PrintEarlier this month on my Delta flight from the annual South by Southwest Interactive festival, I came across a public health message (produced on a napkin) by one of the airline's partners, Coca Cola. It focused on Diet Coke's support of women's health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's Heart Truth campaign. (You can learn more about Diet Coke's activities here.) See an image of the napkin below.
Diet Coke Heart Truth Napkin
(click to enlarge)
Diet Coke's support of Heart Truth got me thinking about how different public health organizations communicate about heart health and how they can send conflicting messages. For example, in late 2009, the New York City Department of Health produced a series of advertisements focusing on the drawbacks of soda consumption. In one ad, they showed a young man drinking fat. In another (see below), the agency illustrates how soda drinkers are literally "pouring on the pounds."
NYC Dept of Health Anti-Soda PSA
(click to enlarge)
So, we have strikingly different messages coming from the Heart Truth campaign and the NYC Department of Health (although Coke is careful to note that the HHS does not endorse Diet Coke's heart health efforts.) In one case it's "Diet Coke Promotes Better Heart Health" and in another it's "Soda Consumption Leads to Obesity and Worse Heart Health."
What's your take? Do mixed messages abound in public health/health communications? Or, are we simply mixing it up for success?
Re: [Living the Path Q&A Center] Heart Disease, Big Soda and Pub
By merryjwhitney on Monday, April 4, 2011
Mixed Messages in Health Communications
Mixed messages do seem to “abound in public health/health communications;” and, a good example of that double bind is the NYC Department of Public Health “Soda Consumption Leads to Obesity and Worse Heart Health,” versus the “Diet Coke Heart Truth” campaign.
Can both claims be essentially true? Sure. Excessive consumption of regular (non-diet) soda can certainly add to weight-gains which can lead to obesity, and obesity is a general concern in heart health (and an entire health-related parade of horribles). But that doesn’t mean that soda consumption is the only culprit in obesity, or even the “worst:” Too much ‘fast food,’ sweet treats and rich desserts, even over-indulgence in “healthy” foods, can add extra pounds. It’s doubtful that heaping seconds of broccoli would cause bathroom-scale anxiety, but habitually over-generous servings of potatoes, gravy and Southern-fried meals might send that needle into the “Uh, oh!” zone.
So, why did NYC Public Health Department communicators and marketers single out soft drinks for their anti-obesity campaign? Well, it’s likely a strategic decision to simplify the message with something popular that provides little or no nutrition but can contribute to excessive weight gain. It’s probably smart marketing.
Conversely, diet soda instead of the regular “sugary” liquid provides the “Real Thing” pleasure and taste, without causing trepidation when passing a full-length mirror. Ergo, no serious health detriment equals “Better Heart Health.” Again, smart marketing. So, yes: I guess we’re simply “mixing it up for success.”
Mixed Messages
By ablackman on Monday, April 4, 2011
I think a big problem is the disconnect in what will actually help people to understand what's at stake with health issues and then what seems popular/exciting.
Working at the American Heart Association, our Red Dress for Women campaign cannot be associated with brands such as Diet Coke because of this very same reason. The Heart Truth campaign however, despite being from HHS, is run by a popular PR agency and I think the corporate sponsorship seemed like a good idea for its target audience.
It's like the Pink Ribbons during breast cancer awareness month. Every single product attaches the pink ribbon in hopes of capitalizing on "slacktivism" and people's sense of giving.
Like Merry said, it's all about marketing. Diet soda isn't bad for me right? Especially because they are attached to heart disease! (says the uninformed consumer). When if reports on correlations between obesity and diet sodas are taken into mainstream, different conversations might begin.
However regular soda has always been in the crosshairs of health so it's easier to market as the bad guy.
The fact of the matter is, the Heart Truth campaign is integrated into a specific audience with a lifestyle marketing slant. NYC's approach wasn't that targeted and will not likely reduce people from picking up a cold soda on a hot summer day.
Public health communications = not built into everyday life.
Mixing it up does not equal clever marketing or success
By healthypi commu... on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
I don't think I would be out of place in saying that Heart Truth's decision to 'mix it up for success' and allow their logo on Diet Coke's promotional napkins was most likely down to the dollars rather than any clever marketing strategy. I'm sure those dollars must be very useful in the short-term, but how successful in the overall holistic picture of communications effectiveness?
It is best practice for public health organisations and charities to have internal policies in place that provide clear guidance on accepting donations, sponsorship and entering into partnerships with commercial organisations. Exclusions are often applied to any potential sponsor or partner connected with products that are proven to be detrimental to the interests of the people they serve or that are not consistent with their organisational values.
To me, these guidelines are essential for ensuring consistency in the messages that are received by the public. Its simple. Consistency - that's clever marketing.