The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Changing Speeding Behaviour in Scotland: An evaluation of the 'Foolsspeed' campaign

CHAPTER THREE: RESPONSE TO THE FOOLSSPEED CAMPAIGN

This section presents findings regarding respondents' response to the Foolsspeed campaign. Section 3.1 examines spontaneous and prompted awareness of the various campaign elements, while Sections 3.2 to 3.4 examine detailed reactions to the three 40-second television advertisements (Mirror, first showing in Spring 1999; Friends and Family, first shown in Spring 2000; and Simon Says, shown in Summer 2001).

STATISTICAL NOTE: The use of quota sampling in the Foolsspeed surveys should strictly preclude the use of significance tests, as these are based on an assumption that the samples are randomly drawn. However, tests have been conducted, and significance levels displayed within the tables where appropriate, to provide an indication of the possible importance of any apparent differences. It is important that these tests are taken only as a guide.

3.1 AWARENESS OF CAMPAIGN ELEMENTS

The following tables present respondents' awareness and recall of different elements of the Foolsspeed campaign, as measured in the 2 ^nd, 3 ^rd and 4 ^th surveys. Each survey was conducted two to four weeks after the first four-week screening of that year's advertisement. The surveys took measures of spontaneous awareness of Foolsspeed in the general context of road safety advertising, and of prompted awareness of the Foolsspeed slogan, logo and relevant advertising.

Spontaneous Awareness of the Foolsspeed Campaign

Spontaneous awareness, which indicates the extent to which a campaign is 'front of mind' among the target population, was assessed by asking respondents to recall and describe, unprompted, "any advertising or publicity which they had seen recently on road safety". Any mention of Foolsspeed campaign elements by name or by description (e.g. a description of the plot of a television advertisement) was coded as a spontaneous mention of Foolsspeed. At the 2 ^nd survey, a minority of respondents specifically mentioned having seen Foolsspeed in a range of media categories - television, posters/billboards, vehicle-side and road-side advertising and signs, press, radio and cinema - with one-fifth of the whole sample spontaneously mentioning having seen Foolsspeed on television (Chart 3.1). The proportion of respondents who spontaneously mentioned having seen Foolsspeed increased at the 3 ^rd survey. The increase was particularly high for vehicle-side advertisements, with 31% spontaneously mentioning having seen Foolsspeed advertisements in this medium compared to 8% at the 2 ^nd survey. There were also substantial increases in spontaneous mentions of having seen Foolsspeed on television (32% at 3 ^rd survey vs 20% in the 2 ^nd survey), on posters/billboards (25% vs 10%), and newspapers/magazines (13% vs 6%). These increases in spontaneous awareness of Foolsspeed may be linked to increased sensitivity to Foolsspeed as a result of participation in the survey, to changes in media spend for Foolsspeed advertising, to the cumulative effect of campaign advertising, or to a combination of these factors. At the 4 ^th survey, spontaneous awareness of Foolsspeed fell slightly for most of the media categories apart from vehicle-side advertising, for which awareness rose further to 38%.

Figure 3.1: Spontaneous awareness of Foolsspeed in different media: comparison of 2 ^nd, 3 ^rd and 4 ^th surveys

Prompted Awareness of Campaign Name and Logo

Prompted awareness of the Foolsspeed campaign name was assessed by asking respondents to indicate whether they had heard of five speeding-related campaigns and slogans. These were: 'Kill your speed', 'Speed kills', 'Foolsspeed', 'Speedwatch', and '20's plenty'. Prompted awareness of the Foolsspeed logo was assessed by showing respondents a visual and asking whether they had seen it before. There was near-saturation awareness at a prompted level of the slogans 'Speed kills' and 'Kill your speed' (Table 3.1). Of the three more recent campaigns, Foolsspeed had the highest awareness: 64% at the 2 ^nd survey, increasing to 85% at the 3 ^rd survey and 92% at the 4 ^th survey. Awareness of '20's plenty' increased from around a fifth at the 2 ^nd survey to a third at the 3 ^rd survey and nearly half, 48%, at the 4 ^th survey. Awareness of Speedwatch decreased over the three surveys from just over half at the second to just over a third at the final survey. Prompted awareness of the Foolsspeed logo was high at all survey stages, increasing from two-thirds (66%) at the 2 ^nd survey to 91% at the 3 ^rd survey and 95% at the 4 ^th survey.

Table 3.1: Prompted awareness of speeding campaign slogans and of Foolsspeed logo: comparison of 2 ^nd, 3 ^rd and 4 ^th surveys

At all survey stages, awareness of the Foolsspeed slogan and of the Foolsspeed logo tended to be higher among the youngest respondents (17-24 year olds). For example, at the 2 ^nd survey, 89% of 17-24 year olds had heard of the Foolsspeed slogan and 86% had seen the Foolsspeed logo, compared to 64% and 66% respectively of the sample as a whole. At the 3 ^rd survey, 94% of 17-24 year olds had heard of the Foolsspeed slogan and 100% had seen the Foolsspeed logo, compared to 85% and 91% respectively of the sample as a whole. These higher awareness levels may reflect a tendency for this age group to be more attentive to advertising. Respondents in social class DE had slightly higher awareness of the logo at the 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd survey stages, but not at the 4 ^th survey. (There were no differences between males and females in awareness of the slogan or logo at either stage.)

Table 3.2 shows where respondents reported seeing the Foolsspeed logo.

Table 3.2: Where respondents came across Foolsspeed logo: comparisons of 2 ^nd, 3 ^rd and 4 ^th surveys. Selected responses

(Multiple response possible)

Television, posters or noticeboards, and bus advertising were important sources of awareness at all survey stages. Outdoor advertising was included as a category at the 4 ^th survey, when over a quarter, 28% reported seeing the logo in this medium. Smaller proportions of respondents reported having seen the logo in newspapers or magazines, on other forms of transport than buses, Wiseman's milk cartons, on parking meter tickets, and at the cinema. Other sources mentioned by small numbers included outdoor advertising, police vehicles, petrol pump nozzles, car stickers, leaflets, the Internet and in the workplace.

Recall of having seen the logo on television and at the cinema tended to be highest among the youngest respondents, which may reflect higher levels of television viewing and cinema-going in this age group. The older age groups were slightly more likely at the 3 ^rd survey to have seen the logo on bus advertising and in newspapers/magazines. Males were more likely than females, at the 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd surveys, to have seen the logo on vehicle-side advertising, which may reflect the greater amount of driving done by men. There were few differences between social classes in their source of awareness of the logo.

Prompted Awareness of Foolsspeed Television Advertisements

Prompted awareness of the Foolsspeed television advertising was assessed at the 2 ^nd survey (1999) by showing respondents stills from two of the 1998 10-second advertisements and from the 1999 40-second "Mirror" advertisement, and asking them to indicate whether they had seen them before. The 3 ^rd survey took repeat measures of prompted awareness of these advertisements and also of the 2000 40-second "Friends and Family" advertisement. The 4 ^th survey repeated these measures, and also assessed awareness of the 2001 advert Simon Says. The percentages indicating awareness of the advertisements at each survey stage are presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Prompted awareness of 10-second ads, 40-second "Mirror" ad, and 40-second "Friends and Family" ad: comparison of 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd survey

The table indicates that awareness of the 10-second advertisements was modest at the 2 ^nd survey (37%), increasing to 46% at the 3 ^rd survey and 54% at the 4 ^th survey. There was high awareness of the "Mirror" advertisement (74%) at the 2 ^nd survey, immediately after it was first screened in Spring 1999, and this increased further to 86%. Awareness of the "Friends and Family" advertisement immediately after its screening in Spring 2000 was lower, at 55%, although a year later this had increased to 83%. Awareness of Simon Says immediately after its screening in Summer 2001 was similar to that of Friends and Family in its first year, 53%. It should be noted that apparent increases in awareness of ads at subsequent surveys may result from the research process (respondents were shown stills of the ads during the interview) and may not represent a true increase in awareness among a wider population.

The youngest age group, 17-24 year olds, had higher awareness of the 'Mirror' and 'Friends and Family' ads. There were few differences between males and females in awareness of any of the advertisements at the 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd surveys, although males had higher awareness of 'Simon Says' in 2001 than females (59% vs. 40%, p<0.05). Respondents in social class DE had highest awareness of the "Mirror" advertisement at the 2 ^nd survey, while respondents in social class C1 and C2 had highest awareness of the "Friends and Family" advertisement at the 3 ^rd survey.

3.2 REACTIONS TO THE "MIRROR" ADVERTISEMENT

Two open-ended questions asked respondents to describe firstly the 'thoughts and feelings' they had on seeing the advert, and secondly what they thought the advert was 'trying to say'. A series of pre-coded (i.e. prompted) questions then gauged opinions of the advertisement and perceived messages. This section examines reactions to the "Mirror" advertisement as explored in the 2 ^nd survey, while Section 3.3 examines reactions to the "Friends and Family" advertisement as explored in the 3 ^rd survey, and Section 3.4 examines reactions to "Simon Says" at the 4 ^th survey.

Open-ended Response to "Mirror"

Two open-ended questions asked respondents to describe in their own words, firstly, any "thoughts and feelings" which occurred to them on seeing the advertisement, and secondly, what they thought the advertisement "was trying to say". Interviewers were briefed to encourage respondents to say as much as possible. Open-ended questions such as these are valuable in gauging the amount of involvement and identification people feel with an advert, as well as any emotional reactions triggered such as empathy or enjoyment. Responses to the open-ended questions were recorded in full, coded by content and grouped into themes. The main themes are presented in Table 3.4. A more detailed breakdown of responses is presented in a CSM report (Stead et al 1999a).

Table 3.4: Thoughts and feelings on seeing "Mirror" ad (open-ended). Selected responses

* Base = 287 rather than 288 because one respondent did not answer this question

Percentages add up to more than 100% because respondents could give as many comments as they wished.

For over two-fifths of respondents who had seen the advertisement, it spontaneously triggered feelings of personal involvement and emotion (44%). Just over one-fifth (21%) of respondents expressed some sort of identification with the driver or the scenarios depicted, with comments including 'I could recognise myself' and 'this could have been me', made by 10% of respondents; 'I've done that myself' (3%); and 'he [character in ad] was typical of all of us' (8%). Just under a fifth of respondents (17%) said that the advertisement challenged them to consider the nature and possible consequences of their own driving with comments such as 'it made me think about my driving' (4%), 'it made me think I should watch my speed' (3%), and 'it makes you realise it could be you' (3%). Five percent of respondents described feelings of emotion on seeing the advertisement, such as fear, and concern for one's own children.

For 43% of respondents, the advertisement spontaneously triggered thoughts and feelings about the character featured in it. Fourteen percent commented on his speeding behaviour (for example, 9% said that he was too fast or speeding), and 16% commented on other aspects of his driving behaviour, such as 'he was distracted (7%), or 'he could have caused an accident' (6%). Two percent of respondents said explicitly that the driver 'hit' or 'killed' a female pedestrian, which suggests that they had either misinterpreted the Foolsspeed advertisement or confused the visuals shown in the interview with another advertisement. This possibility of confusion with an alternative campaign should be borne in mind when interpreting these and other responses.

One-fifth (20%) of respondents spontaneously criticised the character in the advertisement, with comments such as 'he was an idiot/plonker/stupid/foolish', made by 10%, and 'he was conceited/thought he was better than other drivers' (8%). Just under one-tenth of respondents (8%) spontaneously commented on the device of the driver's alter ego, which was varyingly described as his 'double', 'conscience', 'good side' and 'good angel'. These comments included observations that the alter ego was advising the driver to slow down or that the driver was ignoring his conscience's advice. A very small number of respondents displayed some confusion about the device, for example, commenting that the driver was 'talking to someone in the back seat', or that the advertisement was 'telling you not to talk to yourself when driving'.

One-quarter (25%) of respondents commented spontaneously on the message of the advertisement. These comments tended to be more neutral, and included references to speeding, made by 15%, with 8% mentioning a specific action message such as 'slow down', 'stick to the speed limit' or 'don't speed in built up areas'. References to driving behaviour messages were made by 13%, and included 'pay attention', 'think about how you drive', and 'you may not be as good as you think'. Finally, just under a quarter (23%) spontaneously expressed opinions of the advertisement. These were mostly positive: 13% commented that the advertisement was 'good', 'effective', or that they liked it, while only 4% spontaneously commented that they did not like the advertisement, or that it was 'not very good' or had 'no impact'.

Drivers in the target age range of 25-44 age groups were more likely than drivers in the other age groups to express feelings of personal involvement and emotion (51%, versus 37% among 17-24 year olds and those aged 45+ combined). Males were also slightly more likely (47%) than females (39%) to express feelings of personal involvement and emotion. These two differences in response may suggest that the advertisement was more successful in engaging those drivers in the key target group of 25-44 year old males. There were few differences between frequent and infrequent speeders in their spontaneous reactions to the advertisement. However, frequent speeders were less likely than other drivers to express negative comments about the main character (4% of speeders versus 23% of other drivers), and also tended to be slightly more likely to identify with him. These findings suggest that frequent speeders may feel slightly more empathy with the character in the advertisement than other drivers.

Table 3.5 presents spontaneous responses to the question 'What do you think the advertisement was trying to say?' Again, comments are grouped into categories, and a more detailed breakdown of the responses is found in Stead et al (1999a).

Table 3.5: Perceptions of what "Mirror" ad is trying to say (open-ended). Selected responses

The table indicates that nearly three-quarters of respondents (73%) spontaneously perceived the message of the advertisement to be concerned with speeding. Sixty percent mentioned a speeding action message, while 18% described a message about the consequences of speeding. The speeding action messages are grouped into categories in the table. Thirty percent of respondents perceived the message as 'slow down/reduce speed'; some expanded on this to include specific circumstances such as 'in town/near houses' (6%) and 'near schools' (2%). Eleven percent described the message as 'watch your speed', and again some expanded on this to include 'in town/near houses' (2%). Fifteen percent perceived the message to relate to speed limits, and here responses were divided between messages about exceeding the limit ('don't break/stick to the legal limit/30 mph limit') (10%), and messages about appropriate speed ('drive well below the limit/sometimes the legal limit is still too fast') (6%). A number of other speeding action messages, not listed in the table, were mentioned, including 'allow more time for your journey' (6%), 'kill your speed' (3%), and 'don't speed' (2%). The messages about the consequences of speeding (mentioned by 18%) included 'speeding doesn't save time' (4%), 'it's better to be late than to speed' (4%), 'speed kills' (3%) and 'speeding is dangerous/causes accidents' (3%).

Forty-three percent of respondents spontaneously perceived the message of the advertisement to be concerned with another type of driving behaviour. Just over a quarter (27%) mentioned messages relating to attention, such as 'pay attention/concentrate/keep eyes on road', mentioned by 17%, 'expect the unexpected' (3%), and 'anticipate children running out in front of you' (2%). Just under a fifth (18%) mentioned messages concerned with driving carefully (9%) or with showing consideration to other drivers and road users (5%).

One-fifth (22%) of respondents perceived the advertisement's message to be one of encouraging self-awareness. Nine percent said that it was telling drivers to 'examine their own driving', and a small number (3%) echoed the slogan 'take a (good) look at yourself'. Twelve percent said that the advertisement was challenging drivers' rating of their own ability - e.g. 'you may not be as good a driver as you think/everyone thinks they are better than they are' (7%) - and sense of security: 4% said that the message to drivers was not to be over-confident or to think 'that it won't happen to you'.

There were few differences between males and females in their spontaneous perceptions of the advertisement's message, although males tended to be slightly more likely than females to consider the advertisement to be encouraging self-awareness. Similarly, the two younger age groups, 17-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds, appeared slightly more likely than the two older groups to consider the advertisement's message to have this aim (28% versus 16%). Overall there were few differences between baseline frequent speeders and other drivers in their spontaneous perceptions of the advertisement's message.

« Previous | Contents | Next »