Breaking Through
Social change communication is at a crossroads, and communicators must adapt – and quickly – in order to remain relevant and impactful. A growing body of research shows two clear trends in the United States. (1) The mass media landscape is increasingly saturated with content, and (2) the public is gradually shifting to prefer digital media over traditional media.[i]
Live television viewership has declined for four years in a row, thanks in part to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, while at the same time, daily use of internet, mobile, and social media technology has risen sharply, especially among younger Americans.[ii] The shift toward digital and mobile media has opened the floodgates on the number of advertising messages that Americans see, with some estimates now as high as 3,000 ads seen per person, per day.[iii] Perhaps due to the steep increase in advertising on all media channels, nearly half of Americans in a recent poll characterized ads and other overtly persuasive media content, such as commercials and pop-ups, as “dishonest” or “intrusive.”[iv] Increasingly, many people are taking measures to screen out such content while reading online or watching T.V., even going so far as to pay a premium to avoid commercials on services, like Hulu Plus.[v]
These changes in media and how audiences consume it are affecting the bottom line for both commercial advertisers and social change groups. To put it simply, if the public never sees the content – whether it’s an ad for laundry detergent or a public service message about diabetes prevention – it doesn’t matter how impactful the message may be.
Given the rapid evolution of the mass-media landscape, social change groups, such as public health entities and non-profits, need alternative strategies to reach audiences and keep important issues salient in the public sphere. But with so much media content competing for audiences’ attention, how can these groups adapt to the digital world and still make a difference?
Following in the Footsteps of Advertising, Once Again
The commercial advertising industry has grappled with the changing media landscape for over two decades, and has cleverly evolved to incorporate entertainment and digital media into its campaigns.[vi] Through a strategy known as “branded entertainment,” advertisers reach audiences by embedding their messages and products in entertainment content, such as films, television shows, and even viral videos.[vii] If you’ve ever seen a product mentioned by name on a T.V. show, chances are good the company paid to have it written into the dialogue. Tactics like native advertising, sponsored content, and product placement have had an increased presence in entertainment content, and having an ad “go viral” has become the holy grail of digital media advertising.[viii] The branded entertainment trend shows no signs of slowing down, with spending projected to grow in coming years.[ix]
While it’s pretty clear how media saturation and digital technology have changed the way commercial advertisers reach their audiences, it may be less obvious how these changes are affecting public interest groups, which also depend on reaching Americans through mass-media channels. For decades, public health professionals, educators, and other not-for-profit groups working to affect positive social change have traditionally depended on social marketing principles to reach their audiences[x] Social marketing adapts commercial advertising principles and strategies to serve the greater good, using print, radio, and television advertising channels to reach the public.[xi] Public interest groups have long used the 30-second public service announcement and print ads as part of their campaigns to improve health, educational, or other social outcomes.[xii] However, as fewer Americans watch live television, and as more block advertising content on digital media, public interest groups are struggling to reach their audience, gain attention, and measure impact.[xiii]
Perhaps public interest groups should again take a page out of the commercial advertising playbook, and turn to digital entertainment media for the answer. Digital entertainment media may be the best tool that public interest groups can use, given its rising popularity and its ability to indirectly amplify the effects of a message via social media. Americans are increasingly shifting to digital media, and social change groups need to design their messages in a way that will boost their connections with audiences, instead of being skipped.
Let Me Entertain You
American culture has undergone an “entertainmentization” over the past few decades.[xiv] Entertainment and digital media are integral parts of our 21st century culture, and they have permeated nearly every aspect of American life.[xv] With a net worth in the billions of dollars, the American entertainment industry is projected to continue growing for years to come.[xvi] While some advertising content may be perceived as entertaining, it’s safe to say that most individuals don’t spend much time seeking out advertisements. At the same time, we seem to be naturally drawn to entertainment, and have an “innate need” for it.[xvii]
Entertainment media – especially digital media – may be an effective alternative to the traditional social marketing tactics used by many groups working for positive social change. However, few academic research studies have investigated what persuasive effects – if any – digital entertainment media have on individuals, communities, and our culture. To date, nearly all academic research studies that look at media effects have focused on the outcomes of overtly persuasive messages in mass media (such as advertising, social marketing, or political ads), or educational/social messages embedded in traditional entertainment media formats, (such as radio, television and film).[xviii]
The Truth Initiative recently launched an anti-smoking campaign that falls somewhere in between a traditional PSA and a viral video. The clip warns viewers that housecats exposed to cigarette smoke are at-risk for cancer. No cats, no cat videos, the video predicts.
The Truth Initiative recently launched an anti-smoking campaign that falls somewhere in between a traditional PSA and a viral video. The clip warns viewers that housecats exposed to cigarette smoke are at-risk for cancer. No cats, no cat videos, the video predicts.
Traditional entertainment media have been shown to have a positive, measurable social impact through the effects of pro-social messages on individuals, communities, and societies.[xix] The practice of purposefully embedding pro-social messages in entertainment content is an international development strategy known as entertainment-education (E-E). Entertainment-education has been used for decades by different groups to promote positive social change, and its success is well-documented.[xx] Over the past few decades, some international entertainment-education initiatives have been credited with changing social norms and societal-level behaviors in places like India and South Africa. However, mass-mediated E-E initiatives within the United States have been much smaller in scope and impact, focusing mainly on affecting the audience’s knowledge or beliefs about a public issue at the individual level (ex. getting a mammogram), as opposed to affecting social/cultural norms or public policy (ex. increasing public support for breast cancer screening and research).[xxi] In addition, most research studies on the effectiveness of E-E initiatives within the United States were conducted before the dramatic shift toward digital and mobile media technology, so there is a clear need for new studies that evaluate E-E in the contemporary media environment.
There are compelling reasons why a move to digital entertainment media could spell success for social change communication. Shorter content, like videos or memes, require only a small time commitment from the viewer – unlike a television show or film. This is an advantage considering the stiff competition for viewership due to media saturation.[xxii] Also, digital content is easily watched and shared on social media using a mobile phone or computer, whereas some traditional entertainment content still requires a cable connection and a television, and isn’t shareable. The ease with which digital content can be viewed and shared on social media naturally assists in the diffusion of that content through interpersonal networks, both online and in-person.[xxiii]
The power of entertainment content is related to social impact in two ways. Firstly, the entertainment content is diffused through “digital word-of-mouth,” which amplifies the message, potentially reaching individuals who might not have sought out the message on their own.[xxiv] Secondly, individuals who share the message on social media may act as influencers in their own social networks, spreading the message much farther than most public interest groups could by using their own resources.[xxv] In fact, interpersonal communication has been shown to have more of a persuasive effect on individuals than mass-mediated communication, meaning that the public is more likely to be persuaded by a meme or video about breast cancer if a friend or family member shares it.[xxvi] This boost to a message’s efficacy may occur because sharing a video is perceived as a tacit endorsement of its content, according to a recent study of the persuasive impact of digital political parody videos.[xxvii]
The 30-second public service announcement may not be quite dead – yet – but given all the changes to how Americans consume media content – or don’t – alternative message formats must be explored and tested. Those working to promote positive social change should take their cue from the for-profit advertising industry, and try incorporating their messages into digital entertainment media. With entertainment’s popularity growing alongside our society’s aversion to traditional advertising, social change organizations must evolve and embrace the creative opportunity that’s been presented to them in this new era. If they do, they’ll have a shot at reaching their audience – at least until the next big media revolution comes along.
Jessica Henry Mariona is Washington, D.C. based researcher and storyteller who specializes in social change communication strategy. She is a recent graduate of AU’s Strategic Communications program, and previously served in the U.S. Peace Corps. This blog post is adapted from the author’s 2015 unpublished graduate capstone paper.
__________________________
[i] Luckerson, V. (2014, December 3). Here’s Proof Television is Slowly Dying, Retrieved May 1, 2015 from http://time.com/3615387/tv-viewership-declining-nielsen/; Sherry, J. (2002). Media saturation and entertainment education. Communication Theory, 12, 206–224.; Pew Research Center, Social Media Use Over Time. (2013, November 13). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/social-media/social-media-use-all-users/;
Pew Research Center, Internet Use Over Time. (2014, January 2). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time/
[ii] Luckerson, V. (2014, December 3). Here’s Proof Television is Slowly Dying, Retrieved May 1, 2015 from http://time.com/3615387/tv-viewership-declining-nielsen/; Pew Research Center, Social Media Use Over Time. (2013, November 13). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/social-media/social-media-use-all-users/;
Pew Research Center, Internet Use Over Time. (2014, January 2). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time/
[iii] Abu-Saud, Z. (2013, March 26). The Dogma of Advertising and Consumerism. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ziad-elhady/the-dogma-of-advertising-_b_2540390.html
[iv] Gammon, A. (2014, April 8). Truth in advertising: 50% don’t trust what they see, read and hear. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/04/08/truth-advertising-50-dont-trust-what-they-see-read/
[v] Hill, K. (2013, March 23). Use Of Ad Blocking Is On The Rise. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/21/use-of-ad-blocking-is-on-the-rise/
[vi] Donaton, S. (2004). Madison & Vine: Why the entertainment and advertising industries must converge to survive. McGraw-Hill; New York.
[vii] Donaton, S. (2004). Madison & Vine: Why the entertainment and advertising industries must converge to survive. McGraw-Hill; New York.
[viii] Hoelzel, M. (2015, February 18). Spending on native advertising is soaring as marketers and digital media publishers realize the benefits. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/spending-on-native-ads-will-soar-as-publishers-and-advertisers-take-notice-2014-11; Donaton, S. (2004). Madison & Vine: Why the entertainment and advertising industries must converge to survive. McGraw-Hill; New York.
[ix] PQ Media. (2015, March 13). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.pqmedia.com/about-press-20150313.html
[x] Fox, K., & Kotler, P. (1980). The marketing of social causes: The first 10 years. Journal of Marketing, 44, 24-33.
[xi] Bray, R. (2002). SPIN Works! Independent Media Institute; Fox, K., & Kotler, P. (1980). The marketing of social causes: The first 10 years. Journal of Marketing, 44, 24-33.; Truss, A. (2010). Jeff French, Clive Blair-Stevens, Dominic McVey, Rowena Merritt, ed. Social Marketing and Public Health: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press. p. 20.
[xii] Glanz, K. (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice. (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute; Truss, A. (2010). Jeff French, Clive Blair-Stevens, Dominic McVey, Rowena Merritt, ed. Social Marketing and Public Health: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press. p. 20.
[xiii] Campolo, A., Gilomen, J., Johnson, J., Shome, D. (2013). Impact Playbook: Best practices for understanding the impact of media. Harmony Institute; Poggi, J. (2014, December 8). Nielsen at a Tipping Point? Accelerating Change Confronts Methodical Researchers. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://adage.com/article/media/nielsen-struggles-media-change/296054/
[xiv] Wolf, M. J., (1999). The entertainment economy. The mega-media forces that are re-shaping our lives. London; Penguin Books.
[xv] Singhal, R., & Rogers, E. (2002). A theoretical agenda for entertainment-education. Communication Theory, 12 (2) 117-135.
[xvi] Bond, A. (2013). Study: Global Entertainment Industry Poised to Top $2 Trillion in 2016. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1565728/study-global-entertainment-industry-poised-to-top-2-trillion-in
[xvii] Oliver, M B. (2009). Entertainment. In The Sage handbook of media processes and effects, R. Nabi and M. B. Oliver, eds. Sage publishing, Los Angeles.
[xviii] The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation. (2004). Issue brief: Entertainment education in the United States. www.kff.org; Murphy, S. T., Hether, H. J., & Rideout, V. (2008). How healthy is primetime? An analysis of health content in popular primetime television programs. A Kaiser Family Foundation Report; Singhal, M. J. Cody, E. M. Rogers, & Sabido, M. (2004). Entertainment education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 75–96). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.; Weinberger, M. G. & Gulas, C. S. (2006). Humor in Advertising: A Comprehensive Analysis. Sixth ed. M.E. Sharpe.
[xix] The Participant Index: Learn about the social impact of entertainment. (2014). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.takepart.com/tpi; Murphy, S. T., Hether, H. J., & Rideout, V. (2008). How healthy is primetime? An analysis of health content in popular primetime television programs. A Kaiser Family Foundation Report; Singhal, M. J. Cody, E. M. Rogers, & Sabido, M. (2004). Entertainment education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 75–96). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
[xx] Murphy, S. T., Hether, H. J., & Rideout, V. (2008). How healthy is primetime? An analysis of health content in popular primetime television programs. A Kaiser Family Foundation Report; Singhal, M. J. Cody, E. M. Rogers, & Sabido, M. (2004). Entertainment education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 75–96). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
[xxi] Brodie, M., Foehr, U., Rideout, V., Baer, N., Miller, C., Flournoy, R., & Altman, D. (2001). Communicating health information through the entertainment media: A study of the television drama ER lends support to the notion that Americans pick up information while being entertained. Health Affairs, 20, 192–199; The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation. (2004). Issue brief: Entertainment education in the United States. www.kff.org; Murphy, S. T., Hether, H. J., & Rideout, V. (2008). How healthy is primetime? An analysis of health content in popular primetime television programs. A Kaiser Family Foundation Report
[xxii] Sherry, J. (2002). Media saturation and entertainment education. Communication Theory, 12, 206–224.
[xxiii] Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-5823-4; Katz, E., & Lazersfeld, P. F. (1955). Social Marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 319-339.
[xxiv] FULGONI, G. M., & LIPSMAN, A. (2015). Digital Word of Mouth And Its Offline Amplification. Journal Of Advertising Research, 55(1), 18-21. doi:10.2501/JAR-55-1-018-021.
[xxv] Katz, E., & Lazersfeld, P. F. (1955). Social Marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 319-339; Young, D. G., Holbert, R. L., & Jamieson, K.H. (2014) Successful practices for the strategic use of political parody and satire: Lessons from the P6 Symposium and the 2012 election campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(9), 1111-1130.
[xxvi] Sherry, J. (2002). Media saturation and entertainment education. Communication Theory, 12, 206–224.
[xxvii] Young, D. G., Holbert, R. L., & Jamieson, K.H. (2014) Successful practices for the strategic use of political parody and satire: Lessons from the P6 Symposium and the 2012 election campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(9), 1111-1130.