Just in time for the labor day weekend, New York City's Health Department unveiled its latest public health campaign earlier this week: a series of in-your-face ads warning New Yorkers of the health perils of drinking too much soda and other sugary beverages. (See ad, above.)
This seems like a no brainer to me. Ever notice how in other countries, where obesity rates are much lower, Coke and Pepsi bottles (not to mention bottles of juice, Orangina, and sports drinks) come in comparatively petite sizes for roughly the same price?
But this morning, as I surveyed the comments over at the New York Times' City Room blog, I see that my approving reaction is not a common one. (Or at least, if it is, it's not being shared on the comments section of Sewell Chan's story.)
The critiques range from the aesthetic ("For the life of me, I couldn’t tell that it was human fat, pouring out of that bottle...It took them three years and over a quarter-of-a-million dollars to come up with this? Sigh.") to the anti-authoritarian ("I look forward to a day when the NYC public health department will remind me to wipe my own bum and chew with my mouth closed, don’t take out the second mortgage, and look both ways before I cross the street.").
If you read all 70 comments, a theme emerges: New Yorkers don't like being told what to do. (Surprise, surprise.) And furthermore, they don't think this 3-month public health campaign will change peoples' habits. One post-er, who calls himself "Consumer Scientist" wrote:
I found this enlightening, having never studied what types of advertising "works" when it comes to public health issues. (Yet I do know from living through the pro-active public health years of the Thomas Friedan/Bloomberg team in NYC that a combination of taxing and banning substances that cause chronic illness is an effective two-pronged approach. Frieden's antismoking efforts decreased the number of smokers in the Big Apple by 350,000 and cut teen smoking in half.)
I have no doubt that that the $277,000 spent on the ad campaigns (a third of which comes from a private donor, btw) could've been spent on more tangible things—to help install "edible schoolyards" at struggling public schools or to help pay for gym teachers and new equipment at schools that are forced by budget cuts to reduce P.E. programs. Obesity is not caused by mainlining soda alone.
Ultimately, though, I agree with "PG," who writes:
I applaud the ads. I know they are just one step in what will be a very long process to change American eating habits.
Let’s not forget, the soda industry has been pasting their ads, quite effectively, on our public spaces for years. They worked. And we need to undo the damage.
What do you think of the ad campaign?
I don’t know who moderated and interpreted the focus groups behind this but, as a senior researcher with over 30 years of conducting qualitative research supporting all kinds of public health campaigns, I know that the “billy club” approach to issues advertising has almost no effect. I’ve been involved in campaigns promoting condom use, vaccinations, cholesterol control and glucose management. In each case, we learned that a softer and more sympathetic approach wins hearts and minds.
These jarring ads may be satisfying for advocates who want to “stick it in the face” of their targets but average consumers tend to react with offense and resentment. Mostly, they dismiss the message as “just not about me.” It’s really a waste of public resources to indulge in campaigns that will have so little impact.
Consumers tend to talk back and argue with ads that are meant to batter them. Even though I tend to avoid sugared drinks, I started thinking, “If they replace Coke with milk, given the high incidence of lactose intolerance in New York, no one will be able to travel by subway any longer.”