truth® campaign
Mike Kendall
Catherine Montoya
James Montoya
Carmelita Parraz
John Sampson
Natalie Skogerboe
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 98474)
 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
Assess if the teens heard
the Truth Campaign
Did children react
favorably
Outcome evaluations
Determine effects on
health behavior
Were children less
likely to smoke?
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.
2.
3.
4.
Exposure & recall
Message reactions & receptivity
Behavioral determinants
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)
2)
3)
Expose youth to Truth & get positive reactions
Change attitudes & beliefs towards tobacco use &
companies
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?
YES!
OBJECTIVE 1
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?
YES!?
OBJECTIVE 3
Reduce tobacco use among youth
-
Behavioral outcomes
How can these be attributed to the truth® campaign?
Decline in Adolescent Smoking Attributable to truth®
30%
28.0%
25%
26.8%
23.7%
25.3%
20%
22.0%
22.6%
19.6%
20.3%
18.0%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1997
1998
Trend in actual smoking
1999
2000
2001
2002
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 doseresponse 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