PRESERVE ME FROM CAMPAIGNS AND AWARENESS DAYS

I have long been ambivalent about international or national days given to raising awareness, be they be focussed on or about older adults, LGBTQ+, racism, human rights, (dis)Ability, mental health and a host of other causes. That is not to say I am against a focus on all these issues - if that be the right word- but I wonder just how effective they are post the Day! 

Many years ago I was involved with a number of national age and ageing focussed charities together with civic sectors (local and central government) - some might argue industry- still am- alongside the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in developing our response to the United Nations Older Peoples Day ( 1st October each year). The debate we had was about how best to portray people over 50 years of age in terms of celebration and/or the issues and challenges facing this particular demographic. We decided to focus on celebration and positive active ageing ( whatever that means), accompanied by illustrations of older adults "doing wonderful" things whilst reflecting, as some would argue as an afterthought on those living in poverty, long-term debilitating health conditions, poor housing etc.

 

Were we successful? Did we influence and change attitudes and challenge the myths and the stereotyping of older adults? Did we strike the balance we sought? I would argue, not at all. 

In the two-part blog, I published recently.  I drew attention to Shereen Daniels's book which sought to dismantle systemic racism in the workplace.). I reflected on my belief that slogans, many campaigns, awareness-raising initiatives and the like are more often than not, simply publicity stunts of the organisations engaged in a particular issue or cause. The blog I referred to, explored Daniels's challenges and insights in the context of the Co-operative Sector and in discussing with a colleague he forwarded a link to the 2017 article written by two academic journalists headed "Stop Raising Awareness Already" 

Fundamentally Ann Christiano and Annie Neimand argue that too many campaigns and awareness-raising initiatives including Special Days may have the laudable aim of communicating their message to a wider audience as possible. Frequently they fail to understand the risks. They build their publicity or events and slogans on false assumptions and presumptions of both their target audience and their messaging. Sometimes this includes the very people on whom their cause is focused.  

The authors believe "that people who are simply given information are unlikely to change their beliefs or behaviour"  and what needs to occur is moving beyond just raising awareness. The goal(s) of a campaign or even Day is " to get people to change how they feel, think, or act and create long-lasting change." For me, 24 hours, or even a week or a month of awareness raising just doesn't cut it. Nor does securing some TV celebrity off a popular soap or inane reality show ( select your own - I make no further comment) or God forbid, a waning or discredited celebrity or public figure who tailgates on a particular cause to increase or rehabilitate their public image or reputation! Too many organisations and so-called "worthy causes" see the Day as a means of simply increasing donations. 

SO HOW DO CAMPAIGNS FAIL?

Returning to Christiano and Neimand they rightly make the point that awareness-raising can " be a critical step in creating an environment where change is possible" and can on occasion influence national political attention to an issue citing Black Lives Matter or Transgender Rights. I am reminded that campaigning playwrights or documentaries can have a powerful impact - for good or ill. The seminal "Cathy Come Home"  and homelessness spring to mind. However, the authors argue that awareness has to be linked to strategically explore " a larger effort to drive social change." In this regard they are uncompromising and evidence base that not only can campaigns ( and here I would add Days) fall short and waste resources when only about raising awareness but "actually do more harm than good"

Before exploring the risks I return to the issue of false assumptions and damaging presumptions that stereotype individuals and communities. No more is that prevalent than in the fields of, for example, refugees, Aid, compassionate ageism, social care, race and ethnicity, LGBT+,  loneliness, safeguarding, community development, and climate change. How we think about these and much else will determine our responses, the language and narrative we use, the images marketed and our messaging. The harm is done to individuals, communities, and even countries is incalculable. Undoubtedly some of this will be unconscious, even at a corporate level, and hence the need to at least become conscious of personal and political bias reflecting on the assumptions we make and the presumptions we hold.

Four risks are identified: 

• Lead to no action: Using shock or humour which can dilute the message even if the campaign is seen at one level as highly successful in terms of attracting audience attention and even media coverage.  
• Reaches the wrong audience: An audience that in fact has no sympathy with the cause/issue being profiled. In addition, those who are already convinced and engaged with the subject or issue or need. An example would be Human Rights, Refugees, Older Adults and loneliness (let's not forget the John Lewis Christmas advert Man on the Moon)!: Mental health, Travellers,  
•  Creates harm: This can be linked to the wrong audience. Campaigns need to understand and be sensitive to how an audience might perceive the message. This often occurs when marketing experts are let loose with an issue of which they have very little knowledge but think they do! I recall many years ago taking the NSPCC to task for their Full Stop Campaign. At one level it was highly successful if judged by the number of people ( especially celebrities) who wore their little green badges. It was a false assumption that child abuse can be eliminated, it can't. Constantly referring to delayed hospital discharge as "bed blocking" leads to blaming older adults for bed shortages rather than resourcing hospitals, social care and indeed systemic issues of poor management. The point to be made is that campaigns can do little to address the context and the context is everything. We can so easily normalize issues and reduce or prevent effective responses that deal with the context. The authors raise the "gulf between scholarship (and academic research) that could help practitioners avoid harm, reduce risk, or increase the effectiveness of their efforts and practice is common and wide"  
• Generates a backlash: Beware partisan politics within Campaigns whereby an issue can directly lead to increasing controversy. The examples used are Teenage and Later Life sex, Vaccine takeup. Here the media can and do feed off a range of issues to increase their own profile, sell newspapers, and can totally undermine a campaign.   

 

IT'S ALL ABOUT COMMUNICATION, TARGETTING, MESSAGING AND USING THE RIGHT MESSENGER 

This may seem blindly obvious but even multi-million corporate businesses can get it wrong. Ask Walkers Crisps and their "Walkers Wave" campaign; Pepsi suggesting that protesters give the police a can of Pepsi and the suggestion that " if protesters were kinder and gave police a drink, there would be no need for social justice demonstrations" or campaigns; and Amazon's promotion of their show The Man in the High Castle was generally seen as "irresponsible and offensive to WW11 and holocaust and their families" 

Having explored the risks Christiano and Neimand highlight four elements that are important to avoid backlash, harm, and inaction. Firstly to target the audience as narrowly as possible. We often think that a campaign or raising awareness needs to reach as many people as possible. Wrong! Targeting a single individual can be far more effective if there is clarity over the goal and a defined strategy. Secondly, whether an individual or an audience of millions requires a compelling message that resonates, that is also a call to action and does not alienate the very person/people whose attitudes and behaviour one is seeking to change. Thirdly a campaign or awareness-raising day needs to have a clear understanding of what will be different and finally use the right messenger ( oh how many have got this wrong by thinking that a celebrity, any "celebrity" will do? - I'll leave it there but here's a clue!)

  

                                           [ Appeared on the TV show "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here"

                                            coming 3rd in a public vote (2023)]

I suppose I'm arguing that all organisations, be they civic, civil, or retail think seriously about sacrificing their credibility, their brand, and their resourcing on any campaign or awareness-raising event on the altar of false assumptions and presumptions about their audience.