Module 3 went by quickly, especially since we only really spent one day in class on it, but the content was memorable. How a message is framed is so important. It helps, of course, to know what audience to target and what beliefs/behaviors should change but that's only half the battle in getting a message out to that group that will affect change.
Since I presented on humor, that sticks out most in my mind. My gut told me that fear appeals would be less effective, but it makes sense that they would be more appropriate when targeting screening behavior. We may end up using something like that for our project since one of our target behaviors is STI screening. Bottom line is that all messages need to be tested. That seems to be the case all-around, independent of the chosen method.
The idea that branding should be used in public health campaigns was unfamiliar to me, but now strikes me as brilliant. I remember seeing the Truth ads years ago and wondering who was paying for them as there seemed to be no product... and too interesting and clever to be PSAs. The fact that 5 A Day turned into Fruits & Veggies-More Matters hit home the idea that branding needs to be well thought out so as to be generic enough to be long-lasting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your observations are right on with mine. Every time we get introduced to a new type of message appeal, I feel like it would work best with our target audience and target behavior. i think you are right on when you say, it must be tested first. We really will not know if its a good idea til we try it and get some feedback.
ReplyDeleteGreat presentation!!!