Stop Smoking Campaigns: Fear, Guilt and Shock

Shock tactics, and fear and guilt appeals, are not limited to just the charity and non-profit sector.  When researching campaigns for my last post, it became apparent that stop smoking campaigns commonly use them too.

By focusing my dissertation on one particular subject area, this could allow me to conduct more specific research and apply stronger arguments.

The NHS use children in their campaigns

Social marketing campaigns use these, and various other communication techniques, in order to persuade audiences to change for the greater good. Persuading people to give up smoking is nothing new and so could provide interesting study when looking at the variation and development of past and previous campaigns. What exactly then are the most successful forms of communication? Is it being attention grabbing with shock tactics, enabling an emotional connection, or being creative and eye-catching instead?

Although it is obvious to many audiences, regardless if they smoke or not, that the benefits of quitting far outweigh the perceived costs, an addiction can make it seem impossible to give up. By researching the communication strategies and tactics, and also by looking further at persuasion theories, studying such campaigns could provide insightful discussions regarding how and why organisations aim to change audience  habits. Are organisations bordering on being propagandistic and manipulative when trying to change stakeholder opinions or behaviour for the better?

"Smoking is to be a slave to tobacco"

I have first-hand experience of when creating a sense of fear has proved successful in stopping me from smoking. If the images of black lungs and throat cancer on the packs of tobacco and cigarettes are not persuasive enough, then there are numerous examples of campaigns we can consider, such as The British Heart Foundation’s 2003 ‘Cigarettes and Arteries’, that create shock and fear.

But do gruesome images like these run the risk of audiences turning their heads or are they crucial in making the impact needed to stop people from lighting up?

Consider also the pictured  Les Droits des Non-fumeurs (The Rights of Non-smokers) campaign poster for shock factor. Is this sexual reference going too far when it comes to creating shocking imagery and negative connotations? Is it counter-productive? 

Guilt appeals, I have found, are especially relevant when it comes to stop smoking campaigns and children are frequently used when directing campaigns at adults and parents. The various NHS Smokefree campaigns include some excellent examples of when children are used to create a sense of guilt. But is this unfair blackmail, or is making people feel guilty the ‘right’ way to go in order to prevent smoking?

Real appeals from children to their parents

Creating shock, fear, and guilt are tactics that are frequently used and so it could be that their impact is limited and, as previously discussed, audiences have become 'immune' to them. This dissertation could study not only their relevance and effectiveness, but look overall at how motivational campaigns, such as 'Stoptober', provide positive results instead, concluding with future recommendations and determining which strategy is most effective.

What preventative campaigns are there in place to prevent adolescents from starting smoking? Should the focus be on them to stop another generation from smoking when the habit of adults is often extremely hard to break and, arguably, the damage is already done?

With this in mind, this dissertation could focus on the tactics behind social marketing, audience reception, and explore which social platforms are best when it comes to persuading people to quit smoking. The study could also lead onto how the subject of addiction is approached as it can often be a challenging behaviour to change. Overall, is it better to have a hard-hitting campaign or one that motivates audiences with positivity?