truth® campaign

New Age Products Pvt Ltd.

Vintage Smoking Advertisements
 Post War History of Anti Smoking
 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”
 Florida Truth Campaign

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%
 truth® campaign

 Launched in 2000 by the

American Legacy
Foundation (Legacy)
 1st year had a budget of
more than $100 million
 Core Strategy of the truth®
campaign

 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
In comparison to Philip Morris ads

 …“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).
 truth® Campaign

 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)
 Telephone surveys

 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
 Media Evaluations
Measure 4 key process and outcome dimensions

 Exposure and recall

 Message reactions and receptivity
 Behavioral determinants (knowledge, attitudes, and
beliefs)
 Behavioral outcomes

(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 teens
Highlight tobacco industry’s failure to
highlight addictiveness and health
effects

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

 Media Evaluations
Process evaluations Outcome evaluations

Assess if the teens heard Determine effects on

the Truth Campaign health behavior

Were children less

Did children react
likely to smoke?
favorably

Creates Formative Feedback

 Three Main Objectives

 Expose youth to truth® messages and promote

positive reactions to these messages
 Change attitudes and beliefs towards tobacco use
 Reduce tobacco use among youth
 Media Evaluation

 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
 Why Need to Evaluate?

 For Immediate Formative Feedback to enhance the

campaign efforts
 Process and Outcome data must happen
simultaneously
 Looking at 4 key areas:
1. Exposure & recall
2. Message reactions & receptivity
3. Behavioral determinants
4. Behavioral outcomes
 Challenges in Evaluation

 Relationship between evaluators, advertisers, and

marketers
 Evaluation design and measurement
 Environmental factors external to campaign
 Difficulty to isolate and assess effects of Truth
 3 Primary Objectives of truth®

1) Expose youth to Truth & get positive reactions

2) Change attitudes & beliefs towards tobacco use &
companies
3) Reduce tobacco use among youth
 Types of Evaluations Used

 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)
 More Challenges

 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
Pre- truth® vs. During truth®
% Change from Baseline to 10-Month
Surveys
Findings

 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®
”
 Did the truth® reach its
Objectives?
OBJECTIVE 1 YES!
Expose youth to truth® and get
positive reactions
- Exposure and Recall
- Message Reactions and Receptivity
- 75% of 12-17yr old survey respondents recalled the ads
Did the truth® reach its Objectives?
OBJECTIVE 2 YES!
Change Attitudes and Beliefs Toward
tobacco use AND tobacco companies
- Behavioral Determinants
- Significant changes in knowledge, attitudes and beliefs related to
truth® messages
Did the truth® reach its Objectives?

OBJECTIVE 3 YES!?
Reduce tobacco use among youth
- Behavioral outcomes
- How can these be attributed to the truth® campaign?
 Decline in Adolescent Smoking Attributable to truth®

28.0%
30% 26.8%
25.3%
25% 23.7%
22.6% 22.0%
20.3% 19.6%
20% 18.0%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

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
 Conclusions
 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
 Group Reflections

 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.
Anti Smoking Ads
Anti Smoking Ad Survey