information. 

Advise:

This ad is presenting factual information regarding breast feeding and the importance of the first milk- colostrum. 

Activate:

This series of ads calls for the audience to get vaccinated.  I found it interesting to put a face to those who can not get vaccinated to drive the importance of why people need to get vaccinated.  

Advocate:

Advocating for breastfeeding in public places.

Combined Objectives:

This message provides factual information to promote condom use, thus advising the audience.  It points out information targeted to young people.  Also has an aspect for activate- using condoms to prevent STDs. 

[sd619abc-blog]

I really like all of your examples. I think your pro-vaccine examples are particularly good examples of advertising used to activate their intended audience, which I presume are parents. They play on the emotion of guilt to have parents get their children vaccinated because other children are either too young or cannot risk their immune system with vaccinations (ie. leukemia). It also provides a sense of efficacy to parent-viewers because if their children are not under the circumstances depicted, they definitely can, and are lucky to get vaccinated.

The advocate example is also interesting. I think the image provides a good representation of the frustration of women having to breastfeed in bathrooms, but the message of what is being advocated is not clear. It may improve the advocacy to plainly state what the organization is pushing for at perhaps the bottom of the ad in large enough letter to read.

@globalcommunicationproject 

[darealreelreal]

Source, Part Six, Research Activity #5, PH663

In general, our obsession with celebrities as sources – especially when they stand in as experts or promoters – can be problematic. When celebrities “endorse” political candidates for instance, it can give weight or significance, without necessarily being supported through an understanding of the candidates policies. It becomes another opportunity to align with the celebrities’ identity. In the above example, Gwyneth Paltrow, was challenged by a peer chef celebrity to participate in a SNAP challenge to raise awareness for national hunger issues. Maybe the intention was the raise awareness of her wealthy peer group on what it is like for the many people who have to grocery shop and eat on a minuscule budget; or maybe it was to raise awareness for her fans. Either way she is a horrible source for this message. One because she couldn’t complete the challenge and two because she is famous for spending wild amounts of money on “fancy food”. Sources are important and while I don’t think she did any damage to the campaign, she also showed some disrespect through her flippant disregard of any real analysis as to how hard the challenge was for her and why she failed. That engagement of the challenge and issues could have transitioned her out of the realm of celebrity fads and into the realm of hunger advocate - a missed opportunity in my opinion.  

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/17/why_gwyneths_snap_challenge_bombed/

@globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

I agree with you that Gwyneth Paltrow was not the best celebrity to take on the SNAP Challenge. I’m sure there were publicity reasons and it was an attempt to downplay her ridiculously priced cleanses. However, she is rather influential in the entertainment world, and had she successfully carried out the challenge, may have set greater awareness to her peers who could afford to donate to the cause. I don’t think it was necessarily horrible that she didn’t complete the challenge because habits of pricey organic foods are hard to change once that has become the norm in your life as it has for her, but rather, that she did not follow up with an in-depth look at how such low incomes really restrict families. At least then she would seem more credible as a primary source to her peers on the issues of SNAP and food insecurity.

@globalcommunicationproject

[infinitedelusion-blog1]

Messages, Part Two, Research Activity #3, PH663

The sound called “a cymbal reversed” conveys a feeling of tension, and might best be used in a video that utilizes time reversal to portray a set of events (such as reversing a car crash).

The sound called “a fuzzy electric guitar riff in E” conveys a feeling of hope, and might best be used in a video that seeks to depict optimism in some future event or goal, like highlighting the successes of providing access to clean drinking water in rural Africa.

The sound called “a vinyl dusty effects loop” conveys, to me, feelings of stress, and might be used in moments of calm that immediately precede a traumatic or scary event, like scenes in a horror movie.

The sound called “A samba whistle playing a short 2 note rhythmic phrase” conveys a feeling of excitement, and would be suitable for a commercial advertisement fora travel company that send tourists to the Caribbean or Central and South America.

  The sound entitled “A Fender Rhodes piano ballad in G major” conveys a feeling of calm, and might be used in an instance of conflict resolution, such as at the end of a romantic comedy. 

@globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

Your analysis of “a fuzzy electric guitar riff in E” was something I had not considered. I imagined more of a decision-making event with the sound, but I do get a sense of “hope” re-listening to it. However, I think it would serve better as a sound bit in a message geared towards teens. Perhaps a combination of our ideas is if the environmental efforts in Africa were formed by teens!

I really like the “Fender Rhodes piano ballad in G major” sound. I agree that it gives a feeling of “calm”, and would add that I feel a little love in there. In addition to being a good sound for the end of a romantic comedy, I think it could also be placed in an ad for some type of birth control, targeting women in relationships who can relate or aspire to a feeling of love.

@globalcommunicationproject

[infinitedelusion-blog1]

Messages, Part Two, Research Activity #2, PH663

Fear based and response efficacy-related content definitely has its place in health communication. Though the message being conveyed and the audience on the receiving end of the communication will determine the effect the campaigns degree of effectiveness. Both the anti-smoking image and the department of transportation tweet (sorry I used this image as part of research assignment #1!!!!) evoke strong emotions among audience members. From my perspective, the image of a set of lungs made entirely out of cigarettes is disgusting, and definitely reinforces the view that smoking is harmful to my health. But I don’t feel “fear” from looking at that image. I’m perhaps disturbed by the image, but not fearful of it. Even more importantly, I don’t feel motivated to change my behavior after seeing the image. If the goal of the campaign was to keep me from smoking, I guess it might be able to claim success, because I don’t ever plan on smoking. But I had already determined to pursue this activity (or lack of activity) before seeing the image. So how successful can the campaign claim to be? In addition, we are constantly being bombarded by anti-smoking campaigns. All of the images of blackened lungs and people who have suffered negative health effects from smoking have practically numbed me to the idea of smoking and anti-smoking campaigns, to the point where I don’t even notice them anymore. I don’t know that it is necessarily good for anti-smoking campaigns to have audience members ignore their messages and advertisements. And if anti-smoking campaigns are targeting current smokers with these messages, they should re-evaluate their strategy. Tobacco is highly addictive, and it’s going to take a lot more than an image of blackened lungs and a few statistics to get these individuals pay attention to the advertisements, let alone actually quit smoking.  

In comparison, the image used by the department of transportation is much more effective in creating awareness of a safety issue and prompting me to change my behavior. Unlike with the ant-smoking image, I am not used to seeing campaign images for safer driving, so from that point, this advertisement/tweet is much more attention grabbing. The image doesn’t necessarily evoke emotions of fear, but the image is definitely jarring. As I said in the previous activity, juxtaposing the image of a skull, which signifies death, to an image of a child, symbolizing life, is definitely thought provoking. It’s hard to find an individual today who doesn’t drive a personal vehicle. But even more difficult is finding an individual who hasn’t, at least once in their lives, practiced unsafe driving techniques like speeding. Whereas not everyone smokes cigarettes, every drives or has been a passenger in a vehicle at some point or another. If anything, this image prompts people to take a moment to evaluate their driving habits. Not everyone has to worry about blackened lungs, but everyone has to worry about the safety of young  children on the roads.

@globalcommunicationproject 

[sd619abc-blog]

I think you make a good point that the anti-smoking image is not activating enough using fear, or any emotion, to stop the behavior of smoking. While it may keep non-smokers from starting, that would already be in place prior to seeing this advertisement. I agree that a more offective strategy must be conceived by anti-smoking campaigns because smoking continues to be a public health issue, even after decades of exposure to the “smoker’s lung” images. However, I believe ads like this are important to keep as a component of updated campaigns to continue providing disturbing imagery related to smoking and normalize the idea of not smoking with their redundancy.

I agree that the reduce speed advertisement is much more successful in grabbing attention through the split image of a child and skull. You make a good point about the fact that this advertisement is partly more effective than the anti-smoking ad because almost everyone can relate to driving or being a passenger. However, I also think that is largely due to where this ad is placed and its target audience. Since it was presented through the social medial channel of Twitter, the audience is definitely more likely to be middle or high income populations with the time and money to go through Twitter on their Smartphone. This ad may not do well in low SES areas that rely heavily on public transportation. Also, within that population of mid-high SES viewers, I believe this would definitely evoke fear in parents. However, Facebook may be a better channel to reach people older than 40 based on social media user stats.

@globalcommunicationproject

[bigredxoxo-blog1]

Source, Part Six, Analysis Activity #2, PH 663

The “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV” commercial is a cough medication advertisement sponsored by Vicks. The primary source is Peter Bergman, the actor who plays the doctor on General Hospital. He is the one actually presenting the information to the consumers. The peripheral source is the advertiser, Vicks. This is displaed through the advertisements on the bottles, the voiceovers, as well as the logo at the end of the commercial. Vicks is advertising its cough medications: Vicks 44, Vicks 44D, Vicks44M. So in the case of this advertisement, Vicks is an express source. They are the peripheral source, as well as the message of the advertisement. The message of the advertisement is explicitly stated that Vicks 44 is an effective medication for coughs and other related symptoms when adults are sick. The implied message is that Vicks 44 is the best medication for coughs. Clearly, Peter does not have the expertise to back up his claims about medications. But his celebrity status implies that he is relatable, and consumers should listen to him.

@globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

I like your ability to clearly distinguish the different types of sources found in this Vick’s commercial as it was something I had some trouble differentiating at first. Peter Bergman is used as the primary source as he seems to be delivering the message to viewers as the representative figure of good health, and as you pointed out, because he is recognizable as a TV star. I agree that the implied message may include that their formula is the best for coughs, like the actress had in the commercial. However, I think another component to their implied message was that it’s OK for adults to treat their sicknesses at home and “play doctor”. The features of the commercial seem to give off the idea that adults are too busy caring for their children who have pediatrician-prescribed medication to see a doctor themselves when sick. This is probably not the best public health message if symptoms progress.

@globalcommunicationproject   

[darealreelreal]

Source, Part Five, Analysis Activity #1, PH663

The Super Bowl ad campaign “Give a Damn” featuring Helen Mirren seems like an interesting choice as a source. The Super Bowl is mostly viewed by American men. I’m not sure how credible they would find her as a source. She is a royal-esqu wealthy, British woman who comes off in this ad as intentionally condescending. She is equal parts scolding and talking these men up in her attempt to dissuade them from driving drunk. I’m not sure the angel here – to appeal to their sense of an older woman telling them to behave or to appeal to their respect for an upper class British woman? 

Surely having awareness campaigns discouraging drinking and driving is important but this one might be better placed in a UK showing of Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock. I like Helen Mirren and think she is a badass – I’m just not sure she is the best source in terms of relate-ability, peer identification, or expert information for this audience. She only appeals as a celebrity – and though she is respected as such – she might not carry any weight with this group.  

@globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

I agree with your questioning of Helen Mirren as an appropriate source for the “Give a Damn” Superbowl ad. You make a good point that American men, the majority audience of superbowls, may have trouble receiving the anti-drinking and driving message because of a lack of peer identification. Your hypotheses about why she was even used as a source are really interesting. I had not even considered the psychological hold the producers may have intended with having an older woman put them in their place- like their mothers or other women in their lives may tend to do.

Another reason they may have used her as a source to to cover all audience groups of the Superbowl. Women are slowly comprising larger proportions of the audience. Whereas typical commercials during this game are targeting that male-dominant population, this may get the message across to females and other groups who do not identify so well with the “Macho Man” vibe found in other Superbowl commercials.

@globalcommunicationproject

[runninthru663withmywoes]

Source, Part Three, Research Activity #3, PH 663

Buzzfeed is both a news and entertainment website that has recently taken over social media. The website not only keeps close tabs on The Kardashians and provides self-care in the form of frequent puppy posts, but it is also frequently utilized as a primary news source for many Millennials. Buzzfeed has shifted from a website where you could complete quizzes and read random articles about pop culture to a fairly reliable news source. In 2016, Buzzfeed covered various “serious” and relevant topics such as Standford’s Brock Turner case and the 2016 election. Buzzfeed is often criticized as being too liberal or one-sided in political issues as well as not being credible due to who can post certain aritcles. Buzzfeed’s platform allows just about anyone to post articles on any topic, which can compromise their credibility. Buzzfeed has also been criticized for using copyrighted content and posting inaccurate information. In 2016, Buzzfeed followed and reported every single “Breaking News” even that I remember following. Although I definitely utilized several other sources to get my information, I always read Buzzfeed’s posts on them as well. I think Buzzfeed has to work towards distinguishing their News section far, far, far away from the other topics/posts that are related to their website in order to be looked as more credible. I think Buzzfeed has a lot of potential because their reporting format is very engaging and easy to understand.

@globalcommunicationproject

[sd619abc-blog]

I also enjoy Buzzfeed as  news source. However, I realized, like you pointed out, that I find their stories most often while scrolling through Facebook, and also when “Google’ing” a current event. You make a good point that their content is engaging and easy to understand. This is important for a news source to attract attention from populations who may not keep up with news regularly. Another major strength is the ease there is in sharing their stories with friends or on your own social media page. This technological adaptability is something many other news sources need to develop and master like Buzzfeed has.  However, the fact that Buzzfeed is directed at Millennials does tend to drive the story topics toward those about controversy and distrust in institutions, and gear the tone towards the left. This leaves readers more likely to lean left in their ideas about a news-worthy incident, instead of just providing them facts to establish their own opinion. Still, there is great potential in this news source if the company is able to establish some standards for content.

@globalcommunicationproject