Film and Video Projects Must Appeal to the Heart as Well as the Head

To the Editor:

I almost agree with Suzanne Stenson Harmon’s opinion piece “Grants to Media Projects: More Than Meets the Eye” (My View, March 25). Her statements about the power of the media in successfully communicating a charity’s message are right on. In fact, it almost sounds as if she is quoting the Ad Council’s mission with her statement that “good media have the power to enliven public debate, create personal motivation for change, and develop common aspirations for social improvement.”

However, by encouraging foundations to fund more media activities in the form of documentary projects, she is inadvertently encouraging them to fund incomplete communications programs. In order to effectively communicate their message, charities must appeal to foundations to fund comprehensive communications programs that include the highest-quality audience research into the emotional as well as rational attitudes of the target group.

The so-called motivational messages often associated with public-service advertising from the Ad Council and other organizations are the neglected stepchildren in the family of charities and the foundations that fund them. And yet, advertising is one of the most powerful forces in society today. (That may be part of the problem in funding the non-profit cousin of commercial advertising.)

The challenge is to harness the same power of analysis and insight that contributes to persuading people to believe in the qualities of one consumer brand of product over another. We owe no apologies for applying the art of persuasion to our good causes.

I have found that foundations too often regard communications as akin to a conveyor belt. They or their grantees package information about their causes into a lesson box and put it on a belt directed at single fathers, inner-city homeowners, whomever. Then they consider the communications task to be complete. They assume that the major reason that someone doesn’t behave according to the lesson box is that he hasn’t yet been told to open it.

The problem with this model is that most communications challenges are not solely about rational informational needs. There is little consideration given to deeper, more emotional obstacles to a message’s being received favorably. More often than not, the routes that lead to influence are more emotional than rational.

Public-service advertising has a proven track record in shaping public opinion and changing attitudes. It is effective because of the substantial research that goes into forming a strategy that guarantees that we hit the right target with our message. It is successful because we track its effectiveness and mold the campaign to shift with public opinion.

I can’t emphasize enough the importance of in-depth research into the attitudes, prejudices, assumptions, and fears of the people who need to be reached. Too often, this step is either missed or done poorly, and the result is a strategic but overly rational exposition of “if they only knew the facts.”

Here’s one example. The Ad Council and the Department of Transportation recently decided to retire two of the most famous public-service advertising icons. For more than 15 years, the dummies Larry and Vince made the American public smarter about wearing their safety belts. The dummies were a gentle, humorous reminder that broke through people’s aversion to wearing their safety belts, and in 15 years they helped raise seat-belt usage from 21 per cent to nearly 70 per cent.

But in the last two years, we noticed through tracking research that safety-belt usage had leveled off, and so we needed to change tactics. We researched the people who weren’t using their seat belts — and those who used them only some of the time — and came to understand that they need a much harsher, more-graphic reminder to buckle up every single time they get in their car. In our new ads, we appeal to our audience’s emotions, in the same way that Hallmark or AT&T does, to get across our point. But instead of measuring our success in cards sold, we measure it in lives saved.

Shaping attitudes that affect change is complicated, and there is no shortcut or silver bullet. Our audiences will or won’t respond to our messages based on their instinct, desires, and emotions, not just on their rational thought. Public-service advertising won’t change opinions or behavior overnight, and neither can the communications plan outlined by Ms. Harmon. What will work is a comprehensive communications program that incorporates research, emotionally persuasive messages, and a strong media presence that touches the heart before encouraging the mind to follow.

Ruth Wooden
President
The Advertising Council
New York

* * *

To the Editor:

I am writing to say “thank you” for Suzanne Stenson Harmon’s guest editorial on funding media projects.

I have had the all-too-common frustration over the past three years of trying to raise funds for a media-related non-profit. The Media Education Foundation produces very effective educational videotapes to foster critical thinking on the media. And they work. The videos have been seen by millions of students and others, and are highly praised for their powerful analysis, illustrated with dynamic visual content.

M.E.F. is a success story that should attract philanthropic support, and there are others. Instead, we have survived and grown only because the communications professor who founded M.E.F. works tirelessly without compensation — and has even pulled out personal credit cards for marketing costs.

We should have help. Here’s why:

No matter which social-change issues a foundation chooses to make its top priorities, it is impossible to ignore the effects of a media system that shapes the very social, political, and cultural environment in which that foundation’s concerns must strive for attention and support.

Take one set of related issue areas, for instance: prisons, the “drug war,” racism in the judicial system, capital punishment, residential segregation, and poverty. More than 30 years of research by George Gerbner’s Cultural Indicators Project tells us that people who watch more television see the world as a meaner and scarier place than do light TV viewers. My own research, and that of others building on Mr. Gerbner’s model, finds a correlation between people who rank high on Mr. Gerbner’s “Mean World Syndrome” index and those who support draconian laws and capital punishment.

Why? Because television, which is turned on in the average American home more than seven hours a day, cultivates a view of “reality” that corresponds more to the disproportionately violent TV reality than to the real world. The lesson: If you want to tackle criminal-justice reform or racist double standards in sentencing, you simply cannot ignore the mass media.

The same is true if your concern is adolescent girls’ culture-induced unhealthy attitudes toward their own bodies — or the slide of our sweet little boys into cultural definitions of maleness that permit, if not encourage, violence toward women and toward each other.

I know there are some hopeful cracks in the usually closed foundation doors. Such a development would be greatly welcome, because the negative social effects of our commercially mediated culture continue to deepen, and our credit cards are maxed out.

Thomas N. Gardner
Managing Director
Media Education Foundation
Northampton, Mass.

* * *

To the Editor:

Congratulations to Suzanne Stenson Harmon for shedding credible light on the value of philanthropic support of media, especially electronic media. In addition to the isolation that often occurs between worthwhile issues and messages and their reflection in the media, there is often a “disconnect” between the various messengers and their intended audience.

As a non-profit educational resource for media targeted to children and youth, we’ve seen so many missed opportunities to promote quality projects and to insure utilization and implementation of these activities because of the lack of planning and coordination of media, publicity, and outreach. I am in complete agreement with Ms. Harmon about the need for a comprehensive and practical distribution plan; I would add, however, that joint ventures and media-coalition efforts are also important.

We’ve been involved in several media initiatives with public and private partners that have resulted in wider audiences, increased financial support, and extended community involvement. Once again, success comes back to including media experts on the project team.

Karen W. Jaffe
Executive Director
Kidsnet
Washington