tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5321549196231054256.post4401518827075783003..comments2023-10-03T04:34:29.806-07:00Comments on AER Head: Smoke gets in your eyes. And so does lardy cheese-pea arteries.AER Headhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780881234509633540noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5321549196231054256.post-47091811050785402392010-04-22T19:23:15.871-07:002010-04-22T19:23:15.871-07:00Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your opinions, they'r...Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your opinions, they're welcome here.<br /><br />I agree that the ad is offensive, and creates some sort of association which may be important.<br /><br />However, I am not clear that it does anything more than be offensive to EVERYONE, rather than focusing on the two audiences (smokers and 'nearly-smokers') you have highlighted.<br /><br />Do you really think those two audiences are alike? And, thinking briefly about age, status and demographics, do you think their behaviour and choices can be influenced by using the same approach?<br /><br />I think you'll agree that the answer to both these questions is no.<br /><br />Take age. 'Nearly-smokers' will likely be under 18 and hugely influenced by their peer group. They'll take up smoking knowing the risks, but eased by the certain knowledge that they'll quit before they get old and ill like the people in the ad.<br /><br />So the ad won't influence their choice.<br /><br />And, for the smoking audience, I don't think it's particularly effective at changing the decision-forming beliefs of a smoking audience for whom you need to continually up the level of shock.AER Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780881234509633540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5321549196231054256.post-74357345286303159822010-04-22T17:56:58.939-07:002010-04-22T17:56:58.939-07:00Hi - I work at the Cancer Institute, but not in th...Hi - I work at the Cancer Institute, but not in the area that runs these campaigns, so am not the expert and can't comment on any of the choices made along the way. <br /><br />But I think the campaign is as much about preventing people from starting smoking in the first place as encouraging addicts to quit. It is really far more effective in reducing the health impacts if people don't get addicted first. <br /><br />I agree it is gross and offensive, but that is the point isn't it? If the prevailing community attitude to smoking is reinforced as one of revulsion, and that reduces the number of people who take it up, then that's arguably a good thing. <br /><br />Just another point of view - personally I'm not sure if it's a good approach to encouraging quitting, but I think it does at least discourage positive attitudes toward smoking(remember it wasn't that long ago when it was still OK to light up at work and in restaurants).<br /><br />If interested, you can find some of the studies done around these campaigns here: http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/cancer_inst/publications/index.html#cancerpreventionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com