« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER FIVE RECALL OF AND REACTIONS TO THE FOOLSSPEED CAMPAIGN AS A WHOLE
5.1 This section examines recall of and reactions to the first three Foolsspeed ads (1999-2001). These ads were intended to address, in turn, the three main determinants of intentions within the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control. A brief summary of each ad is given in Section 1.0.
5.1 Recall of and reactions to 'Mirror' (Attitudes) ad
5.2 The Mirror ad was only mentioned spontaneously in two of the groups, suggesting limited spontaneous recall compared with other ads. Given the tendency for respondents to mention the most recent ads they had seen, this is perhaps not surprising, as the Mirror ad was first screened in 1999. One group of female drivers did mention the Mirror ad spontaneously, and were able to recall specific features, most notably the driver arguing with himself and skidding to a halt outside a school. However, one woman in this group described the ad as featuring two men in the car arguing (a description also offered by one or two other respondents after they had been shown the ad), suggesting some miscommunication or misinterpretation. In another group, respondents described an ad which seemed to contain elements of both Mirror and Doppelganger, suggesting that the two ads had become confused in their minds:
"Yes, and another one is the guy driving along, he's going fast and he's …."
"It's like his conscience…."
"Yes."
"There's two men, right, yes, there's two men going to work and they're coming to a school and he's going too fast and he says, 'Slow down', and he nearly knocked somebody down and he was like... ...safely to work and..."
"Oh yes, yes, yes."
(Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.3 Despite limited spontaneous mention, nearly all respondents recognised the ad when it was shown. They not only remembered having seen the ad originally on television, but were also able to recall and describe in some detail scenes from the ad and to quote from the dialogue. The most memorable features of the ad seemed to be the final sequence, in which the driver is distracted and has a near miss at a school crossing, and the conscience device. Key lines from the dialogue which were particularly well recalled included 'I'm a better driver than most', 'Slow down, you're near a school', and 'See that woman…? Give her a wave'. In one group of young male frequent speeders, some respondents found themselves at a later point in the group discussion echoing the phrase 'I'm a better driver than most', and noted the irony with amusement.
5.4 Generally the Mirror ad was well received, evoking immediate reactions such as "I like that one", "that's a good one" and "true to life". The idea of being distracted while driving was a very real one, and triggered several anecdotes of near misses and 'heart stop' moments brought about by momentary inattentiveness. The central concept of the driver's conscience or alter ego also generated spontaneous comment. Despite the confusion displayed by one or two respondents, noted above, most grasped this concept. The notion that there are two competing aspects to a driver's personality resonated with respondents, as evidenced by comments such as:
"That's like the Devil and Angel on his shoulder, it's like two different - it's like his personality's split in half." (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.5 Men and frequent speeders in particular spoke of having a "sensible side" (and by implication a less sensible side), and alluded to the internal tensions experienced in situations similar to the one in the ad, when "deep down" you know you should be more cautious, or "you try to justify" why you are driving in a particular way. For some the concept made them think of how they could be "in different moods" when driving, with some moods causing impatience and risk-taking, and other moods inducing a more calm and unhurried style of driving.
"Sometimes you know perfectly well how you're driving is wrong, and if you had an accident, what are you going to say to the police? At the end of the day they can tell how fast you were going, 30, 40. It's a good thing at the end where it says 'take a good look at yourself'." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.6 Two different but not necessarily exclusive types of message were identified in the Mirror ad. The first centred on various ways of driving better: "slow down in built-up areas", "be more attentive", "don't be distracted". The intended anti-speeding message was correctly picked up, but it tended to be in the context of other related messages concerning attentiveness and taking care. The other type of message respondents identified in the ad was the one implied in the strapline and which reflected the TPB thinking behind the ad: "change your attitude", "have a look at yourself", "think about your driving". The longitudinal evaluation of the TPB campaign (Stead, 2002) found a similar range of messages identified in the Mirror ad, with over 70% of respondents spontaneously describing the message as being about speeding, but over two fifths perceiving other driving behaviour messages in the ad and over a fifth describing a self awareness message. This suggests that respondents interpreted the speeding message of the ad largely in the context of other aspects of driving which potentially heightened the consequences of speeding.
5.7 The ad appeared to have a high degree of credibility, in terms of both the depicted driving context and the characterisation. Many recognised and related to the scenarios, particularly being late for work, taking short cuts which turned out to be futile, and being distracted. It was notable that this ad triggered few complaints about a particular scene or depicted behaviour being unconvincing, unlike the other Foolsspeed ads. One or two reacted to the opening sequence ( "See that woman…? Give her a wave") by relating anecdotes of being recklessly overtaken by a driver with whom they caught up at lights a few minutes later. Men talked particularly of being distracted by an attractive woman on the pavement - the scenario shown in the ad - but women were also prompted by the ad to remember occasions on which they had been distracted when driving, such as when using a mobile phone. Other distractions which respondents mentioned in the car included changing tapes, putting on make-up, and eating.
5.8 The perceived target of the ad was, for most drivers, themselves. Even though younger drivers noted that the character was older than them, this did not seem to hinder their identification with the behaviour depicted or the ad in general. Women also related to the ad, although interestingly some also identified with the perspective of the passers-by shocked at the driver's behaviour: "you get drivers down my street like that". The only group who had limited identification with the driver were rural infrequent speeders, who did not relate particularly to the behaviour or the environment shown. This apparent high degree of identification in urban areas differed somewhat from the evaluation survey findings (Stead et al, 2002), in which overall identification with the ad, although reasonably strong, was not strikingly high. However, the survey did find that there was notably higher identification with the ad among frequent speeders than infrequent speeders. The current research bears this out, in that it tended to be respondents who had been recruited as frequent speeders who were particularly able to recognise themselves in the ad.
Q: So you can see bits of yourself in how he's driving?
"Oh definitely, yes." (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
"That's - I've got to put my hands up, that's my worst habit - I'm easily distracted and just don't pay attention. The only accident I've ever had was when I was driving up someone's arse and I went into the back of them, because I just wasn't paying attention." (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
"Everything that gets said [in this ad] reminds me of me. Granted, when you're near schools or any cars where you see there are child seats in there, you slow down, to the speed limit, but equally once past that, or past the speed camera, off you go again". (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.9 A key element in this identification was the feeling that the driver was seen as a convincing character. His views on his own driving were familiar ones; many respondents described themselves as above average drivers, and able to handle speed "better than other people". Furthermore, he appeared to be a capable and confident driver, unlike the driver in Simon Says, whom some felt was "weak" and "nervous", a perception which limited identification with this ad (see below). Compared with the 'bad' driving displayed by the speeding Doppelganger and the overgrown boy racer in Friends and Family, the Mirror driver was seen as a fundamentally competent driver whose failings were all-too-human ones of occasional over-confidence and lack of attention.
"I think we've all had that thing where you've been going too fast but you take that minute to reflect on things and try and avoid it happening again."
"And the fact that it's just him and he seems a decent guy, unlike the prat we were talking about before [Friends and Family driver] who didn't give a monkeys [about other people], that's just him reflecting on his own."
"He says, 'I'm a better driver than most people on the road' and you do quite often think that about yourself. I'd like to think it's true about myself because I don't do some of the crazy things that other drivers do - but yes you still do things that are…"
(Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.10 Overall, the Mirror ad, despite being over six years old, appeared to have stood up well in communication terms. The ad was familiar, even to the extent that some of its language was echoed by respondents in their general discussions about driving, but its familiarity did not seem to elicit mockery (as did Friends and Family, below). It seemed still capable of generating recognition and identification, and of triggering drivers to reflect on their own driving behaviour and the potential consequences of driving in a particular way. In this latter respect it seemed to have succeeded in addressing its intended TPB component of 'Attitude'. This is borne out by the survey findings, which suggested that respondents' attitudes changed in an anti-speeding direction, and that this change was associated with seeing the Mirror ad (Stead et al 2002).
5.2 Recall of and reactions to 'Friends and Family' (Subjective Norms) ad
5.11 The Friends and Family ad was mentioned spontaneously in three of the groups, suggesting a reasonable level of spontaneous recall. It was most commonly described as "that one with the mate" or the one where "nobody wants to get in the car with the driver". The terms "boy racer" and "watch his neck" were often used, suggesting that these phrases from the dialogue had stuck in respondents' minds, and several remembered the incident of the spilt drink. Interestingly, men seemed to remember most clearly the sequence with the 'mate', whereas women sometimes described the ad from the female and family perspective:
"...and there's another one that's not been on for a while where the girl... ...the girl won't get in the car with him because he thinks he's a boy racer. You hear his mates talking about it, how he thinks he's a boy racer, and his girlfriend or his wife says, 'I won't get in the car with him because he just drives too fast', and they've got kids and that and that's quite, quite an impact as well." (Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.12 As with the other ads, there were a few signs of potential confusion or misremembering, with some describing older children in the ad. Like Mirror, the ad was seen as an old one, which had "not been on for a while".
5.13 On being shown the ad, most remembered having seen it on television. In most groups the ad triggered mild amusement, with several laughing out loud at the sequence with the 'mate'. East of Scotland respondents said that they were laughing at the "Glaswegian" characters, and the "neddy accents", in particular. Respondents seemed to enjoy watching it, although sometimes in a spirit of detached mockery; for example, there was some sarcastic parroting of the dialogue, particularly "he's a mate but it's not right" and "you prat".
5.14 Immediate reactions to the ad were more mixed than for Mirror, although more positive than for Doppelganger. It was notable that this ad, of the three TPB ads, seemed more likely to elicit complaints that it was "not hard hitting enough" and lacked "impact". In part, this reflected feelings of dissatisfaction about the ending of the ad (see below), although it may also have reflected the generally more light-hearted tone of the ad. However, several reacted positively to the ad. Respondents identified, at an immediate level, two aspects of the ad which they liked: the way it criticised boy racer behaviour in drivers who "should know better", and its depiction of the passenger perspective, particularly the perspective of the concerned parent and young child. Respondents who were parents commented, at a spontaneous level, on how their driving had been modified, or how they had begun to think differently about their driving, when they had children of their own. Younger respondents who did not have children did not tend to react to the ad in this way, and seemed to relate to it less.
5.15 The boy racer character was felt by several respondents to be credible. Several said they knew drivers like that or had been in cars with someone like that: a friend, a relative, or, in the case of some of the female respondents, a male partner.
"I thought at the time when I'd seen it I thought it was good at the time because I have a brother that tends to behave like that ...think he's a boy racer... A Jack the lad, you know, and he's one... He's a great driver but irresponsible when it comes to speed and all that." (Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.16 The ad triggered discussion of whether as a passenger it would be acceptable or easy to challenge a driver who was felt to be driving badly; several said that it was an awkward, uncomfortable situation in which, out of a desire to keep the peace, they would probably not say anything.
"I've been in cars with folk like that and you get shit scared. I don't know what to say. I'm almost afraid, and I'm quite friendly with them and it's only when they start driving like a lunatic, I just go really quiet and I just want to get out of the car. If you say anything they get worse!". (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Semi-Rural, Infrequent Speeders)
5.17 Some respondents recognised boy racer tendencies in themselves, and although they were less likely than with the Mirror ad to state explicitly that they related to the central character, it was apparent that aspects of the ad "rang true" and made them think about their own driving.
"I could see something of myself in it - it's like, I'm aware of what I should be doing, but not doing it" (Male, 25-34,C2DE, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.18 Others, however, found the character unconvincing or extreme. Some respondents with this view were men who described themselves as having been boy racers, "revheads", "a bit of a petrolhead" when younger but who had (in their view) radically tempered their driving when they had children. For these respondents, a father who drove so recklessly with a baby son in the car was too "extreme" and "self-centred" to be really believable. Younger respondents struggled to relate to the character because his behaviour and apparent age seemed mismatched. For many female drivers and rural infrequent speeders it was difficult to relate to behaviour which seemed remote from their own when driving.
"That ad I suppose is targeted at folk that drive like that, because folk who don't drive like that, it doesn't make any impact on you. That makes no impact on me because I don't drive like that, and I know I'm not going to suddenly start driving like that". (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Semi-Rural, Infrequent Speeders)
5.19 This leads into a key point about the perceived target of the ad. Unlike Mirror, which evoked near-universal identification with the central character, respondents were divided in the degree to which they identified with the Friends and Family driver. While they recognised the driver in the ad, they did not necessarily identify with him. Several distanced themselves from what they saw as an unsympathetic portrayal of bad driving behaviour.
Q: Can you relate to that guy?
"No, he's just a fool."
"He doesn't care that much, he just seems a really self centred person whereas the other adverts, the alter ego, the other guy you can identify with it, that's me, I've got to keep in mind driving too fast past the school."
(Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.20 The central Subjective Norms concept of the ad rests on the assumption that being made aware of other people's disapproval can influence a driver to reassess his or her behaviour. Respondents had mixed views on this assumption. Several male drivers claimed that admonishments from a mother, wife or girlfriend could be and were routinely ignored; it was simply part of the lot of being a male driver that female relatives would act as "backseat drivers". Some felt that it was only when they became a father that they began radically to consider the impact of their driving on other people, suggesting that expression of external disapproval by itself has limited effect unless the driver internalises the needs of other people. This is reflected in data from the evaluation survey (Stead et al, 2002), which found that although frequent speeders were more likely than infrequent speeders to say that the ad was aimed at them, they were less likely to say that the ad made them think about their passengers' and other people's views of their driving.
5.21 The one exception to this, for some, was that they said they would take notice if a male friend criticised their driving.
"…if your mate's got to turn round to you and say you're drive like an absolute --, it would have ten times more impact than my wife or my mum." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
"No. There probably are people like that but I don't drive like that."
"Saying that I do like the fact of the mate coming round saying I'm not going to sit in the car because --, if one of my mates turned round and said you should drive more carefully." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.22 One respondent even put himself in almost the same scenario as that implied in the ad - men driving to play sport together - and reflected on the foolishness of trying to gain a few seconds:
"If some of my mates turned round and said that, well it would make me think a bit. You would have a tendency, because you think you're Jack the lad when you're in your car, zipping through here, short cut there, all for getting there two minutes earlier than anyone else. And then I need to sit and wait for them to come with the keys for the changing room anyway." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.23 It is interesting to consider these comments in light of the evaluation survey data (Stead et al, 2002). In the survey, the 'significant others' whom drivers said they might be most influenced by, in relation to speeding, were 'the police' and 'a competent driver', followed by 'mother' and 'partner/spouse'. 'Close friends' came lower down the list, and 'typical young male driver' was bottom of the list. This may suggest that male drivers give their mothers' and partners' views on their driving more credence than they are prepared to admit in a focus group discussion.
5.24 As with Mirror, respondents identified a range of messages in the ad. The anti-speeding intent of the ad was communicated through the "boy racer" references, the depiction of the baby's head being jolted in the back of the car, and the Foolsspeed logo. However, as with Mirror, this was not necessarily seen as the main or only message of the ad, and other more general driving messages were also identified such as "drive carefully" and "don't be a selfish driver". A similar range of messages was identified in the longitudinal evaluation, with just over half spontaneously perceiving the ad to contain a speeding message, just over a third identifying other driving behaviour messages, and nearly half identifying messages to do with concern for others (Stead et al, 2002).
5.25 The central idea of looking at your own driving though your passengers' eyes was generally understood, although it sometimes took a bit of discussion to reach this point. For one respondent, the strapline was the one element which made him take the ad seriously and grasp its intent.
"What they said at the end of it was 'put yourself in the passenger seat and see what you're like' [sic]. I didn't think it was too bad at the end of it when it said that. If it's your wife or mum or girlfriend sitting beside you you're a bit more careful but with your mates you don't give two monkeys." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.26 Some saw in the ad a broader, less driving-specific message of concern and respect for others. A small number felt that the ad also contained implicit messages for passengers to 'speak out' when in the car with a bad driver.
5.27 However, there was a feeling that the ad was "a bit muddled", and that this potentially clouded the message a little. One aspect of the ad which seemed to undermine the intended message was the nature of the consequence shown - no passenger wanting to be in the car with the driver - and the driver's apparent reaction. Several felt that this was too tame a consequence to have any real impact, compared with the graphic consequences depicted in more conventional road safety ads and even with the near-misses in Mirror and Simon Says: "he spills his juice - big deal". This was further underlined by the driver's apparent (to some) unconcern in the final scene: he "looked like he didn't care whether they were in the car or not". In any case, argued some respondents, a driver who was so callous and lacking in self-insight probably would not care what other people thought anyway.
"How does that change a selfish, aggressive type of character that probably looks at that and has been told by his wife anyway that he's driving like that? It's not going to stop him." (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Semi-Rural, Infrequent Speeders)
5.28 Overall, the Friends and Family ad appeared to have a weaker impact than the Mirror ad. The slight mockery it generated may suggest that this ad, which of the three TPB ads perhaps relies most strongly on humour, characterisation and initial suspense, has worn out more quickly than the others. As the storyline and characters have become familiar, they have perhaps lost some of their impact. It was notable that this ad was more likely to trigger comments about being "dated" and "old fashioned", despite being more recent than Mirror and only a year older than Simon Says. The mixed reactions to the concept that the views of significant others, such as partner and friends, can encourage reflection on driving behaviour may suggest that the ad was less successful in addressing its intended TPB component, Subjective Norms; or it may suggest that this is a more challenging concept than Attitude to translate into advertising. The evaluation survey data generally supported this view: the ad was found to have only weak effects on Subjective Norms (Stead et al, 2002). Interestingly, the ad perhaps succeeded best of the three TPB ads in positioning speeding as a 'foolish' behaviour (most respondents concurred in their dislike of the central character), but potentially at the expense of identification and empathy.
5.3 Recall of and reactions to 'Simon Says' (Perceived Behavioural Control) ad
5.29 Simon Says was only rarely mentioned spontaneously during discussion of road safety ads. In one group, two women referred to the ad in terms of the music and phrase "Simon Says"; apart from this, the ad was not mentioned. When shown the ad, a majority claimed to have seen it on television, although recall seemed to be slightly lower than for the other two TPB ads. This may reflect the fact that Simon Says was screened less often than the earlier ads, although it was more recent. The longitudinal evaluation also found slightly lower recall of the Simon Says ad (Stead et al, 2002).
5.30 Respondents generally watched the ad attentively, and seemed engaged throughout, particularly by the near miss at the end of the ad. Of the three TPB ads, it seemed to be the most dramatic in that some respondents displayed signs of slight shock at the final scene. Immediate reactions were of approval and agreement, with comments such as "good", "yes that's what it's like" and "another good yin". The most prominent features of the ad - the ones immediately recalled after viewing - were the tailgating by the white van and the idea of forcing a slow driver in front to speed up. It was perceived as depicting an instantly familiar scenario of being pressurised by other cars to go faster than one would like, and triggered accounts of being harassed by other road users: "that happens to me all the time".
"I just about had an accident like that, because someone was right behind me, and this car stopped right in front of us, and I just slammed on the brakes… I can relate to that." (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.31 Nearly all respondents could relate to being pressurised or intimidated by other cars; many however also recognised that they themselves occasionally tried to intimidate other drivers into speeding up, a factor which complicated identification with this ad (see below). As with Friends and Family, some commented spontaneously on the "Glaswegian" accents and street scenes. One or two also commented spontaneously on the music, which they found "creepy" and intriguing.
5.32 Like the Mirror ad, Simon Says was generally seen as having a high degree of credibility, although some argued that the type of tailgating would be more likely to occur on motorways and dual carriageways than on urban roads. The types of consequences depicted in the ad were both realistic and compelling. Several respondents commented on how it would be the driver in front, despite the pressure from the driver behind, who had to bear any negative consequences from having a near miss, a collision with the car in front, or speeding penalties:
"He's sticking to the speed limit and there's somebody behind you trying to push you up. Also the concentration levels suffer if you're always looking behind you."
(Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
"Because someone else has pushed him through he's ended up with potentially 3 points and a cash fine, and then the last one being potentially the worst one -- the white van man up your backside." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.33 Rural drivers again seemed to relate less to the scenarios shown in the ad, reflecting the tendency for most of their driving to be in villages and on country roads rather than urban commuting. For the rest of the respondents, Simon Says triggered strong feelings of identification, although for some of the faster drivers this was shared between "the driver in front" and "the driver behind"; they could relate to both types of behaviour. For one respondent who described himself as a "white van man" the ad made him think about the foolishness of venting frustration at slow progress on the driver in front. This suggests that, unintentionally, the ad is making some drivers think not only about resisting pressure but also about not exerting it:
"In both parts, being the driver in front and the driver behind, trying to get places and realising you can't because the gap's too small. I've been sitting on someone's boot so they can't see your lights and you're trying to get them to get a move on and it doesn't work." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
"The thing with being in a transit is you're in a much higher driving position, and you forget that the people in the car in front of you can't see obstructions and hazards ahead as much as you can - you do forget [when you're pressurising them to speed up]."
"Yes, so there's a guilt factor for me in the Simon Says one."
(Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.34 However, despite recognising the situations in which the Simon Says driver found himself, respondents did not always relate to the driver himself. Where they had readily identified with the Mirror driver because his confidence and attitude to driving echoed their own, this driver was seen as " nervous", " anxious" and " a bit lacking in confidence". In this context, the ad was for some a good way of highlighting the problems faced by " other drivers" rather than themselves; it evoked sympathy rather than empathy.
"Yes, because not everybody is strong. You wonder about, well, people just passed their test, the younger drivers that are they -- in a position or maybe somebody who's having a bad day that's ... that they would allow themselves to be intimidated and maybe think, 'Am I not going fast enough here? Is this a 40 and I'm only doing 30, am I in the wrong?'" (Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.35 Identification may also have been hampered by the fact that the ad does not get inside the head of the driver, unlike in Mirror, nor give any insights into his personality from the perspective of others, as in Friends and Family; in this respect Simon Says is similar to Doppelganger, in that the driver remains a blank canvas only characterised by his externally observed actions.
5.36 Two related broad messages were identified in the ad, not to pressurise other drivers, and not to give in to pressure, although the final strapline 'Be Your Own Man' focussed attention on this latter message. Again, as with Mirror, respondents also identified messages about concentration and being careful. The speeding camera incident was not always picked up by respondents, which may partly explain why speeding was not always seen as a core message in the ad, despite the Foolsspeed logo A similar mixed range of perceived messages was found in the evaluation survey (Stead et al, 2002), where there was extremely high agreement that the ad was saying 'that you shouldn't let yourself be influenced by other drivers' AND 'that you shouldn't put pressure on other drivers', but lower agreement with intended speeding messages.
5.37 Overall, the Simon Says ad appeared to have been effective in focusing attention on the concept of pressure when driving, and to have had a high believability. Despite being relatively old, its ending appeared to still have some emotional power; the ad did not appear to have worn out to the extent that Friends and Family had. It seems to have been effective in encouraging drivers to think about how they habitually respond when pressurised by other drivers from behind; and, unintentionally, to make some drivers reflect on their tendency to exert that pressure. However, the extent to which the ad challenged drivers' perceptions of being in control over their speeding, and increased their feelings of control over their speed choice (the central TPB aim of the ad), is not clear. The ad seems to imply that anxiety and nervousness can force drivers into speeding, whereas respondents' own experiences tended to suggest that speeding was more often linked to over-confidence and impatience (the scenario depicted in Mirror); in other words, the influences on speeding are potentially more internal or indirect than implied in Simon Says.
5.4 Perceived impact of the Foolsspeed ads
5.38 After seeing and discussing each individual ad, respondents were asked to think about Doppelganger and the original three TPB ads together and to compare them in terms of perceived impact, particularly the extent to which each ad had made them personally reassess their driving behaviour. They were also asked to consider whether the ads had any unifying features and the extent to which they were or were not seen to link together as a campaign.
5.39 There was a widely shared view that, of the four ads, Doppelganger was least likely to make them personally reassess their driving behaviour. The proposition itself and the execution of the proposition did not resonate as strongly as some of the others, with Mirror and Simon Says being the strongest. Frequent speeders were particularly likely to pick Mirror as the ad which had made them personally think most about their driving, closely followed by Simon Says. Less frequent speeders tended to be divided between Mirror, Simon Says, and Friends and Family, which they liked because of its depiction of the passenger perspective. Very few picked Doppelganger as the ad which had most made them reflect on their own driving; the very small number who did tended to be infrequent speeders who liked its endorsement of their unhurried way of driving, which was part of its intention.
5.40 A number of factors influenced respondents' judgments on the ads. Firstly, some of the ads were seen to be more engaging in terms of content. Although all the ads were seen as low-key compared with other road safety ads, Mirror and Simon Says were of the four the most dramatic, in that they had a relatively strong narrative, a build-up of suspense and a culmination in a near miss (in Simon Says, the "creepy" music was particularly effective in enhancing the feeling of suspense). The near misses appeared to have the potential, even after repeated viewing, to jolt respondents into thinking "what might have happened". The other two ads, in contrast, culminated in far less dramatic endings: in one the avoidance of a presumed speeding ticket and in the other passenger disapproval. So different was this latter sort of consequence from the more traditional consequences shown in road safety ads that, as noted above, there was a feeling among some that Friends and Family and Doppelganger barely depicted any negative impact at all. Some respondents argued that the lack of dramatic consequences in Friends and Family and Doppelganger made them "boring", although Friends and Family was redeemed slightly by the mild humour in the exchanges between the driver and the "mate".
"It's all about the ending [in Mirror], the screeching tyres, albeit that there's nothing happened, if you look at what's in front of the car, the lollipop crossing at a school and the kids about to cross the road in front. You could have hit the car in front of the children. And Simon Says as well, it's got that ending. The others, they're not straight to the point." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.41 Doppelganger's ending was perceived as particularly low-key. As noted in Chapter Four, the ad had no dialogue, either between characters as in Friends and Family or internally, as in Mirror, and also no voiceover, as in Simon Says. The unimpactful ending and lack of voices made this ad unengaging for many respondents, even though it was strongly recalled and the concept understood.
"That had no dialogue at all, that was rubbish."
"Yes, that was the worst."
"The worst, yes."
(Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.42 There was a perception that Doppelganger was executionally different from the other three ads and had perhaps originated from a different source. Where the first three ads were seen by some as rather low budget, Doppelganger was seen as slicker and more polished - as discussed in Chapter Four it was notable that to some it "looked like a car ad". This fostered a perception that it had "been made by someone else". However, the perceived greater polish of Doppelganger did not necessarily seem to be a strength, nor did the perceived lower budget nature of the three TPB ads seem to be a weakness. One respondent commented that the "smoothness" of Doppelganger diminished its potential impact, compared with the grittier style of Simon Says:
"The good thing with Simon Says is how it's been shot. It's quite jerky, and that's what it's like in a car when you look in the mirror. It's quite quick and jerky so it keeps you on your toes, you're wondering what's going to happen next. The [Doppelganger] one doesn't at all, it's all nice and smooth." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.43 Most notably, for many respondents the first three ads were seen as Scottish and Doppelganger was not. Several felt that Doppelganger was "made in London" or "England", a perception which seemed to be fuelled by the anonymity of the office building, and, more obviously, by the lack of Scottish voices in the ad. Several said that they liked seeing adverts clearly made for people in Scotland, and felt that they attended to them better as a result.
"I think one of the things that's convincing [is] because they've got Scottish accents as well." (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
"I like the Scottish accent."
"I think it's quite nice when they put Scottish people in ads, Scottish accents."
(Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.44 Respondents varied too in the extent to which they saw each ad as personally relevant to them and their degree of identification with the behaviour depicted. As discussed earlier, some of the driving behaviours were seen as more convincing than others. The behaviour in Mirror was felt to be particularly familiar, as was that in Simon Says; many respondents could identify with the attempted short cut, the over-confidence and the momentary distraction shown in Mirror, and nearly all respondents could relate to being pressurised by other drivers, as in Simon Says.
"It's [Mirror] just more realistic."
"You get distracted and…"
"Everybody does it."
"It's that moment when your heart kind of stops - you don't know whether they're going to hit the bumper or not."
(Male, 17-24, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
"Mirror and Simon Says, as I was saying earlier, the Simon Says one, you've been in both situations, where you've been tailgated or you're doing it yourself. So that one makes me feel a bit guilty, because I do drive a white van to work, like that." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
"Simon Says, a lot of people can relate to that."
"And I think it builds up well."
"You identify with the guy."
(Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.45 Identification with these two ads was enhanced by their recognisable 'Scottishness'. In contrast, fewer could identify with the apparent selfishness and disregard shown by the Friends and Family driver, or with the 'bad' driving behaviour shown in Doppelganger, which was seen as extreme and reckless; interestingly, there was also limited identification with the 'good' driving behaviour shown in Doppelganger. The drivers in the Mirror and Simon Says ads were seen as essentially average, "decent" drivers with the relatively minor weaknesses of overconfidence and succumbing to pressure. This appeared to make them more convincing characters who were also more engaging and sympathetic. In contrast, the Friends and Family driver tended to be perceived simply as a bad and uncaring driver.
"The [Friends and Family] one is just a crap driver. The other three - the Mirror guy, he talks to himself and tries to justify his behaviour, Simon Says has got people putting him under pressure. And the [Doppelganger] one is trying to get there quick." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
5.46 Overall, respondents perceived Mirror, followed by Simon Says, as the ads with which they could most identify and which made them reflect most on their driving. Friends and Family seemed less effective in this regard, and Doppelganger was felt to have the least effect of the four ads.
5.5 Perceptions of the Foolsspeed campaign as a whole
5.47 Respondents were also asked whether they perceived similarities between the four Foolsspeed ads, and to what extent they perceived them as forming a unified campaign.
5.48 Overall, the ads were felt to share certain features, one of the most notable of which was an approach which seemed deliberately different to other road safety advertising. However, it was less clear how effective the ads had been in communicating a shared message, or in building on each other to enhance the campaign's central proposition, that speeding in town is foolish. These similarities and differences are now discussed in more detail.
5.49 A key feature which the four ads were perceived as having in common was their departure from traditional road safety advertising. Most obviously, they lacked the graphic imagery and shocking consequences used in other road safety ads. This potentially explained why they were less likely to be immediately recalled in discussion of road safety advertising than other campaigns (it was notable that more graphic campaigns were usually recalled first in precisely these terms: "the one where she's thrown across the bar", "the one where the pizza splatters on the window", "the one where the child's thrown in the air in slow motion"). The consequences depicted in the Foolsspeed ads were perceived in comparison to these more shocking ads as tame, although as noted above, respondents did differentiate in this context between Mirror and Simon Says, whose depiction of near misses implied more dramatic consequences, and Friends & Family and Doppelganger, whose consequences were seen as much less dramatic.
5.50 Some respondents, equating shock value with impact, maintained that because the Foolsspeed ads lacked "children flying through the air", they were less effective; Foolsspeed was seen by these respondents as a low budget poor relation to the more sensational high visibility campaigns. However, as noted earlier in the report, when challenged to reflect on whether these more graphic ads had had an impact on them personally, they were reluctant to admit that even these ads had much effect.
5.51 Related to this perception that the Foolsspeed ads were not graphic and shocking was the perception that they were more "realistic" than many ads. They were perceived as showing "daily driving" and common driving experiences, such as momentary distractions and near misses.
"It's not focused on the big things, is it? Not focused on the death, kind of, side of things."
"It's a daily thing you do every day."
(Male, 25-34,C2DE, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.52 Just as the types of driving depicted were familiar and everyday, so the types of driver portrayed were generally "average people" (although, as discussed earlier, some of the Foolsspeed drivers were seen as slightly more believable than others). The Foolsspeed ads were also perceived as sharing a narrow focus on one particular type of driving: everyday, urban commuter driving. The recognisable Scottish locations and Scottish accents in some of the ads underlined this intended realism.
5.53 Several, on reflection, saw this greater realism as an intended strength of the Foolsspeed campaign, and recognised that it was linked to the campaign's attempt to "do something different".
"They're putting the same points across [as other road safety ads], it's just they're doing it in a different way." (Female, 17-24, C2DE, Semi-rural, Moderate Speeders)
5.54 This 'doing something different' had a number of elements. Some reflected that the choice of more realistic driving scenarios could possibly be more effective because people would be able to relate to the message better: there would be less tendency to tune it out as "not likely to happen to me":
"...because the whole point of the adverts is that if you watch the advert hopefully you do relate to one of these, and if you find yourself in that position again it is going to make you think twice... Just trying to make real life situations, kind of, because you have got all the adverts where they knock you over or something, but there's only so many people can relate to that." (Male, 17-24, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
"Maybe [they're not showing accidents] because everybody will relate to it more - the close call, most people probably generally have been in a situation where, you know, they're concentrating on something else, you brake and you've nearly gone up someone's arse."
"They're concentrating on something else."
"Most people can relate to that."
"Everybody's had that."
"Yes, not everybody's had a sort of accident."
(Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
"These are things that are relevant every day from the minute you actually go into your car."
"That's what I was going to say."
"Like the other ones, like, when you're drinking in a pub and you 'decide' to become a drink-driver, that's not an everyday thing ... but from the minute you go out in the morning and put your key into the ignition then everything..."
(Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.55 The potential of the more realistic Foolsspeed approach to trigger reflection was shown with one group of respondents who had continually criticised the Foolsspeed ads for being tame and not showing enough "blood" but at the same time found themselves unintentionally reacting in the intended way to two of the ads:
"It's that close call, Mirror and Simon Says, we've all done it."
"Seeing the sort of shock on the guy's face, like the relief."
"If you've ever done that, then you're like 'concentrate; concentrate'. It does drive it home to you, you know, that you just had a close shave."
(Male, 35-44, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.56 Another, related, difference in the Foolsspeed ads was their perceived indirectness and subtlety. Where other campaigns showed, in unflinching detail, horrific accidents, the Foolsspeed ads merely hinted at possible consequences of speeding.
"These are predicting what would happen, the other ones you see what happens." (Female, 17-24, C2DE, Semi-rural, Moderate Speeders)
5.57 In this respect there was a perception that the Foolsspeed ads required the viewer to "use your imagination", and specifically to "put yourself in that position", to think through how one would act in the same situation and what the outcomes might be.
5.58 This led into a key perceived difference between Foolsspeed and other campaigns, concerning the way in which the ads spoke to their audience. The Foolsspeed ads were overall felt to have a lighter tone than other campaigns (although there were also variations in tone, with Friends and Family being the most light-hearted and Simon Says being more serious). Where shock-horror ads were perceived as using dramatic imagery to force the case for safer driving, often in an emotionally manipulative way, the Foolsspeed ads were felt to provide a more reasoned, thoughtful argument, dealing with what were regarded as the everyday practicalities of driving and encouraging the viewer to reassess their behaviour in the light of these arguments.
"I think they're not telling you what to do. They're not ramming it down your throat. It's just saying 'Think about what you're doing' - just step back and look at it from a different perspective a little bit." (Male, 25-34,C2DE, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.59 Two themes dominated here: self-reflection, and choice/responsibility. The Foolsspeed ads were perceived, echoing the Mirror strapline, as encouraging drivers to "look at your own driving". Some of the ads were perceived as doing this more successfully than others, as noted above, but this was nonetheless recognised as an intended message of the overall campaign.
"It makes you think. They're all meant to make you think about yourself". (Male, 35-44, ABC1, Semi-Rural, Infrequent Speeders)
5.60 The other key unifying theme was choice and responsibility. Rather than spelling out one intended driving behaviour - don't drive at 40, don't drink-drive, wear a seatbelt -, the Foolsspeed ads were seen as emphasising the driver's ability to choose between different courses of action. This was particularly exemplified in Mirror and to a lesser extent Doppelganger and Simon Says.
"They make you think about what's the implications of one small change in the way that you drive..." (Male, 17-24, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.61 Linked to the concept of choice was that of responsibility for your own actions. Again, this was particularly exemplified in Mirror and Simon Says, although from slightly different angles.
"It's your responsibility."
"Yes. There's no one else responsible for your actions when you're behind the wheel. When you're driving, you're in control." (Male, 25-34, ABC1, Urban, Moderate Speeders)
"Don't speed, don't allow the guy behind you to take over, be your own person." (Female, 45-54, ABC1, Urban, Frequent Speeders)
5.62 It was notable that it was these broad themes of choice and responsibility which were perceived to be shared across the ads, rather than the speeding message. All the ads were perceived, to varying degrees, to be about speeding, but this was not necessarily seen as the most important message in each ad and nor was it immediately identified as a feature linking the ads together. The speeding message seemed to be weakest in Friends and Family, because the main flaw in the central driver seemed to be his selfish disregard for others rather than specifically his speeding: "that's more about attitude towards other people". The speeding message seemed to be communicated more strongly in the other three ads, although in each case it was seen to be the combination of speeding with something else, rather than speeding per se, which was the problem - in Mirror, momentary distraction; in Simon Says, giving in to pressure; and in Doppelganger, overtaking recklessly. The campaign strapline: speeding in town is foolish, does not always seem to have been picked up by respondents; ironically, it was the Friends and Family driver, with whom respondents struggled to identify, who was most obviously seen as a fool ( "you prat"). The Mirror and Simon Says drivers were seen less as fools than as average drivers, but it was this averageness which made respondents more able to project themselves into the driver's shoes.
5.63 Overall, while the Foolsspeed ads clearly did have a number of strengths and were perceived to be genuinely "doing something different" to other road safety ads, the central speeding message was not communicated as strongly as intended.
« Previous | Contents | Next »