Okay, kids, we're going to talk about breast feeding versus bottle feeding again in framing class today, so no giggling (you know who you are).
I was looking over someone's shoulder on the Metro today and reading an article titled "HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads", which reads like a continuation of the administration's meddling in public health:
According to the article, the formula industry didn't block the ads "but helped shape their content." Um, huh? Isn't there a slight conflict of interest here? I'd say that this would be like the candy industry giving input on diabetes prevention, but baby formula isn't harmful- it's just slightly less beneficial than the real thing. As for "shaping" the content:
I think it's obvious why this pissed me off. I was all ready to slam the ad changes themselves, from a framing standpoint, until I went back and looked at gain/loss framing theory, which basically says that loss-framed messages ("If you don't do this your child will get sick") work best for screening behaviors, but if you want people to take preventatives steps, gain messages work better ("If you do this, your child will stay healthy"). Breast feeding is a preventative measure, so positive messages make sense, and the new ads should have worked better, right? But apparently they were entirely ineffective: "The milder campaign HHS eventually used had no discernible impact on the nation's breast-feeding rate, which lags behind the rate in many European countries."
The more I look at the revised ad, the cleverer it gets. But it's so subtle, no wonder it didn't work. If I were paging through a magazine, even a parenting magazine, I would have glossed right over it, thinking it could be an ad for fabric softner or something.
I was looking over someone's shoulder on the Metro today and reading an article titled "HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads", which reads like a continuation of the administration's meddling in public health:
In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.
-snip-
The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity.
According to the article, the formula industry didn't block the ads "but helped shape their content." Um, huh? Isn't there a slight conflict of interest here? I'd say that this would be like the candy industry giving input on diabetes prevention, but baby formula isn't harmful- it's just slightly less beneficial than the real thing. As for "shaping" the content:
But the campaign HHS used did not simply drop the disputed statistics in the draft ads. The initial idea was to startle women with images starkly warning that babies could become ill. Instead, the final ads cited how breast-feeding benefits babies -- an approach that the ad company hired by HHS had advised would be ineffective. The department also pulled back on several related promotional efforts.
I think it's obvious why this pissed me off. I was all ready to slam the ad changes themselves, from a framing standpoint, until I went back and looked at gain/loss framing theory, which basically says that loss-framed messages ("If you don't do this your child will get sick") work best for screening behaviors, but if you want people to take preventatives steps, gain messages work better ("If you do this, your child will stay healthy"). Breast feeding is a preventative measure, so positive messages make sense, and the new ads should have worked better, right? But apparently they were entirely ineffective: "The milder campaign HHS eventually used had no discernible impact on the nation's breast-feeding rate, which lags behind the rate in many European countries."
The more I look at the revised ad, the cleverer it gets. But it's so subtle, no wonder it didn't work. If I were paging through a magazine, even a parenting magazine, I would have glossed right over it, thinking it could be an ad for fabric softner or something.
Comments