Communication Campaigns in Health and Environment

Characteristics of Successful Campaigns

Several decades of empirical research and theorizing on the uses and effects of public communication campaigns have led to four overarching strategies and tactics gleaned from observing more successful programs:

• 1.
  Campaigns should be planned and designed by drawing from social science–based theory appropriate to the given topic, context, audience, and goals. Theory-based design not only provides rationales and evidence for what has previously succeeded (or not), but also provides a rigorous framework for strategic planning and establishing realistic outcomes. Possibilities include drawing from such classic psychological models as social learning and reasoned action, the sociological approach of diffusion of innovations, communication-based constructs such as framing and message analysis, or multifaceted risk analysis and communication models, as well as more general paradigms such as social marketing. The choice of a suitable theory for the program at hand can be daunting, but it is critical.
• 2.
  Formative evaluation research carried out prior to the campaign has shown significant value in effective program planning and design. Such research includes examining audiences' existing knowledge, attitudes, motives, and behaviors with respect to the campaign topic, as well as examining their communication patterns and preferences. More broadly, formative research should include attention to the situational or community setting in which the program will take place, including the institutional resources, availability and accessibility of public response mechanisms, and the willingness of organizational or community leaders to facilitate or impede the program goals. Pilot testing of campaign themes and messages with target publics through expert interviews, focus groups, and/or surveys can be invaluable.
• 3.
  Individual and community participation in campaign planning, design, and execution can lead to greater effectiveness on several levels. Such involvement can aid in more clearly understanding the audience's view of a problem, which may differ markedly from that of program leaders. If an audience is being asked to take steps to resolve a problem, views are gained as to the kinds of steps that may be potentially viable, versus those that are likely to be rejected. And, of course, one size will not fit all. Public participation allows a finer delineation of the variations in an audience (or segments), leading away from attempts to focus on one grand, general audience descriptor. Finally, participation can build greater involvement with the issue, with less of a sense of top-down hierarchical communication efforts, particularly characteristic of those of governmental agencies that have sometimes been found less than effective.
• 4.
  The campaign should be implemented with clear, appropriate, and ultimately measureable goals, given the audience makeup and setting; the goals should be spelled out conceptually and operationally, in such a way that they are subject to eventual assessment. Strategies and tactics for accomplishing the goals should be clearly formulated, with a well-orchestrated dissemination plan utilizing professional quality messages and materials. While this may seem obvious, many public sector campaigns lack measureable goals or attention to obtaining adequate resources for quality campaign deployment. Such shortcomings can subvert programs that have the best of intentions. Final summative evaluation rounds out the requirements for appropriate campaign implementation.

Public Health Campaigns Versus Environmental Campaigns

Public health communication programs have for decades been far ahead of environmental and natural resources programs on all of the above [Page 167]dimensions. Health programs benefit from a longer tradition and a far more extensive support system, greater personal public interest and thus financial support for addressing health issues, and greater coherence among a multitude of health organizations at all levels. Insofar as program funding is concerned, the U.S. health promotion and research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone far outweigh funded environmental efforts, which are apt to be tied more to resources from nonprofit advocacy organizations. That distinction may lead to something of a credibility gap as well.

...