Since early 2008, tobacco products sold in New Zealand have required to have graphic health warnings included in the packaging.
There are a range of images that are used as warnings. I’m interested at the process that was used in choosing these images, and how effective they are at helping smokers understand the risks of smoking, and ultimately quit smoking.
Warning: Potentially disturbing images after the jump…
Internal organ disease
Some images show internal organs affected by lung cancer, heart disease and stroke:
While these are common diseases caused by smoking I wonder how effective are these images?. They have a strong ‘gross’ factor, but because they are showing internal organs that most people will be unfamiliar with, how effective are they at helping the average layperson understand the risks they are taking with smoking?
Externally visible disease
Something easier to comprehend would be warnings that focus on externally visible disease, and some of the warnings do show the visible effects of gangrene and mouth cancer:
But these images showing such extreme stages of disease – how credible are they? I image that it would be hard for a young, relatively healthy smoker personally relate to these warnings because they are such a strong contrast to an average young smoker. And how many people actually know of someone who has had gangrene as a result of smoking?
If smokers can’t relate to these warnings then they will have failed because it allows smoking to continue to be perceived as an abstract risk rather than an actual risk.
Social fears
Heading in a better direction are two warnings that focus on social fears or bad breath, and impotence.
But again, the images used either abstract:
or demonstrate an edge case that is difficult to associate to:
The alternative?
Instead of focusing on long-term chronic or fatal results of smoking (which young smokers may have difficultly identifying with) I wonder if focusing on more superficial consequences like wrinkles would have a greater impact?
There have been plenty of studies on identical twins that show the cosmetic consequences of smoking. Perhaps graphic warnings that focused on this would be more tangible.
Finally instead of statements like “Smoking can make you impotent” perhaps more persuasive copy would help people relate and give the warning better credibility.
There are so many best practices that we have in marketing, it’s important that we apply these to problems in public health just as passionately as we do for ecommerce.
Links:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_perception
- http://www.moh.govt.nz/tobacco
Tags: Design For Change, Health
Hi Matt. Interesting observations.
Apparently, these campaigns help to market the killer product.
The topic of cigarette warning labels is exploded in marketing guru Martin Lindstrom’s latest book ‘Buyology’ when he explains the results of neuromarketing research studies.
The studies use medical imaging equipment to examine which parts of our brains respond to what sort of stimulus, and in what way. Some interesting insights into our subconscious decision making.
The gist of the findings is that graphic warnings actually stimulate the craving to smoke.
“cigarette warning labels not only failed to deter smoking but by activating a part of the brain associated with craving actually encouraged smokers to light up”
Scary stuff.
http://www.martinlindstrom.com/index.php/cmsid__buyology_archive
Hi Nick, thanks for pointing that book out, I’ll keep that one in mind.
That is scary stuff – it might seem counterintuitive that the images actually cause cravings, but I can relate to that because I had the strongest urges to eat McDonalds after watching Fast Food Nation (and I did the next day for the first time in years).
I guess there’s some truth in the saying that any publicity is good publicity!
I also remember reading that some youth were taking the warnings ironically, (or maybe as badges of honor), does that sound familiar to anyone?
Thanks to Nick for another interesting link:
Pentagram Rebrands Cigarettes, to Make Deadliness a Virtue which looks at how even with new stronger regulations for warnings for cigarette packaging it still might not help, because by showing how dangerous cigarettes are “Wouldn’t the approach just make cigarettes cooler?”.
It’s got me thinking about another approach that might be worth trying, which could be to utilise social proof to help people quit. So instead of advertising the dangers of smoking, remind people that every day, week, or hour that people are calling Quitline, and making the choice to quit smoking.
People are highly influenced by other peoples behaviours, it would be interesting to see if this would work. It could be tested perhaps by split testing the types of warnings that are used – alternating between a danger set, and a social proof set of messages each year.
For something as important as this, the Government should really commit to making continuous improvements, rather than just passing one act and considering their duty done.