truth® campaign

Mike KendallCatherine Montoya

James MontoyaCarmelita ParrazJohn Sampson

Natalie Skogerboe

Vintage Smoking Advertisements

1964 Surgeon General Report Focus on the link between smoking and lung

cancer 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act

Required Surgeon General Warning label printed on cigarette packs

1967 – 70 Fairness Doctrine Act Required TV Networks to balance anti and pro

smoking ads 1984 Comprehensive Tobacco Education Act (Public

Law 98-474) Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health

1989 National Cancer Institute Use activists to impact public opinion on smoking CDC booklet entitled “Tips for Kids” stated

smokers were second class citizens 1994 Clinton takes on “kids smoking”

Post War History of Anti Smoking

truth® campaign was based on the Florida Truth campaign, which reduced youth smoking rates

In 1998 Florida Department of Health launched a tobacco prevention program that featured a mass media campaign known as “truth” ( Farrelly et al, 2005).

Florida Truth Campaign

A telephone survey of youths demonstrated that attitudes toward tobacco changed amongst Florida youth compared with youths in the rest of the United States after the first year.

Florida Youth Tobacco Survey 18% and 8% among middle-school and high-

school students after year one After year two 40% and 18%

Florida Truth Campaign

truth® campaign

Launched in 2000 by the American Legacy Foundation (Legacy)

1st year had a budget of more than $100 million

Market its message as a brand, like other youth brands (e.g., Nike, Sprite) Truth TV and print commercials feature what

experts call “edgy” youths, promotional items, street marketing, and a Web site (www.thetruth.com)(Farrelly, 2002).

Deliver stark facts about tobacco and tobacco industry marketing practices

Core Strategy of the truth® campaign

…“You won’t see statistics about the toll of tobacco,” Farrelly.

Emphasizing the long-term consequences of smoking is not as effective as addressing the more immediate problems, said Howard Willard, senior vice

president of youth smoking at Philip Morris (Grand Rapids Press, 2002).

In comparison to Philip Morris ads

Only national youth smoking prevention program in the U.S. not sponsored by the tobacco industry (Holden, D. & Zimmerman, M., 2009, p. 124)

Advertising spots in major metropolitan demographic market areas (DMAs)

truth® Campaign

In December 1999, Legacy Media Tracking Survey (LMTS) fielded - primary evaluation tool 2000-2003

In 2000, LMTS targeted specific racial and ethnic groups, 12-17 year olds

Continuous tracking-benefited media contractors, creative directors, and other stakeholders

2nd wave of LMTS 10 months after launch of Truth found 75% exposure

Telephone surveys

Exposure and recall Message reactions and receptivity Behavioral determinants (knowledge, attitudes,

and beliefs) Behavioral outcomes

Media EvaluationsMeasure 4 key process and outcome dimensions

(Holden, D. & Zimmerman, M., 2009, p. 125)

3 critical elements for successful youth tobacco prevention media

Teen focused “counter-marketing”Talk to teens on their level, i.e. do not talk down to teensHighlight tobacco industry’s failure to highlight addictiveness and health effects

(Columbia Marketing Panel, 1996; McKenna, Gutierrez, & McCall, 2000)

Process evaluations

Media Evaluations

Outcome evaluations

Assess if the teens heard the Truth Campaign

Determine effects on health behavior

Did children react favorably

Were children less likely to smoke?

Creates Formative Feedback

Expose youth to truth® messages and promote positive reactions to these messages

Change attitudes and beliefs towards tobacco use

Reduce tobacco use among youth

Three Main Objectives

Overall looking at marketing campaigns To promote or change consumer behavior

Health communication Affect consumer health behavior

Social Marketing Incorporating business and social objectives Influence social behavior To benefit target market & society as whole E.g. CDC or American Cancer Society

Media Evaluation

For Immediate Formative Feedback to enhance the campaign efforts

Process and Outcome data must happen simultaneously

Looking at 4 key areas:1. Exposure & recall2. Message reactions & receptivity3. Behavioral determinants4. Behavioral outcomes

Why Need to Evaluate?

Relationship between evaluators, advertisers, and marketers

Evaluation design and measurement Environmental factors external to campaign Difficulty to isolate and assess effects of

Truth

Challenges in Evaluation

1) Expose youth to Truth & get positive reactions

2) Change attitudes & beliefs towards tobacco use & companies

3) Reduce tobacco use among youth

3 Primary Objectives of truth®

For Objectives 1 & 2 (telephone): LMTS (Legacy Media Tracking Survey)

For Objective 3 (in-school survey): ELM (Elaborate Likelihood Model) NYTS (National Youth Tobacco Survey) MTF (Monitoring the Future)

Types of Evaluations Used

No control or comparison market - implemented nationally rather quickly Therefore rely on quasi experimental

comparison (dose of Truth) Many states built own campaigns Tobacco control in prices & taxes Philip Morris campaign - tobacco industry Evolving campaign & multiple stakeholders

More Challenges

Pre- truth® vs. During truth®

% Change from Baseline to 10-Month Surveys

Tobacco more prominent in minds of youth

“truth®” campaign resonates more with youth than “Think. Don’t Smoke.” even though that campaign aired more than 12 months prior to “truth® ”

Findings

Did the truth® reach its Objectives?

OBJECTIVE 1Expose youth to truth® and get positive reactions

- Exposure and Recall- Message Reactions and Receptivity- 75% of 12-17yr old survey respondents recalled the ads

YES!

Did the truth® reach its Objectives?

OBJECTIVE 2Change Attitudes and Beliefs

Toward tobacco use AND tobacco companies

- Behavioral Determinants- Significant changes in knowledge, attitudes and beliefs

related to truth® messages

YES!

Did the truth® reach its Objectives?

OBJECTIVE 3Reduce tobacco use among

youth- Behavioral outcomes- How can these be attributed to the truth® campaign?

YES!?

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%28.0%

26.8% 25.3%22.6%

20.3%18.0%

23.7%22.0%

19.6%

Decline in Adolescent Smoking Attributable to truth®

Trend in actual smoking Predicted trend if truth® did not exist

SOURCE: Figure 6.2 in Holden & Zimmerman (2009) A Practical Guide to Program Evaluation Planning

Evaluators were able to survey a large number of youth because of the high levels of exposure to the campaign No opportunity for experimental control

Campaign messages and evaluation tools changed over time Could impact time series Requires decisions along the way as to which

variables should stay and go Evaluators came up with creative ways to analyze

dose-response relationships

Conclusions

More discussion around what populations were of primary concern (i.e. geographic locations or ethnic groups with higher prevalence rates etc.)

Also, how the messages were adapted to address those populations

Cost savings resulting from the reductions in youth smoking

Truth ads should expand its target groups to include: existing smokers, age groups (18-24), and youth who reside in non-urban locations.

Group Reflections

Anti Smoking Ads

Anti Smoking Ad Survey