« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EVALUATION OF THE DRUGS DRIVING TV ADVERT
CHAPTER FOUR Content and style
4.1 This chapter of the report looks at views of the detailed content and style of the advert. The qualitative research forms the main basis for these findings, although some findings from the survey of drivers are also presented.
Realism of the events shown
4.2 Participants in the focus groups and paired depth interviews were asked whether or not they thought the footage shown in the first half of the advert, which depicts Americans being tested for drug driving by the police, was real or not. Although most thought it probably was real footage, some felt it might have been staged. Others said that, although they had assumed it was real footage, they had initially thought it was an advert for a 'Police Camera Action'-style reality television programme rather than a road safety campaign.
"I actually think I thought it was for a programme. Do you know how you get these American programmes like on Sky 1 or something? I didn't realise it was an advert." (Group 2)
Characters in the advert
Everyday people?
4.3 Participants in the qualitative interviews were asked what kind of people they thought the different characters shown in the advert were. Most noted that the advert included a mix of different kinds of people, and that they looked like ordinary people rather than stereotyped drug users. However, many participants commented spontaneously that they felt the people in the advert generally looked too old, and that they didn't look like the type of people who would use drugs. This was seen as an important factor limiting the extent to which young people and drug users would identify with the people in the advert and the events shown.
"*Yeah whereas, they're everyday people. They're not like kind of the junkies. They look perfectly ordinary.
*They're just like us.
*A bit more realistic.
*Definitely."
(Group 7)
"*Interviewer: on second viewing, did you notice anything that you didn't notice the first time round?
*I would say it does nae appeal to young people.
*No. I was just going to say that. It's all older people that have maybe been to a party and just smoked hash for the first time."
(Group 4)
"They all seemed to be like, there wasn't any kind of younger ones in it. You'd think that was who they'd be directing it to rather than having a woman and a man on a party night out." (Group 9)
Drinkers or drug users?
4.4 In addition to seeing some of the characters as too old, an extremely common comment about the people in the American half of the advert was that they looked drunk rather than on drugs. This was seen as a further stumbling block to identifying with them as people who might drug drive. Several triggers in the advert appeared to lead to the perception that the characters in the advert were drunk. Firstly, the fact that they were older made it harder for participants to believe that they would be taking drugs. Secondly, the outward appearance of some of the characters, particularly the fact that several of them wore suits, made it difficult for participants to identify a context in which they might have been taking drugs. Finally, their actual behaviour in the advert was more commonly associated with alcohol consumption than drug use in the minds of participants. Participants commented on both the physical behaviour of the characters (falling about and staggering), and also their attitudes to being stopped and tested as being typical of excessive alcohol consumption rather than drug use.
"*Is it for drugs or drink?
*Interviewer: it's supposed to be drugs but, why did you say that?
*Because there was like older people and that on it as well. (…) They'd got like an older woman. It's not as if she's going to take drugs."
(Group 9)
"Somebody who's maybe middle aged with a shirt and tie job and that, I would say you'd be less likely to take drugs. That's just my opinion."
(Group 8)
"(…) The way they were staggering about and things like that (…) If you're up the dancing - say more than half the people at the dancing are on drugs, and they're not all falling about. They're all dancing and things. They're more mellow. Christ. You could make a hundred new friends in a night but, with alcohol, you'd probably make a hundred enemies, you know what I mean?" (Group 6)
4.5 A related point raised in several interviews was the difficulty of identifying what drugs the characters had taken if they had taken drugs. It was suggested in several interviews that if the characters were on drugs rather than being drunk, then they must have taken either particularly strong drugs or very large amounts. The perception that people in the advert are not typical of people under the influence of drugs may allow the viewer to distance themselves from the advert and enable them to believe that the events portrayed are unlikely to happen to them.
"Full of ecstasy, or something like that. That's what I'm saying. It's depending on the drug. I mean, the start of that ad there, basically it's showing you the Americans first right, and you can tell by the state of them. Those guys just hadn't had a couple of joints. They guys were on heavy, heavy stuff the way they were going on, you know. They must have been on the acid or whatever, because they're bursting out laughing." (Group 10)
American vs. British characters
4.6 Although the setting of the first half in America was not generally considered to lessen the impact of the advert, several participants did comment on the fact that the characters in the first half were American, suggesting that this made it more difficult to identify with them.
"That was in America, but I can't see how people are going to relate to that here, because it's someone with a different accent from a different country, so I just don't see how it's going to help at all." (Group 1)
4.7 Part of the idea behind the advert was that the American characters would display 'off the wall' American behaviour, which was not meant to relate to British behaviour or to encourage identification. However, in combination with an apparent lack of identification with the Scottish character at the end (see below) the fact that participants did pick up on how different the characters were from their idea of a typical drug-taker/drug-driver does seem to be a problem.
4.8 Some participants felt that, unlike the American characters shown, the man in the second half of the advert did at least look as if he had been taking drugs - citing his blurred vision and dilated pupils as evidence of this.
"It showed you looking through his eyes, and his vision is impaired, so I would say that was the most realistic out of all of them." (Group 5)
4.9 But although participants found it easier to believe that this man had taken drugs, there was no consensus about what kind of drugs he might have taken or in what context. Further, there was debate over his age, with several participants describing him as "middle-aged".
"*Probably came across a joint at a party or something like that, and that was it, you know because I know, when you first start smoking it, it knocks you for six. It's probably knocked him out.
*Interviewer: so, that's the sort of situation you reckon. So, you'd reckon he'd smoked some dope or something?
*Yes. I can't see him. I don't know. Maybe a couple of lines in the toilet, or something.
*I would say it was more a couple of lines in the toilet."
(Group 6)
4.10 It is possible that providing viewers with more detail about the context in which people come to be drug driving would add to the credibility and impact of the advert.
Impact of the two halves of the advert
4.11 In addition to discussion of the differences between the American characters and the Scottish man shown at the end, there was also some discussion of the impact of the two-part structure of the advert in general.
4.12 Most participants in the qualitative interviews found the first half of the advert funny. This contrasts somewhat with the findings from the quantitative study, where only 24% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that the advert made them laugh. However, this figure was highest for the youngest age group, aged 17-24 years. In combination with the general reactions of participants in the qualitative research, this suggests that the humour in the advert was generally appreciated by its key target audience. There was, however, some debate over the appropriateness of the use of humour in the advert. This is discussed in more detail below.
4.13 Although most participants found the advert funny, they also appeared to understand the link between the two halves of the advert, and to appreciate the 'Now who's laughing?' message, as discussed in Chapter Three, above. However, the comments of several participants suggested that the second, more serious half of the advert did not have as much impact on them as the first half.
"*Interviewer: so, was that pretty much as you remembered it?
*Yes.
*Yes. Just about. I don't remember the bit at the end with the guy from Scotland doing it, but I remember the American bit."
(Group 7)
Tone of the advert - debate over use of humour to publicise serious issues
4.14 Participants were asked whether or not they thought it was appropriate to use humour in adverts about subjects like drug driving. A range of views emerged on this issue. Several felt that humour was an effective way of gaining the viewer's attention and encouraging them to watch the advert through to the serious message at the end.
"*It grabs your attention.
*If it started off with the guy getting pulled away. You would probably go and make a cup of tea at the time. 'Oh they're doing drug testing in Scotland and this guy's getting lifted' but its got the funny bits so you want to see the guys falling about and making an arse of themselves. You sit and watch it and then it brings in the serious bit once you're looking at the advert."
(Group 2)
4.15 However, a number of participants felt that the use of humour detracted from the seriousness of the message, and potentially reduced the impact of the advert on the viewer. The extract below illustrates the tension participants identified between using humour to gain the attention of the viewer and using the advert to convey a serious point.
"*Not if you're trying to get a point across. You should really make it a bit hard-hitting, rather than making folk laugh.
*Mind you, on the other hand, you would maybe remember it for laughing at it as well.
*But would you take it seriously?
*I know but you'd remember it.
*There's nae point in daeing it if you're no' going to take it serious."
(Group 4)
4.16 There was also a suggestion that while the use of humour in itself could be effective, the second (and more serious) half of the advert did not have sufficient impact to offset the more humourous aspect of the advert.
"It is funny. I don't think you're going to be aware of the last wee bit of it. You're more concerned with the funny people falling about. The last wee bit's a sort of side bit to the ad. You're not getting the guy with bloody hands. You're getting all the guys falling about and getting the drug test done." (Group 2)
Comparisons with 'harder hitting' campaigns
4.17 Many participants in the qualitative interviews spontaneously raised the contrast between the apparently light-hearted approach of the first half of the drug driving advert and other road safety campaigns that were often described as 'harder hitting'. These were generally adverts that show road safety violations leading to accidents, often depicted in graphic detail. Specific adverts mentioned included: the 'In the summer time' drink drive campaign; the current anti-speeding advert featuring a car travelling at 35mph hitting a child; and the 'belt-up in the back' campaign.
"I'll never forget the advert, the one that's "Have a drink, have a drive". I always remember that, because you see the wrecked car and all the people over the steering wheel. I mean, that's a while back now, and I still remember that. So, that obviously had more effect." (Group 1)
4.18 However, there is a need for some caution in interpreting this kind of comment. Although many participants stated that they thought 'harder hitting' campaigns would have more impact, it was not clear that their own behaviour or attitudes would be affected by this kind of campaign strategy. As discussed in Chapter Two, above, many participants felt that drug driving was not particularly dangerous or likely to lead to accidents, especially by comparison with drink driving. Although increased publicity on the dangerous effects of drugs on driving might have some influence in changing people's views in this respect, a significant shift in cultural attitudes among young people would be required before drug driving was seen in a similar light to drink driving.
4.19 Further, research on drink driving has suggested that people who are drinking at or around the legal alcohol limit are more likely to think in terms of the likelihood and consequences of being caught than about the chances of being involved in an accident (Anderson & Ingram, 2001). It may be that the same applies to drug driving. Indeed, one peer group highlighted the fact that people who are driving under the influence either of drugs or drink rarely consider that they pose a danger to anyone at the time.
"*Interviewer: Do you think drug driving is dangerous? I mean, is it something that should be sort of clamped down on?
*Of course it should be clamped down on.
*The thing is, it's proving its dangerous effects.
*It's still affecting the actions as well.
*Interviewer: Obviously, that's what they're trying to do. To be able to find people who are doing this.
*But then, everyone who does it thinks, "I'm alright. I'm alright. There's probably some people who do get affected, but I'm alright."
*Everyone goes like that when they're drink driving, "I'm sober enough. I can"."
(Group 1)
4.20 Finally, although many groups highlighted adverts they felt were more 'hard hitting' than the drug driving advert, when these were discussed in more detail several participants conceded that the effect on their
own driving behaviour was minimal.
"More shock - but even if you see one that's shocking, it still doesn't slow you down when you're driving yourself. You don't think about that when you're in the car at the time." (Group 5)
Portrayal of the legal consequences of drug driving
4.21 Debate over 'harder hitting' campaigns raised the question of whether future campaigns should show the consequences of drug driving in terms of accident causation. However, there was also discussion of the extent to which the current advert adequately conveyed information about the legal consequences of drug driving in terms of prosecution and penalties.
4.22 Many participants were confused about the precise legal consequences of being caught drug driving. There was considerable debate over whether individuals could be prosecuted on the basis of the tests shown in the advert alone or whether further proof (a blood test, for example) would be required for a conviction. Further, there was little knowledge of the likely penalties for drug driving - suggestions ranged from "a 50 fine and a couple of penalty points" (Group 3) to being banned and imprisoned.
*In Scottish law, you'd never get a conviction from a test like that, because you need more proof than that.
*Your concrete proof.
*Yeah. In Scottish law anyway.
(Group 1)
4.23 The lack of information about the actual consequences of failing the tests shown in the advert was perceived as an important weakness by a number of participants. It was felt that greater clarity was needed about the actual legal consequences of being caught drug driving if the advert was to have a deterrent effect.
"They just really saying that "aye, we can catch you. We do these tests." But they don't really say, "This is what happens if you get caught"."(Group 9)
"*It shows them on the camera and that's it. It should've showed them maybe in jail or something. Or walking for the bus, because he's no got his car any more.
*It kinda left you not really knowing what was going to happen.
*Guessing.
*Interviewer: So it should've been maybe a bit longer and …
*Yeah. Given you an idea of what would happen.
*To let you know what kind of charges you would face if you get caught."
(Group 4)
Style
4.24 The 'Police Camera Action' style of the first half of the advert was readily recognised and enjoyed on by most participants, although as noted above this did lead some participants to think the advert was a trailer for a TV programme rather than a road safety advert.
4.25 Other aspects of the style of the advert that were commented on in the interviews included:
4.26 The music used in the first half - several participants felt the bouncy style reinforced the humour of the events shown
4.27 The lighting - two participants said the advert was too dark to grab the viewers attention
4.28 The statistics and key messages - one group felt that the messages should be spoken rather than just appearing on the screen or people would not take them in.
4.29 The use of blurred footage to convey the point of view of the man being arrested at the end - a number of participants commented on this. The perception that his vision was impaired was identified by several participants as reinforcing the suggestion that he was under the influence of drugs.
4.30 The logos displayed at the end of the adverts - participants in two groups commented that the 'Know the Score' and 'Scottish Road Safety Campaign' logos displayed at the end of the advert were too small to see properly.
Key points
The 'Police Camera Action' style of the advert was readily recognised and commented on, although a few participants said they had assumed the advert was a trailer for a television show, rather than an advert for a road safety campaign.
Many of the participants in the qualitative interviews felt that the characters in the advert were generally 'middle-aged' and appeared to be drunk rather than on drugs. Participants found it difficult to imagine situations in which many of the characters would have taken drugs.
Although participants in all the groups understood the link between the funny and the serious sides of the advert, there was debate over the appropriateness of the use of humour to deal with serious subjects. Some participants felt that the humour detracted from the serious message of the advert, while others suggested that the second half of the advert needed to have more impact to offset the attention-grabbing first half.
Comparisons were made in many interviews between the advert and 'harder-hitting' campaigns that feature graphic depictions of road traffic accidents. Although participants often claimed that these adverts had more impact, it was not clear from the discussion that they would actually have more effect on participant's
own behaviour.
Participants in several interviews highlighted the lack of clarity in the advert about the precise legal consequences of failing the tests shown. It was felt that further elaboration of the consequences in terms of prosecution and penalties was required.
« Previous | Contents | Next »